Core Viewpoint - The Zhejiang Overseas Chinese financial risk event, which has been ongoing for nearly a year, is making significant progress with the core suspect, Yu Zhiwei, expected to be transferred to the prosecution soon. The case involves over 7 billion yuan in fraudulent fundraising activities [3][6]. Group 1: Case Developments - Yu Zhiwei, a key figure in the Zhejiang Overseas Chinese system, is set to be prosecuted, with 25 mid-to-senior level personnel already arrested [3][6]. - The investigation has revealed that the Huashiao Bao P2P platform did not comply with regulatory requirements for clearing its business, instead transferring 150 million yuan of outstanding business to the Qiaohang Tianxia APP, marking a turning point in the accumulation of risks [4][10]. - The technology team of Muniu Technology, under Yu Zhiwei's direction, engaged in systematic fraud, including the forgery of electronic signatures and the creation of false transaction records [6][7]. Group 2: Investment Products and Fraud Mechanism - The investment logic behind the online and offline gold financial products was based on the premise that investors would receive rental income from gold leased to Zhongxin International, which later collapsed when it was revealed that the agreements were forged [7][8]. - Despite the fraudulent nature of the agreements, the strategic cooperation framework between China Gold Group and Huashiao Fund was confirmed to be real, complicating the narrative of the fraud [8][9]. - Investors were misled into believing they could redeem physical gold at China Gold's stores, with 79 investors reportedly having made 159 withdrawals totaling 23,250 grams of gold [8][9]. Group 3: Regulatory Oversight and Compliance Issues - The transfer of Huashiao Bao's business to Qiaohang Tianxia was seen as a regulatory evasion tactic, as P2P platforms were required to complete their business clearance by the end of 2020 [26][27]. - The complexity of the ownership structure, involving multiple layers of shareholding and related companies, has raised concerns about regulatory oversight and compliance [27][31]. - The lack of timely intervention by regulators allowed the fraudulent operations to continue, leading to a larger accumulation of risks that ultimately resulted in the financial collapse [26][27].

Core Viewpoint - The Zhejiang Overseas Chinese financial risk incident continues to evolve, with key personnel facing prosecution and significant evidence emerging regarding fraudulent operations and regulatory evasion [1][3][4]. Group 1: Case Developments - The core suspect, Yu Zhiwei, is expected to be transferred to the prosecution by September 2024 [3]. - A total of 25 mid-to-senior level personnel from the Overseas Chinese system have been approved for arrest, with investigations expanding [4]. - Key technical personnel from Niuniu Technology, including the technical head Wang, have been detained, which may provide crucial evidence for the case [4]. Group 2: Regulatory Evasion - The P2P platform Huachao Bao failed to comply with regulatory requirements and transferred 150 million yuan of existing business to the Qiaohang Tianxia APP, marking a turning point in the accumulation of risks [2][8]. - This transfer occurred during a nationwide "zeroing" of P2P platforms, indicating a significant regulatory oversight issue [2][15]. Group 3: Investment Operations - The investment logic behind the online and offline gold financial products was based on investors purchasing gold and authorizing Zhongxin International to operate it, which later collapsed when the agreements were found to be fraudulent [5][7]. - Despite the appearance of a closed-loop operation, the key agreements related to the repurchase of financial products were deemed fake by Zhongxin International and China Gold Group [7]. Group 4: Internal Communications and Strategies - Internal documents revealed a standardized script used by Huachao Bao to justify the transfer of clients and business to Qiaohang Tianxia, citing regulatory uncertainties [13]. - The script emphasized that the new platform was compliant and not a P2P platform, while concealing the actual withdrawal of services [13][15]. Group 5: Structural Complexity - The operational structure of Huachao Bao involved multiple layers of shareholding and related companies, complicating the regulatory landscape [17][18]. - The original operator of Huachao Bao, Zhejiang Junzheng Yingyun Network Technology Co., has connections to the Overseas Chinese system, indicating a deeper entanglement in the financial misconduct [17][18].