以下文章来源于风财眼 ，作者银行财眼 风财眼 . 更令人担忧的是，该行期末逾期贷款规模突破510亿元，较上年末激增190.2亿元，逾期贷款率升至7.12%。 风财眼致力于银行领域的原创报道，旨在履行媒体监督职责，以期共营健康的金融环境。 来源| 凤凰网财经《银行财眼》 近期，多名自称来自广州农商行的员工在社交平台上发布消息称，他们被要求退还自2022年以来领取的节日津贴，即所谓的过节费，每人总计约1.4 万元。这一要求并未通过书面形式通知，而是通过各分支行行长口头逐级传达。 据员工透露，银行方面要求他们首先返还2500元，余下的金额将会在未来的工资中分批扣除。有员工推测，这次退款可能与节日津贴的合规性问题有 关。 对此，凤凰网财经《银行财眼》尝试联系广州农村商业银行董事会办公室，但电话一直无人接听，电子邮件也暂未得到回复。此前，广州农商行在给 媒体的回应中表示，已就此事向全行员工说明情况，并称绝大部分员工表示理解与支持。 公开资料显示，广州农村商业银行的前身是始建于1951年的广州市农村信用合作社，1998年9月成立广州市农村信用合作社联合社，2006年11月完 成统一法人体制改革后成立广州市农村信用合作联社 ...

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].