Workflow
骗取贷款
icon
Search documents
华能信托17亿元“信保贷”资金被骗幕后
经济观察报· 2025-09-16 15:31
Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the fraudulent activities involving Chi Jinlong and his company, Shenzhen Xingrui Technology Co., which manipulated the "credit guarantee loan" (信保贷) scheme in collaboration with financial institutions, leading to significant financial losses for those institutions [2][15]. Group 1: Background of the Case - Chi Jinlong, the actual controller of Shenzhen Xingrui Technology, was indicted for loan fraud and bribery, with over 1.7 billion yuan in loans involved [2]. - The case also involves notable figures such as Shao Heng, a wealthy entrepreneur, who allegedly used fraudulent methods to secure loans totaling approximately 1.268 billion yuan [10][14]. Group 2: Structure of the "Credit Guarantee Loan" Scheme - The "credit guarantee loan" business was established through a partnership between Huaneng Trust, Huishang Bank, and Shenzhen Renbao, with Huaneng Trust providing the trust funds [4][7]. - The scheme required a legitimate third-party insurance company to act as a guarantor, which led to the collaboration with Shenzhen Renbao [5][6]. Group 3: Fraudulent Activities - Chi Jinlong and his associates engaged in bribery to facilitate the creation of fake insurance policies, allowing them to bypass the necessary verification processes for loan approvals [8][9]. - The fraudulent activities resulted in significant financial losses for the involved banks, with Huishang Bank suffering losses exceeding 421 million yuan [14]. Group 4: Legal Proceedings and Outcomes - Chi Jinlong was sentenced to 6 years and 6 months in prison after pleading guilty, while Shao Heng was not prosecuted due to his cooperation with authorities and restitution of funds [24][19]. - The case has led to ongoing investigations and legal actions against the involved financial institutions, with Huaneng Trust facing lawsuits from investors due to the failure of the trust products [17][18].
华能信托17亿元“信保贷”资金被骗幕后
Jing Ji Guan Cha Wang· 2025-09-16 15:24
Core Points - The case involves Shenzhen Xingrui Information Technology Co., Ltd. and its actual controller, Chi Jinlong, who pleaded guilty to loan fraud and bribery charges [2][19] - The fraud scheme included multiple financial institutions, resulting in significant financial losses, with over 1.7 billion yuan still unrecovered before the case was exposed [2][10] - The case also implicates Shao Heng, a wealthy individual, who allegedly used fraudulent methods to obtain loans exceeding 1.26 billion yuan, causing losses of over 420 million yuan to financial institutions [10][21] Group 1: Company Involvement - Shenzhen Xingrui Technology was involved in a fraudulent scheme to obtain loans through fake insurance policies and misrepresentation of borrower identities [8][9] - Huanneng Trust, Huishang Bank, and China People's Insurance Company were the main financial institutions affected by the fraudulent activities [2][4] - The "Credit Insurance Loan" business was established between Huanneng Trust and Huishang Bank, with the involvement of Shenzhen People's Insurance as a guarantor [4][6] Group 2: Fraud Mechanism - The fraud involved collusion between employees of Huishang Bank and Shenzhen Xingrui, who facilitated the creation of fake loan applications and insurance policies [8][9] - Chi Jinlong and his associates used bribery to bypass verification processes, allowing them to secure loans without legitimate insurance coverage [9][10] - The fraudulent loans were often distributed among multiple "dummy" accounts, complicating the tracking of the funds [11] Group 3: Legal Proceedings - Chi Jinlong was sentenced to 6 years and 6 months for his role in the fraud, while Shao Heng was not prosecuted due to his cooperation and restitution efforts [19][21] - The case has led to significant scrutiny of the involved financial institutions, with some employees already leaving their positions amid the investigation [22][24] - The legal proceedings are ongoing, with further developments expected as investigations continue into the broader implications of the fraud [18][19]