(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].

Core Viewpoint - The company, Jinlongyu, publicly responded for the first time after its subsidiary was convicted of contract fraud, emphasizing that it was misled and not involved in any fraudulent activities [2][4]. Group 1: Company Response - Jinlongyu held an investor communication meeting attended by key executives to clarify the situation following the court ruling against its subsidiary, Guangzhou Yihai [2]. - The company claims that the losses incurred by Anhui Huawen were due to collusion between Anhui Huawen and Yunnan Huijia, asserting that Guangzhou Yihai was the deceived party [2][7]. - The company has filed an appeal against the first-instance ruling, which found Guangzhou Yihai guilty of contract fraud and ordered it to jointly compensate Anhui Huawen for losses amounting to RMB 18.81 billion [2][4]. Group 2: Details of the Case - The case involves allegations that Yunnan Huijia, through bribery, manipulated the transaction terms with Anhui Huawen, leading to significant financial discrepancies [6][8]. - The prosecution's indictment indicated that employees of Guangzhou Yihai accepted bribes and assisted in the fraudulent activities, but the company maintains that it was unaware of any wrongdoing [7][8]. - The timeline of the alleged fraudulent activities spans from 2008 to 2014, with the company asserting that all related business operations ceased in July 2014 [7][8]. Group 3: Company’s Defense - The company provided six reasons to support its claim of non-involvement in the fraud, highlighting the complicity of Anhui Huawen's management in the fraudulent activities [8][9]. - It was noted that the total storage capacity of Guangzhou Yihai is only 160,000 tons, making it implausible for the company to have stored over 1 million tons of palm oil as claimed by Anhui Huawen [9]. - The company emphasized that it has strict internal control processes and that any actions taken by former employees were personal and not representative of the company's practices [11].

Core Viewpoint - The company, Jinlongyu, publicly responded for the first time after its subsidiary was convicted of contract fraud, emphasizing that it was misled and did not participate in any fraudulent activities [3][4]. Group 1: Company Response - Jinlongyu held an investor communication meeting attended by key executives to clarify the situation regarding its subsidiary, Guangzhou Yihai, which was implicated in a contract fraud case [3]. - The company stated that the losses incurred by Anhui Huawen were due to collusion between Anhui Huawen and Yunnan Huijia, asserting that Guangzhou Yihai was the deceived party [3][7]. - Following the court's ruling, Jinlongyu's stock price fell for two consecutive days, resulting in a market value loss of over 10 billion yuan [3]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The case is currently in the appeal stage, and the company plans to apply for a retrial if the appeal is unsuccessful [4]. - The court found Guangzhou Yihai guilty as an accomplice in the contract fraud, with a financial liability of 1.881 billion yuan alongside Yunnan Huijia [3][4]. Group 3: Defense Arguments - The company presented six reasons to defend itself against the fraud allegations, including the assertion that the fraudulent actions were orchestrated by Anhui Huawen and Yunnan Huijia [7][9]. - It was highlighted that the fraudulent activities occurred between 2008 and 2014, and that Anhui Huawen had not raised any issues with Guangzhou Yihai until 2021, nearly a decade later [7][9]. - The company emphasized that it had strict internal control processes in place during the relevant period and denied any compliance issues [11]. Group 4: Operational Insights - Jinlongyu's total oil tank capacity is only 160,000 tons, making it implausible for it to store over 1 million tons of palm oil as claimed by Anhui Huawen [9]. - The company has established an AI technology application team to enhance operational efficiency and market competitiveness through data analysis and AI applications [11].