Core Viewpoint - The current management of Jiaoda Onlly is committed to holding former executives accountable for their alleged misconduct involving insurance purchases and refunds, which have resulted in significant financial losses for the company [6][9][21]. Summary by Sections Background of the Case - The Shanghai Securities Regulatory Commission issued a warning letter indicating that Jiaoda Onlly had issues with the disclosure of executive compensation in its 2016 and 2018 annual reports [5]. - The current management revealed that former executives, including Yang Guoping, used company funds to purchase group insurance and subsequently refunded the premiums to their personal accounts [5][6]. Details of the Insurance Transactions - In October 2016, Jiaoda Onlly transferred 3.8 million yuan to Tianan Life for group insurance premiums, with the insured being former executives [8]. - In November 2017, Yang Guoping signed for a refund of 1.0936 million yuan, with a total of 3.7924 million yuan refunded to five former executives [8]. - In January 2018, the company paid a total of 12.84 million yuan for another group insurance policy, with refunds occurring in January 2019 totaling 1.584 million yuan to the same group of executives [8]. Legal and Compliance Issues - The management stated that these transactions were not disclosed publicly and lacked proper decision-making processes, including board resolutions and contract approvals [9]. - Legal opinions indicated that the actions of the former executives potentially violated laws regarding the misappropriation of company assets, constituting a crime of embezzlement [9][11]. Current Management Actions - Since March 2023, the current management has initiated legal actions against the former executives, discovering that their actions resulted in a loss of 21 million yuan in principal and interest [11]. - The management has reported the case to the police and submitted additional evidence, although they faced challenges in obtaining some information due to the covert nature of the transactions [13][14]. Shareholder Dynamics - The current management emphasized that their pursuit of accountability is aligned with the interests of their major shareholder, Dazhong Transportation, which holds a significant stake in Jiaoda Onlly [21]. - As of the first quarter of 2025, the major shareholders include Shanghai Yun Jian Industrial Development Co., which holds over 30% of the shares, while Dazhong Transportation holds 14.48% [19][21].

Core Viewpoint - The company is facing legal issues related to former executives who allegedly misappropriated company funds for personal insurance policies, leading to significant financial implications and potential criminal charges against those involved [2][5][12]. Group 1: Legal Issues and Developments - The company reported that the police decided not to file a case against the former executives involved in the alleged misconduct, prompting the company to apply for administrative review [2]. - The company has submitted new evidence, including a legal opinion from a law firm, indicating that the actions of the former executives may constitute embezzlement and violate laws regarding the misappropriation of company assets [2][12]. - The company filed a criminal report with the police on June 24, 2023, against five former executives for damaging company interests, which was accepted by the authorities [2][5]. Group 2: Background of the Company - Founded in December 1997, the company is a well-known player in China's health food industry and went public in 2021, focusing on health products and elderly care services [4]. - The company has undergone multiple changes in its controlling shareholders, with the latest change occurring in August 2022, when the controlling shareholder shifted to Shanghai Yunjian Industrial Development Co., Ltd. [4]. Group 3: Details of the Alleged Misconduct - Between 2016 and 2019, the former executives purchased group insurance policies using company funds and subsequently received refunds to their personal accounts, totaling approximately 16.93 million yuan [6][8]. - The first insurance contract was initiated in October 2016, with a payment of 3.8 million yuan made to Tianan Life Insurance, covering six individuals, including the former chairman and other key executives [6][8]. - The company discovered that there were no formal approval processes or documentation supporting the insurance purchases, raising significant compliance concerns [7][12]. Group 4: Evidence and Findings - The company conducted an internal review following a request from the tax bureau, which led to the discovery of irregularities in the insurance payments made in 2018 [10][11]. - Independent third-party reports have indicated that the actions of the former executives violated company regulations and relevant laws, further supporting the company's claims against them [11][12].

Core Viewpoint - The company disclosed that five former executives, including Yang Guoping, engaged in illegal activities related to the purchase and cancellation of insurance policies, resulting in significant financial misconduct [2][3][4]. Group 1: Incident Discovery - The company discovered the misconduct during a self-inspection prompted by a notice from the tax bureau on November 23, 2022, regarding insurance fees and tax payments [2]. - A total of 12.84 million yuan (approximately 1.28 million) in insurance fees from 2018 was identified without corresponding insurance contracts, alongside an additional 3.8 million yuan (approximately 0.38 million) from 2016 [2]. Group 2: Misconduct Details - From 2016 to 2019, the five former executives used company funds to purchase insurance policies and subsequently withdrew 16.9372 million yuan (approximately 1.69 million) to their personal accounts through policy cancellations [3]. - The actions of the executives were characterized as "dark box operations," lacking necessary approvals from the board and shareholders, which is a violation of company regulations [3]. Group 3: Legal Actions - The company filed a criminal report with the local police in June 2023, seeking accountability for the actions of the five former executives [4]. - Following the report, the police did not initiate a case, prompting the company to apply for administrative review and submit additional evidence [4]. Group 4: Company Commitment - The company expressed its commitment to pursue accountability for the former executives' illegal actions to protect the rights of the company and its shareholders [5].

一起跑车法拍，牵出一桩银行董事长职务侵占案。 近日，阿里资产司法拍卖平台显示，一辆京牌迈凯伦豪华跑车最终以89.28万元的起拍价成 交。据第三方网站报价，2014年其指导价为406.80万元，目前已经停产。此次拍卖吸引一万 余人围观，但仅有1人报名竞拍。 值得注意的是，上述迈凯伦原车主正是吉林省白山市江源农商银行原董事长董英直，其因犯 职务侵占罪，被判处有期徒刑10年6个月，并处没收个人财产450万元。 400万迈凯伦89万成交，原车主为一银行董事长 阿里资产司法拍卖平台显示，一辆京牌迈凯伦被拍卖，起拍价为89.28万元，评估价为99.2万 元，最终以起拍价成交。 此次拍卖吸引了一万余人围观，但仅有1人报名竞拍。据第三方网站报价，2014年该款车的 指导价达406.80万元，目前已经停产。 来源：阿里资产司法 公告显示，上述车辆的出厂日期在2014年7月（制造年月），行驶证初次登记日期为2017年7 月11日，行驶里程5600公里。 不过，虽然该车行驶里程仅5600公里，但从平台公开的车内照片看，疑似多处已经发霉长 毛。 来源：阿里资产司法 竞买公告的瑕疵说明显示，车辆因案件审理期间原因长期扣押，年检及保险情 ...

案例二：2011年7月，C乡D村开展拆迁腾退工作。经C乡党委决定，D村党支部书记丙任拆迁腾退办公 室后勤保障组负责人，负责D村拆迁中的后勤保障工作。同时，拆迁腾退办公室下设定向安置组，负责 D村人口及宅基地面积认定工作，丙不在该组之内。根据拆迁工作安排，D村村委会在前期工作中协助 本村村民准备人口和宅基地面积认定的相关材料。 【内容提要】 对于刑法第九十三条规定的以国家工作人员论的人员来说，应当以是否从事公务作为能否将其以国家工 作人员论的标准。村干部在拆迁工作中，既可能协助政府从事公务，也可能仅仅从事村务管理。拆迁工 作中，若村干部利用职务便利实施侵占拆迁补偿款行为，触犯的罪名也会有所不同，有的构成贪污罪， 有的构成职务侵占罪，区分这两个罪名，关键在于判断实施违法犯罪时行为人的主体身份、所利用的职 务便利以及侵占的财物性质。 【基本案情】 案例一：2010年12月，A乡B村开展拆迁腾退工作。经A乡党委决定，B村党支部书记甲任腾退安置指挥 部腾退组组长，负责B村人口和宅基地面积的认定工作。A乡武装部部长乙系本次拆迁工作负责人。甲 与乙对B村人口和宅基地面积认定材料具有审核权限。2011年，甲发现拆迁地域内存在 ...

法院经审理认为，被告人韦某利用职务上的便利，将本单位财物非法占为己有，数额巨大，其行为已构 成职务侵占罪。 依法判处被告人韦某犯职务侵占罪，判处有期徒刑六年，罚金人民币二十万元。案件宣判后，被告人未 上诉，检察院未抗诉，现判决已生效。 法官表示，本案被告人系公司负责财务部门工作的高级管理人员，本应管理好公司钱款，但却"监守自 盗"，利用自己实际控制的咨询公司与公司签订虚假服务协议书，骗使公司对外支付服务费用，再据为 己有，属于典型的"内外勾结+自我交易"式犯罪行为，且侵占公司钱款数额巨大。 新京报讯(记者张静姝)新京报记者获悉，日前，北京市海淀区人民法院公布一起案例，被告人韦某作为 被害单位的财务总监，利用实控公司进行自我交易，与被害单位签订虚假合同，分多次侵占被害单位共 计人民币979.2万元。最终，韦某被判犯职务侵占罪，判处有期徒刑六年，罚金人民币二十万元。 被告人韦某于2006年1月入职某互联网搜索引擎公司，历任财务部总监、高级总监，2018年1月任公司副 总裁，全面负责财务部管理工作。2018年3月至2019年6月间，韦某利用职务便利，通过其实际控制的某 财税咨询有限公司与被害单位签订多份虚假的财务尽 ...

新京报讯（记者张静姝）日前，新京报记者从北京市海淀区人民法院获悉一起案例，某网络公司运营经 理与员工共6人合谋利用公司平台账号发布广告赚钱，获利共计人民币130万余元。最终6人均被判定职 务侵占罪，被海淀法院判处有期徒刑十个月。 2017年至2020年，被告人刘某某利用担任某网络科技有限公司时尚美妆运营部运营经理的职务便利，使 用所在公司"时尚小公举"等平台账号，以私自发布广告并收取广告费用的形式，侵占公司钱款，获利共 计人民币130万余元。其间，被告人刘某某分别与员工被告人李某某等五人共谋，由上述人员对相关账 号进行文案创作等工作。李某某等人获利13万余元至25万余元不等。现六被告人已积极赔偿被害单位经 济损失并获得谅解。 法官解析，本案犯罪手段区别于传统职务侵占罪利用职务之便侵占公司财产的"财产剥夺式"手段，被告 人系利用平台官方账号的流量资源优势，私自接"商单"，使用官方账号为他人发布广告推广，赚取广告 费用后据为己有，犯罪手段较为新颖。被害单位现有资产并没有实际受损，而是"流量利益"被擅自使 用。 法院经审理认为，被告人刘某某分别与被告人李某某等五人利用职务上的便利，将本单位钱款非法占为 己有，刘某某 ...

新京报讯(记者张静姝)日前，在北京市海淀区人民法院公布一起案例中，被告人李某利用职务之便，与 他人内外勾结"刷单"虚构大量交易，骗取平台补贴共计人民币150余万元。最终，李某被判构成职务侵 占罪，判处有期徒刑三年六个月，罚金人民币十万元。 2021年7月至2021年8月，被告人李某利用在某互联网社交平台公司电商部任职期间拥有的职务便利，通 过张某(另案处理)控制第三方公司在公司平台上实施虚假交易，骗取被害单位补贴共计人民币150余万 元。2023年9月1日，李某被公安机关抓获，后如实供述了上述犯罪事实。案发后，李某在家属的协助下 退赔被害单位人民币1万元。 法院经审理认为，被告人李某身为公司工作人员，利用职务上的便利，将本单位财物非法占为己有，数 额巨大，已构成职务侵占罪。依法判处被告人李某犯职务侵占罪，判处有期徒刑三年六个月，罚金人民 币十万元。案件宣判后，被告人未上诉，检察院未抗诉，现判决已生效。 法官解析，本案被告人系电商运营部门负责虚拟业务的员工，对平台补贴规则十分熟悉，利用平台交易 变现规则漏洞，通过第三方公司"刷单"虚构大量交易，骗取平台补贴。本案犯罪方式"内外勾结"，且涉 及电商平台交易计算规则 ...

中国裁判文书网公开的《谢某、高某职务侵占罪二审刑事裁定书》显示，高爽因在公司业务中通过虚增服务费非法侵占公司资金，数额巨大，被重庆市第 一中级人民法院判处有期徒刑三年，缓刑五年，并处罚金二十万元。 案件回溯至2021年，红星美凯龙控股股东红星控股与重庆璧山区政府签订1亿美元外资投资协议，高爽作为时任执行总裁，全权负责外资引入工作。 在此期间，高爽经同事谢某介绍结识中间人袁某。在知晓袁某要求的业务费用低于其他资方报价后，高爽与谢某等人私下商议，与袁某约定： 在红星美凯龙按13%（390万美元）支付服务费给袁某后，袁某将其中3%（90万美元，折合人民币501万元，扣除税费等）返还给高爽等人。高爽与谢某 达成七三分成协议，最终高爽分得349.3万元。 炒股就看金麒麟分析师研报，权威，专业，及时，全面，助您挖掘潜力主题机会！ 近日，红星美凯龙原执行总裁高爽职务侵占案迎来终审判决。 "二审裁定书"显示，高爽出生于1984年12月14日，江苏淮安人，研究生学历，户籍地址上海市松江区，住北京市朝阳区。因涉嫌职务侵占罪，高爽于2023 年5月24日被抓获，次日被刑事拘留，同年6月30日被逮捕，同年7月7日被取保候审。 高爽于 ...

2025年4月27日上午，经济观察报记者数次致电红星美凯龙（601828）家居集团股份有限公司（601828.SH，下称"红星美凯龙"）董秘办公室和证券部电话， 询问该公司原执行总裁高爽职务侵占案件详情，截至发稿，该电话未获得接听。 红星美凯龙集团控股有限公司（红星美凯龙的第二大股东，下称"红星美凯龙控股公司"）于2021年与重庆市璧山区人民政府签订投资协议，约定红星美凯龙 控股公司完成1亿美元的外资投资。 "二审裁定书"显示，高爽经同案被告人（该公司同事）谢某介绍认识中间人袁某，高爽手上有全权负责外资引入的职务便利，在知晓袁某要求的业务费用远 远低于其他资方报价后，与谢某等人商量，私下与袁某一方约定： 由袁某一方帮红星美凯龙控股公司完成3000万美元引入任务，并按照引入外资金额的13%收取服务费，即390万美元。袁某将其中的3%（90万美元）返还给 高爽等人。 高爽与谢某达成3%返点金额的七三分成，即高爽分得70%，谢某分得30%。在高爽的促使下，红星美凯龙公司与袁某签订合同，约定服务费标准为13%，袁 某一方完成上述工作后，高爽在对公付款申请流程上签字同意并经多人审批后，红星美凯龙控股公司共支付袁某一方3 ...