来源：WEMONEY研究室 一桩3.5亿元的诈骗案，历经一审、二审至最高院后，仍未尘埃落定。近日， 光大银行 长春 分行再次起诉招行无锡分行等5名被告，要求赔偿包括3.5亿元本金及1.39亿元资金占用费， 合计索赔总额为4.89亿元。 近日，一桩十年前的银行大案再掀波澜。 据锦龙股份（000712.SZ）披露，其控股子公司中山证券收到一份《应诉通知书》，其中，光大银行长 春分行作为原告，一股脑起诉了招商银行无锡分行、中山证券、平安银行深圳分行和深圳国民基金等5 名被告，要求连带赔偿3.5亿元本金，以及1.394亿元资金占用费，涉案金额高达4.89亿元。 据了解，事件起因是一桩3.5亿元的诈骗案，原被告双方历经多次开庭，反转再反转，至今仍未尘埃落 定。而此案的背后，牵扯出种种金融业违规操作，有公司法人诈骗3.5亿，有银行人员收2000万好处 费，有银行人员未识别伪造的"萝卜章"。 上半场：3.5亿诈骗案始末 时间回溯至2013年，吉林通化市柳河县聚鑫源米业公司的老板刘孝义（下称老刘），因巨额债务和炒期 货亏损，急需一笔资金翻身。经人介绍认识了光大银行长春分行的员工张磊（支行行长助理，下称老 张），试图申请3.5 ...

Core Viewpoint - GD Bank is pursuing legal action to recover 350 million from multiple financial institutions and individuals due to a fraudulent loan scheme that originated in 2013 [4][17]. Group 1: Background of the Case - The case began in 2013 when a businessman, Liu Xiaoyi, sought a loan of 350 million for his company, Ju Xin Yuan, to purchase grain and oil after suffering losses in futures trading [6][10]. - Liu proposed a scheme to the assistant branch manager of GD Bank, Zhang Lei, to secure the loan by introducing various financial intermediaries, leading to a complex loan structure involving multiple banks [8][9]. Group 2: Fraudulent Activities - The loan was executed through a series of transactions that included a 6.2% annual interest rate, with each involved party earning fees [9][10]. - The fraudulent nature of the loan was revealed when the involved parties used forged seals to create a false investment contract, which was later discovered during a legal review [13][14]. Group 3: Legal Proceedings - Initially, GD Bank won the case, arguing that the investment contract was invalid due to Zhang's lack of authority [18][19]. - However, the Supreme Court later ruled that both the investment contract and the deposit agreement were invalid, as they were part of a conspiracy to misappropriate the funds [22][23]. Group 4: Current Developments - GD Bank is now pursuing additional legal action against five defendants, seeking to recover not only the principal amount of 350 million but also 139 million in interest fees [25][26]. - The bank's motivation for renewed litigation stems from the significant financial loss and the low recovery rate from previous attempts, as only 24.85 million has been recovered so far [26][27].

Core Viewpoint - A product marketed as "Beijing Tongrentang 99% High Purity Antarctic Krill Oil" by Sichuan Health Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. was found to have a phospholipid content of 0%, despite being labeled as 43%, raising concerns of product fraud [3][4][6]. Group 1: Company Response - After the fraud allegations, Tongrentang Group initiated a zero-tolerance brand management action, including a comprehensive investigation of the involved products and a directive to remove them from sale [7][8]. - The group stated it would pursue legal action against Sichuan Health and other involved parties for trademark infringement and misleading consumers [6][7]. - The company emphasized the need for accountability within its subsidiaries and announced a thorough review of brand usage across its enterprises [7][9]. Group 2: Regulatory and Market Oversight - The Shanghai Consumer Protection Committee conducted tests on 15 popular Antarctic krill oil products, leading to the discovery of the fraudulent labeling [4][5]. - Regulatory bodies, including the Chengdu New District Market Supervision Administration, have launched investigations into the matter and have initiated legal proceedings against the involved companies [8][9]. - The committee has expressed the expectation for Tongrentang Group to implement corrective measures effectively [8]. Group 3: Legal Implications - Legal experts indicated that if the sales amount exceeds 50,000 yuan, the involved parties could face criminal charges for selling counterfeit goods [5][10]. - The concept of "apparent agency" suggests that Tongrentang Group may bear joint liability for the actions of its subsidiary, as the product prominently featured the Tongrentang brand [17][19]. - Previous incidents involving Tongrentang's subsidiaries have raised questions about the company's internal governance and oversight mechanisms [12][13].

Core Viewpoint - The case involving Beijing Milaiwu Network Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as "Milaiwu") highlights the legal complexities surrounding the recovery of funds obtained through fraudulent activities, particularly in the context of live streaming platforms and the concept of "good faith acquisition" [1][3][9] Group 1: Legal Proceedings and Financial Implications - Milaiwu has appealed against the Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court's ruling to recover over 18.87 million yuan in live streaming rewards, which the court did not support, leading to a further appeal to the Henan Provincial High Court [1] - The case stems from a fraud committed by former bank employee Xi Wei, who misled clients into investing in fictitious financial products, resulting in a total fraud amount of approximately 94.48 million yuan [2][6] - The court's decision to pursue the recovery of Milaiwu's earnings raises questions about whether the funds obtained through live streaming should be classified as "good faith acquisition" and whether banks have a regulatory responsibility in fraud cases [1][3][6] Group 2: Financial Crime and Banking Responsibility - Legal experts argue that the case reflects a deeper conflict between financial crime governance and the legal boundaries of emerging business models, particularly in the context of online platforms [1][9] - Milaiwu's legal representatives assert that the bank should bear primary responsibility for the fraud, as Xi Wei exploited her position to commit the crime, which undermined the trust clients placed in the bank [7][8] - The case draws parallels with previous rulings where banks were held accountable for employees' fraudulent actions, emphasizing the need for banks to fulfill their anti-money laundering obligations [6][8]