"该案全程无真实货物流转，相关主体却借助'伪国企'信用背书及金融产品包装套取资金，最终因资金 链断裂造成投资者重大损失。"她进一步指出："此类融资性贸易的新演变，本质是违规主体对供应链金 融工具的不当利用。其'以贸易为名，行融资之实'的核心属性未变，但在主体嵌套、流程设计及风险隐 蔽性层面更具迷惑性。" 针对这类情况，2025年4月中国人民银行、国家金融监督管理总局、最高人民法院等六部门联合发布的 《关于规范供应链金融业务引导供应链信息服务机构更好服务中小企业融资有关事宜的通知》明确提 出，严禁供应链信息服务机构以供应链金融名义开展非法金融活动，防范无真实贸易背景的融资行为。 登录新浪财经APP 搜索【信披】查看更多考评等级 辛红 《法人》见习记者 李辽 国内粮油龙头企业金龙鱼旗下子公司广州益海，卷入一起涉融资性贸易的合同诈骗案。近日，该案一审 判决正式公布，引发市场高度关注。法院判决，作为中转仓储方的广州益海构成合同诈骗罪，处以100 万元罚金，与同案犯罪单位云南惠嘉共同对安徽华文的18.81亿元经济损失承担退赔责任。 融资性贸易是指参与贸易的各方在贸易过程中，依托货权、应收账款等财产权益，综合运用各种贸易 ...

出品：新浪财经上市公司研究院 文/夏虫工作室 核心观点：金龙鱼卷入50亿合同诈骗背后疑问重重，其一，主观上，金龙鱼的中转库业务其是否"知道 或应当知道"相关贸易的虚假性与融资性？其二，客观上，金龙鱼的仓储中转行为是否对相关方融资性 贸易的闭环构成了"关键支撑"或"增信"？其三，金龙鱼仓储中转业务纠纷不断，背后究竟可能隐藏多少 融资性贸易？其四，公司卷入50亿合同诈骗案却被判近19亿退赔款，是否意味着其中转库业务或埋大 雷？ "粮油一哥"金龙鱼因子公司卷入刑事诈骗案，被法院判决承担巨额共同退赔责任。 公司自公告判决进展后，公司股价持续承压。自公告日至今，金龙鱼股价呈现出持续下跌态势，公司市 值蒸发超百亿元。 值得注意的是，金龙鱼今年三季报营收净利双增。前三季度，公司实现营业收入1842.7亿元，同比增长 5.02%；实现归母净利润27.49亿元，同比增长92.06%。其中，第三季度公司实现营业收入685.88亿元， 同比增长3.96%；实现归母净利润9.93亿元，同比大增196.96%。 在公司业绩双增情况下，为何公司股价遭市场用脚投票？诉讼案对公司影响究竟有多大？ 卷入50亿合同诈骗被判近19亿退赔款 事情的 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case involving the subsidiary of the billion-dollar company Jinlongyu (SZ300999) has drawn significant market attention due to its implications in a fraud case, with the subsidiary being found guilty as an accomplice and ordered to compensate for substantial losses [1][3][5]. Summary by Sections Case Background - The fraud case dates back to 2008, involving three parties: Jinlongyu's subsidiary Yihai (Guangzhou) Grain and Oil Industry Co., Ltd., Yunnan Huijia Import and Export Co., Ltd., and Anhui Huawen International Economic and Trade Co., Ltd. [3][4] - The case centers around a fraudulent scheme where Yunnan Huijia's head bribed officials from Anhui Huawen to alter the transaction model from "payment before delivery" to "delivery before payment," leading to significant financial discrepancies [4][5]. Court Proceedings - The first trial took place from February 27 to March 1, 2024, focusing on the prosecution's evidence and the defense's counterarguments [5][6]. - The second trial on July 3 and 4, 2024, involved intense debates over the validity of the audit report, which was crucial in determining the subsidiary's involvement in the fraud [6][7]. Key Evidence and Arguments - The audit report's compliance and the qualifications of the auditors became central points of contention, with the defense arguing that the report contained inaccuracies and lacked objectivity [6][7]. - The prosecution maintained that the audit report was valid and reflected market trends, asserting that the subsidiary's actions constituted complicity in the fraud [7][8]. Verdict and Reactions - The court ruled that the subsidiary was guilty of contract fraud and ordered it to share the compensation of 1.881 billion yuan with Yunnan Huijia [5][10]. - Jinlongyu's management expressed strong disagreement with the verdict, claiming that the subsidiary had no knowledge of the fraudulent activities and was misled [11][12]. Future Developments - The upcoming appeal is expected to focus on four main issues: subjective intent, the nature of the actions taken by employees, causation of losses, and the classification of the case as a civil dispute or criminal fraud [13].

Core Viewpoint - The case involving the subsidiary of Golden Dragon Fish (300999) has drawn significant market attention due to its implications of fraud, with the subsidiary being ordered to compensate for substantial losses totaling 18.81 billion yuan [1][2][12]. Group 1: Case Background - The lawsuit involves three parties: Golden Dragon Fish's subsidiary Guangzhou Yihai, Yunnan Huijia Import and Export Co., and Anhui Huawen International Trade Co. The case stems from a financing trade arrangement where Guangzhou Yihai acted as a storage intermediary [2][3]. - The fraud allegations date back to 2008-2014, involving bribery and manipulation of trade agreements, leading to significant economic losses for the involved parties [3][12]. Group 2: Court Proceedings - The first trial took place from February 27 to March 1, 2024, focusing on the prosecution's evidence and the defense's counterarguments [3][4]. - The second trial on July 3 and 4, 2024, was marked by intense debates over the validity of the audit report, which was crucial in determining the subsidiary's involvement in the alleged fraud [5][6]. Group 3: Key Legal Arguments - The defense argued that the audit report contained inaccuracies and inconsistencies, questioning the qualifications of the auditors involved [6][7]. - The prosecution maintained that the audit report was valid and reflected market trends, asserting that the subsidiary's actions constituted complicity in the fraud [7][10]. Group 4: Verdict and Reactions - The first-instance verdict found Guangzhou Yihai guilty as an accomplice in contract fraud, ordering it to share the compensation responsibility of 18.81 billion yuan with Yunnan Huijia [12][13]. - Following the verdict, Guangzhou Yihai announced its intention to appeal, claiming it was unaware of any fraudulent activities and asserting that it was misled by other parties [12][13]. Group 5: Future Considerations - The upcoming appeal is expected to focus on four main issues: subjective intent, the nature of the actions taken by employees, causation of losses, and the classification of the case as a civil dispute or criminal fraud [14].

Core Viewpoint - Jinlongyu (300999.SZ) announced that its subsidiary, Guangzhou Yihai, was convicted of contract fraud, which it disputes and plans to appeal. The case involves a significant palm oil fraud amounting to 5 billion yuan [1][5]. Group 1: Background of the Case - The fraud case originated from a business collaboration between Guangzhou Yihai, Anhui Huawen, and Yunnan Huijia from 2008 to 2014, where Guangzhou Yihai acted as a storage intermediary for palm oil imported by Anhui Huawen [1][2]. - The transaction between Anhui Huawen and Yunnan Huijia was characterized as a financing trade, which is common in bulk commodities but carries risks such as loss of control over goods and funding chain disruptions [2]. Group 2: Details of the Fraud - Yunnan Huijia's actions included bribing Anhui Huawen executives to change the payment terms from "payment before delivery" to "delivery before payment," leading to significant financial misconduct [4]. - The indictment revealed that from March 2012 to December 2014, Yunnan Huijia misappropriated large quantities of palm oil without adequate payment, resulting in direct losses of 3.23 billion yuan and indirect losses of 2.015 billion yuan for Anhui Huawen [4]. Group 3: Legal Proceedings and Company Response - The court ruled that Guangzhou Yihai was an accomplice in the fraud, imposing a fine of 1 million yuan and ordering it to jointly repay 1.881 billion yuan with Yunnan Huijia [5]. - Guangzhou Yihai has publicly denied any involvement in fraudulent activities, asserting that it acted in accordance with the agreements and conducted due diligence [6][8]. Group 4: Market Implications and Observations - The case has raised questions about the operational practices of Anhui Huawen, particularly regarding the long-term storage of palm oil, which contradicts standard trading practices [8]. - Legal experts suggest that the actual benefits from the fraud may not have accrued to Guangzhou Yihai, as the fraud's proceeds appear to have been misappropriated by individuals rather than the company itself [7][9].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent legal troubles faced by Golden Dragon Fish (金龙鱼) due to a contract fraud case involving its subsidiary, Guangzhou Yihai (广州益海), which has been accused of participating in a significant palm oil fraud scheme amounting to 5 billion yuan [3][9]. Group 1: Background of the Case - The fraud case involves a commercial collaboration between Guangzhou Yihai, Anhui Huawen International Trade Co., and Yunnan Huijia Import and Export Co., where Guangzhou Yihai acted as a storage intermediary for palm oil transactions [6]. - The fraudulent activities were facilitated by bribery, where Yunnan Huijia's representative bribed key personnel at Anhui Huawen to alter the terms of their trade agreement from "payment before delivery" to "delivery before payment" [6][7]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings and Financial Implications - The first-instance judgment by the Huai Bei Intermediate People's Court found Guangzhou Yihai guilty of contract fraud, imposing a fine of 1 million yuan and ordering it to jointly compensate Anhui Huawen for 1.881 billion yuan [9][10]. - The total direct economic loss to Anhui Huawen is reported to be 3.23 billion yuan, with indirect losses amounting to 2.015 billion yuan [7]. Group 3: Company’s Defense and Market Reactions - Guangzhou Yihai has publicly denied the allegations, claiming it acted in accordance with the agreements and conducted due diligence during the transactions [10][11]. - The management of Golden Dragon Fish highlighted inconsistencies in Anhui Huawen's claims, such as the impracticality of storing palm oil for over a decade without spoilage, which contradicts standard trading practices [12][13].

Core Viewpoint - The company, Yihai Kerry Arawana Holdings Co., Ltd. (referred to as "Golden Dragon Fish"), is contesting a first-instance court ruling that found its subsidiary, Yihai (Guangzhou) Grain and Oil Industry Co., Ltd. (referred to as "Guangzhou Yihai"), guilty of contract fraud, resulting in a fine of 1 million yuan and a compensation liability of 1.881 billion yuan to Anhui Huawen International Trade Co., Ltd. [4][5] Group 1 - Guangzhou Yihai has filed an appeal against the first-instance ruling, asserting that it is not guilty of fraud and that it was misled by Anhui Huawen's executives who engaged in fraudulent activities [4][5] - The chairman of Guangzhou Yihai, Fang Yanjian, stated that the case involves illegal financing activities by Anhui Huawen and Yunnan Huijia Import and Export Co., Ltd., and that Anhui Huawen was complicit in the fraud [4][5] - The company claims that the first-instance ruling contradicts basic business logic, citing that Guangzhou Yihai's oil tank capacity is only 160,000 tons, making it impossible to store over 1 million tons of palm oil as alleged [6] Group 2 - The company reported that its revenue for the first three quarters of 2025 was 184.3 billion yuan, with a net profit of 2.749 billion yuan [6] - If the second-instance ruling upholds the first-instance decision, Golden Dragon Fish may face a financial impact where the compensation amount could account for approximately 68% of its net profit for the first three quarters [6] - As of November 21, the stock price of Golden Dragon Fish closed at 30.88 yuan per share, reflecting a decline of 2.92% [7]

Core Viewpoint - The company, Yihai Kerry Arawana Holdings Co., Ltd. (referred to as "Golden Dragon Fish"), is contesting a first-instance court ruling that found its subsidiary, Yihai (Guangzhou) Grain and Oil Industry Co., Ltd. (referred to as "Guangzhou Yihai"), guilty of contract fraud, resulting in a fine of 1 million yuan and a compensation liability of 1.881 billion yuan to Anhui Huawen International Trade Co., Ltd. [3][4][6] Group 1 - Guangzhou Yihai received a criminal judgment on November 19, which stated that it was an accomplice in contract fraud, leading to a significant economic loss for Anhui Huawen [3][4] - The company has filed an appeal against the judgment and maintains that it is innocent, asserting that it was misled by Anhui Huawen's executives who were involved in fraudulent activities [4][5] - The management of Golden Dragon Fish expressed shock at the ruling and emphasized their commitment to supporting Guangzhou Yihai in the appeal process [4][6] Group 2 - The chairman of Guangzhou Yihai, Fang Yanjian, claimed that the case's essence involves Anhui Huawen and Yunnan Huijia engaging in illegal financing trade, with the latter allegedly bribing Anhui Huawen's executives [5][6] - Fang Yanjian stated that the company has no reason to assist in defrauding a state-owned enterprise and highlighted the significant investments made by the parent company in China, amounting to approximately 100 billion yuan [5][6] - The president of Golden Dragon Fish, Mu Yanquan, pointed out that the judgment contradicts basic business logic, as Guangzhou Yihai's storage capacity could not accommodate the alleged volume of palm oil involved in the case [6][7] Group 3 - The company reported that its revenue for the first three quarters of 2025 was 184.3 billion yuan, with a net profit of 2.749 billion yuan [7] - If the appeal fails, Golden Dragon Fish may face a financial impact, as the compensation amount could represent about 68% of its net profit for the period [7] - As of November 21, Golden Dragon Fish's stock price closed at 30.88 yuan per share, reflecting a decline of 2.92% [7][8]

Core Viewpoint - The company Jinlongyu (金龙鱼) claims innocence in a major fraud case involving 5 billion yuan related to palm oil transactions, following a first-instance court ruling that found its subsidiary guilty of contract fraud [1][4]. Group 1: Background of the Case - The fraud case involves a commercial collaboration between Guangzhou Yihai (广州益海), Anhui Huawen (安徽华文), and Yunnan Huijia (云南惠嘉) from 2008 to 2014, where Guangzhou Yihai acted as a storage intermediary for palm oil [2]. - The transactions between Anhui Huawen and Yunnan Huijia were characterized as financing trade, which is common in bulk commodities but carries risks of loss of rights and funding chain disruptions [2][3]. - Yunnan Huijia's representative, Zhang Lihua, allegedly bribed executives at Anhui Huawen to change the agreed payment terms from "payment before delivery" to "delivery before payment" [2][3]. Group 2: Details of the Fraud - From March 2012 to December 2014, Zhang Lihua used bribery and forged documents to misappropriate palm oil, leading to direct economic losses of 3.23 billion yuan and indirect losses of 2.015 billion yuan for Anhui Huawen [3]. - The court found Guangzhou Yihai complicit in the fraud, imposing a fine of 1 million yuan and ordering it to jointly repay 1.881 billion yuan alongside Yunnan Huijia [4]. Group 3: Company’s Defense - Guangzhou Yihai and its parent company Jinlongyu have appealed the court's decision, asserting that they acted in accordance with the storage agreement and conducted due diligence [5][6]. - The company claims that it did not participate in any fraudulent activities and that the losses should not be attributed to them, as they followed proper procedures in verifying inventory and transactions [5][6]. Group 4: Market Implications - The case has drawn significant attention due to the scale of the alleged fraud, with the total amount involved reaching 5 billion yuan, raising concerns about the integrity of trade practices in the palm oil sector [1][8]. - The financial health of Yunnan Huijia is in question, as it reportedly has numerous enforcement actions against it, indicating a lack of ability to repay the alleged debts [8].

Core Viewpoint - The company Jinlongyu claims that Anhui Huawen is attempting to illegally transfer its massive losses after being defrauded in a significant palm oil scam involving 5 billion yuan [1][2]. Group 1: Background of the Case - From 2008 to 2014, Guangzhou Yihai acted as a storage intermediary for Anhui Huawen and Yunnan Huijia, responsible for storing palm oil imported by Anhui Huawen [2]. - The transaction between Anhui Huawen and Yunnan Huijia was essentially a financing trade, which is common in bulk commodities but carries risks such as loss of control over goods and funding chain disruptions [2][3]. - Yunnan Huijia's representative bribed Anhui Huawen's executives to change the agreed payment terms from "payment before delivery" to "delivery before payment" [2][3]. Group 2: Details of the Fraud - Yunnan Huijia's representative exceeded the agreed limits to obtain goods and used forged documents to conceal the fact that the palm oil stored at Guangzhou Yihai had already been sold [3]. - Between March 2012 and December 2014, Yunnan Huijia's representative bribed Anhui Huawen's employees to facilitate the acquisition of goods through fraudulent means [3]. - The direct economic loss to Anhui Huawen was reported at 3.23 billion yuan, with indirect losses amounting to 2.015 billion yuan [3]. Group 3: Legal Proceedings and Company Response - The court found Guangzhou Yihai guilty of contract fraud and imposed a fine of 1 million yuan, along with a compensation responsibility of 1.881 billion yuan [4][5]. - Guangzhou Yihai and its parent company, Yihai Kerry, have appealed the ruling, asserting that they did not participate in any fraudulent activities and that Anhui Huawen is attempting to shift its losses onto them [5][6]. - The chairman of Guangzhou Yihai stated that they followed due diligence as per the storage agreement and had no knowledge of any fraudulent actions [6]. Group 4: Market Implications and Observations - The case has drawn attention to the unusual storage claims made by Anhui Huawen, which allegedly stored over 1 million tons of palm oil for over a decade, raising questions about the feasibility and legality of such practices [7]. - Legal experts suggest that the current judgment may favor the victims, as Yunnan Huijia appears to lack the ability to repay the defrauded amounts [8].