Workflow
金融法治化
icon
Search documents
浦发银行南通分行败诉后反诉索赔2.95亿 科远智慧怒斥其"罔顾国企担当"将全力应诉
Xin Lang Zheng Quan· 2025-07-18 07:20
Core Viewpoint - The case involves a significant financial dispute between Koyuan Smart and Shanghai Pudong Development Bank, with Koyuan claiming that 295 million yuan of its deposits were illegally pledged, leading to a lawsuit for compensation [2][3]. Group 1: Case Background - Koyuan Smart's subsidiary, Nanjing Koyuan Smart Energy Investment Co., deposited 345 million yuan in fixed-term deposits with the bank, of which 295 million yuan was later found to be illegally pledged to a revoked company [2]. - The illegal pledge occurred on the same day the deposit was made, and Koyuan claims it was unaware of the pledge, alleging that a criminal gang forged seals and impersonated employees [2][3]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - In December 2024, the court ruled in favor of Koyuan, ordering the bank to pay back the principal and interest, a decision upheld by the higher court in May 2025 [3]. - The bank subsequently filed a counterclaim against Koyuan, alleging management negligence and seeking compensation for the same amount, which Koyuan argues is a tactic to delay execution of the court's ruling [3][5]. Group 3: Financial Impact - The 295 million yuan at stake represents 117% of Koyuan's projected net profit for 2024, although the company reported a 56.64% increase in net profit, indicating that its operations have not been fundamentally affected [6]. - Koyuan has faced audit risks due to previous financial irregularities, which have raised concerns about internal controls [6]. Group 4: Industry Implications - The banking sector is experiencing a trust crisis, with incidents of large deposits being illegally pledged highlighting failures in internal controls [7]. - The actions of the bank in this case may undermine judicial authority and increase the costs for enterprises seeking to protect their rights [7]. - The case reflects deeper contradictions in China's financial legal system regarding institutional responsibility, depositor protection, and judicial efficiency, necessitating regulatory refinement and judicial innovation [7].