这份信任，换来了倾力回报。借助舟山粮食安全产业链供应链党建联建协调机制，定海创新实施项 目"分期验收"模式，使山梨糖醇产线验收时间较原计划提前了3个月，提前创造了5000万元产值。"一期 项目全面投产后，预计年产值将突破30亿元；而上马合成生物产线后，预计年产值将达到50亿元。"展 望未来，企业负责人充满信心。 行业巨头的选择，吸引产业链下游企业争相涌入。连日来，姚庆的一天常常被咨询电话和会见客商填 满，忙得不亦乐乎。 考虑到合成生物产业因工艺差异，对用地类型需求多样，定海工业园区已规划出1000余亩合成生物产业 招商用地，并装备配套齐全的污水处理设施，具备固（危）废处理能力。目前，舟山粮食产业园已和浙 江省生物工程学会等签订了战略合作协议，涵盖科技成果转化、产品研发、招商资源共享、项目培育孵 化等领域。更值得期待的是，产业园对面，一个合成生物产业园区已纳入规划，为产业链延伸预留充足 空间。（记者 周杭琪 通讯员 何臻臻 郑宁） 作为浙江唯一集大宗粮油中转物流、仓储、加工、交易等多种服务功能于一体的大型粮油产业基地，位 于定海工业园区的舟山粮食产业园进口粮食中转物流量占全国比重近20%，集聚起40余家粮油企业 ...

去年1月，千亿元市值企业金龙鱼子公司收到刑事起诉书，被指控涉嫌配合诈骗。千亿元粮油巨头卷入诈骗案，成为市场关注焦点。 根据当时的起诉书，这起诈骗案共造成受害人直接经济损失32.3亿元、间接损失20.15亿元，合计超52亿元。今年11月19日，金龙鱼子公司收到淮北市中级人 民法院送达的一审判决书，在诈骗罪中系从犯，与诈骗方共同承担18.81亿元退赔责任。近几年，诈骗方主犯因为资金问题，其资产不断被法院拍卖。 《每日经济新闻》记者独家获悉，这起案件相当复杂，两次庭审时间跨度大，单次庭审持续时间也较长。2024年7月3日和7月4日，记者旁听了两场庭审，双 方当事人律师论辩激烈，仅围绕审计报告这一关键证据，庭审就从白天一直持续到深夜11点32分。 案起：金龙鱼子公司卷入陈年诈骗案，三方纠葛埋下祸根 日前，金龙鱼子公司涉及的一起刑事诉讼案件一审判决出炉，由于涉及国有资产超18亿元的巨额损失，这起诉讼也备受市场关注。 此案情要追溯到2008年，棕榈油贸易属于大宗商品进出口贸易的一种，融资商不一定具备对大规模货物的仓储能力，或者从经济效益角度来说不一定有合适 的经济成本来进行完全自我仓储，所以实际将货物存储在第三方的商业模 ...

(文/解红娟 编辑/张广凯） 金龙鱼方面亦同步发声喊冤，直指一审认定事实、适用法律、司法程序及采信证据根本错误，判决广州 益海构成合同诈骗罪的从犯于法无据，据以定罪量刑的观点和事实依法均不能成立。 广州益海是中转仓储方 将时间拨回至2008年。 彼时，云南惠嘉与安徽华文开展棕榈油代理进口业务，其中，安徽华文作为代理方、云南惠嘉作为委托 方，签订了《安徽华文国际经贸股份有限公司代理进口协议》。 协议规定，安徽华文同云南惠嘉指定的国外供应商签订进口合同，按约定云南惠嘉应于进口合同签订后 两日内向安徽华文支付货款总值5%或10%的定金，安徽华文负责对外承兑或付汇，云南惠嘉应在安徽 华文对外承兑或付汇前支付货款余额。 之所以和广州益海扯上关系，是因为棕榈油到港后，会分别中转在云南惠嘉指定的广州益海仓库或第三 方东莞飞亚达等仓库。 因而，2008年到2014年期间，广州益海作为中转仓储方，与安徽华文、云南惠嘉签订《中转协议书》， 负责储存安徽华文代理云南惠嘉进口的棕榈油。 "将仓储中转方作为共犯没有法律和事实依据。"益海（广州）粮油工业有限公司董事长兼总经理房彦江 在日前召开的投资者说明会上"喊冤"。 近日，益海嘉里金 ...

金龙鱼所属申万行业为：农林牧渔-农产品加工-粮油加工。所属概念板块包括：预制菜、调味品、社区 团购、融资融券、基金重仓等。 11月24日，金龙鱼盘中下跌2.01%，截至10:42，报30.26元/股，成交2.11亿元，换手率1.28%，总市值 1640.57亿元。 资金流向方面，主力资金净流出1622.44万元，特大单买入991.29万元，占比4.69%，卖出2089.19万元， 占比9.88%；大单买入3353.47万元，占比15.86%，卖出3878.01万元，占比18.34%。 金龙鱼今年以来股价跌6.89%，近5个交易日跌8.05%，近20日跌2.58%，近60日跌7.49%。 资料显示，益海嘉里金龙鱼食品集团股份有限公司位于中国(上海)自由贸易试验区博成路1379号15层， 成立日期2005年6月17日，上市日期2020年10月15日，公司主营业务涉及厨房食品、饲料原料及油脂科 技产品的研发、生产与销售。主营业务收入构成为：厨房食品61.85%，饲料原料及油脂科技37.33%， 其他0.82%。 截至11月10日，金龙鱼股东户数11.50万，较上期增加0.68%；人均流通股4720股，较上期减少0. ...

Core Viewpoint - The company Jinlongyu is facing significant legal challenges, including a lawsuit from former Hubei tycoon Lan Shili and a contract fraud case involving its subsidiary, Guangzhou Yihai, with potential liabilities amounting to 1.8 billion yuan [2][4][10]. Group 1: Legal Issues - Jinlongyu recently won a defamation lawsuit against Lan Shili, who was ordered to pay 10,000 yuan in damages and issue an apology [4][6]. - Despite complying with the court's ruling, Lan Shili claims that Jinlongyu has not reported the payment and has instead sought to freeze his accounts, escalating the conflict [6][8]. - Lan Shili has vowed to continue the legal battle, seeking further compensation and an apology from Jinlongyu [8][15]. Group 2: Contract Fraud Case - Guangzhou Yihai is embroiled in a contract fraud case involving a loss of over 5.2 billion yuan, with 1.881 billion yuan directly attributed to its actions [10][12]. - The fraud involved a scheme where the payment terms were altered through bribery, allowing a company to take palm oil without full payment [10][12]. - The court has identified a key employee of Guangzhou Yihai as an accomplice in the fraud, leading to a significant legal and financial burden for Jinlongyu [17]. Group 3: Financial Impact - Jinlongyu's market value has dropped to over 160 billion yuan, significantly lower than its peak [4]. - The company's net profit was reported at 2.5 billion yuan last year and 2.7 billion yuan in the first three quarters of this year, indicating that any confirmed liabilities could adversely affect its financial performance [14].

Group 1: Case Overview - The case involves Guangzhou Yihai, which was accused of being an accomplice in a contract fraud case related to Anhui Huawen and Yunnan Huijia [1][2] - The essence of the case is that Anhui Huawen, in collusion with Yunnan Huijia, engaged in fraudulent activities that led to significant losses of state assets [1][2][3] - Guangzhou Yihai claims to be the victim of deception, asserting that it was misled by Anhui Huawen's executives [1][4] Group 2: Legal Arguments - The company argues that the first-instance judgment was fundamentally flawed in its factual findings and legal application [2] - Key points include: - Anhui Huawen's losses were self-inflicted due to collusion with Yunnan Huijia, not due to any actions by Guangzhou Yihai [2] - Guangzhou Yihai maintained due diligence and complied with contractual obligations, thus not participating in any fraudulent activities [2][3] - The company did not gain any benefits from the alleged fraudulent actions [2][3] Group 3: Procedural Violations - The investigation phase was marred by intentional concealment of case information by the police [3][8] - The prosecution failed to properly inform Guangzhou Yihai of the case's status, violating its litigation rights [3][8] - The court's decision to separate trials and deny other defendants' appearances hindered the fact-finding process [3][8] Group 4: Financial Implications - The first-instance judgment imposed a compensation of 1.881 billion RMB on Guangzhou Yihai, which the company contests as baseless [9][10] - The company asserts that the judgment could have uncertain impacts on its financial performance, pending the outcome of the appeal [12] Group 5: Company’s Position and Future Actions - The company emphasizes its commitment to legal compliance and social responsibility, having invested approximately 100 billion RMB in China [4][5] - Guangzhou Yihai plans to exhaust all legal avenues to appeal the judgment and clear its name [4][11] - The company expresses confidence that the second-instance court will deliver a fair ruling [15]

Core Points - The former Hubei tycoon Lan Shili has publicly declared war on the food oil giant Jinlongyu, citing a personal financial crisis stemming from a legal dispute over the transportation of edible oil [1][5] - The conflict originated from a July 2024 incident where it was reported that oil tankers transported edible oil without proper cleaning, raising safety concerns [1][5] - Following a court ruling, Lan Shili was ordered to pay 10,000 yuan in damages to Yihai Kerry, the brand owner of Jinlongyu, but mistakenly transferred 100,000 yuan instead [3][4] Legal Dispute - The initial legal action was taken by Yihai Kerry against Lan Shili for defamation after he made claims about the safety of their products on social media [1][3] - The Shanghai courts ruled in favor of Yihai Kerry, leading to a compensation order against Lan Shili [1][3] - Despite fulfilling the court's compensation order, Lan Shili accused Yihai Kerry of bad faith for not reporting the receipt of the payment and continuing to seek enforcement actions against him [5][7] Financial Implications - Lan Shili's financial troubles were exacerbated when his bank account was frozen due to the enforcement actions taken by Yihai Kerry, which he claims nearly left him homeless [5][7] - He is now seeking to recover the excess payment made and is pursuing further legal action against Yihai Kerry for what he describes as unjust enrichment [7]

一、本次股份质押基本情况 ■ 登录新浪财经APP 搜索【信披】查看更多考评等级 本公司及董事会全体成员保证信息披露的内容真实、准确、完整，没有虚假记载、误导性陈述或重大遗 漏。 道道全粮油股份有限公司（以下简称"公司"）于2025年11月21日获悉控股股东刘建军先生质押了所持有 的本公司部分股份，具体事项如下： 二、股东股份累计质押情况 截至本公告披露日，一致行动人刘建军、姚锦婷、兴创投资、上海恒基浦业资产管理有限公司一恒基祥 荣11号私募证券投资基金（以下简称"恒基基金"）所持质押股份情况如下： 2、深交所要求的其他文件 特此公告。 ■ 注：1、上述比例数值若出现与实际数不符的情况，均为四舍五入原因造成。 2、刘建军先生所持股份中55,946,663股为高管锁定股。 3、姚锦婷女士所持股份中441,044股为高管锁定股。 三、其他说明 1、本次股份质押融资用于置换兴创投资收购绵阳菜籽王粮油有限公司少数股权款项的存量股权质押融 资，不涉及用于满足公司生产经营相关需求。 2、本次股份质押事项对公司生产经营、公司治理等不会产生影响，不涉及业绩补偿义务。 四、备查文件 1、证券质押登记证明 道道全粮油股份有限公司董 ...

登录新浪财经APP 搜索【信披】查看更多考评等级 证券代码：002852 证券简称：道道全公告编号：2025-【062】 道道全粮油股份有限公司 关于控股股东部分股份质押的公告 本公司及董事会全体成员保证信息披露的内容真实、准确、完整，没有虚假记载、误导性陈述或重大遗 漏。 道道全粮油股份有限公司（以下简称"公司"）于2025年11月21日获悉控股股东刘建军先生质押了所持有 的本公司部分股份，具体事项如下： 一、本次股份质押基本情况 ■ 2、深交所要求的其他文件 ■ 注：1、上述比例数值若出现与实际数不符的情况，均为四舍五入原因造成。 2、刘建军先生所持股份中55,946,663股为高管锁定股。 3、姚锦婷女士所持股份中441,044股为高管锁定股。 三、其他说明 1、本次股份质押融资用于置换兴创投资收购绵阳菜籽王粮油有限公司少数股权款项的存量股权质押融 资，不涉及用于满足公司生产经营相关需求。 2、本次股份质押事项对公司生产经营、公司治理等不会产生影响，不涉及业绩补偿义务。 四、备查文件 1、证券质押登记证明 二、股东股份累计质押情况 截至本公告披露日，一致行动人刘建军、姚锦婷、兴创投资、上海恒基浦业资产管 ...

Core Viewpoint - The company firmly believes that it has not gained any improper benefits and asserts that the judgment against its subsidiary, Guangzhou Yihai, is unfounded, with plans to appeal the decision [3][4]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - Guangzhou Yihai was sentenced to a fine of 1 million RMB and ordered to compensate for economic losses amounting to 1.881 billion RMB due to a contract fraud conviction [3]. - The company argues that the allegations of fraud are based on false documents created in collusion with other parties, and it emphasizes the implausibility of the claims regarding the storage of palm oil [4]. Group 2: Financial Performance - In Q3 2025, the company reported a revenue of 68.588 billion RMB, a year-on-year increase of 3.96%, and a net profit attributable to shareholders of 999 million RMB, reflecting a significant increase of 196.96% [4]. - The net profit for the first three quarters of the year totaled 2.749 billion RMB, with the amount involved in the legal case accounting for over 70% of last year's net profit [4][5]. Group 3: Management Statements - The company’s president stated that the impact of the judgment on current and future profits remains uncertain as the case is still under appeal [5]. - The chairman of the company expressed confidence in their integrity, suggesting that any wrongdoing would lead to personal consequences within the family [5].