炒股就看金麒麟分析师研报，权威，专业，及时，全面，助您挖掘潜力主题机会！ 智通财经记者 | 邹文榕 华能信托被骗贷17亿元案迎后续。 据智通财经消息，近期，地方证监局组织相关4家券商及4家资管开展资产支持证券业务（ABS业务）专项自查，此次自查对象正是华能信托以"信保贷"业务 为基础资产发行的ABS产品，覆盖已兑付及存续全生命周期产品，以此防范类似骗贷风险向资产证券化市场传导。 尽管这一场由华能信托"信保贷"业务所衍生的次生风险还未发生，但智通财经记者关注到，从2020年起已被监管叫停的"信保贷"类业务又重回大众视野，并 成为信托机构布局普惠金融业务的一大利器。 谈及年内行业转型的新方向时，消费金融信托业务总是绕不开的话题。 除了频频落地的预付资金类资产服务信托外，年内投向消费贷领域的信托资金也在低调增长。前8个月，26家信托公司共发行消费金融集合资金信托计划 1733亿元，同比提升超过5成。 被定性为非标融资类的消费贷类信托业务仍属于监管压降范围，伴随10月1日助贷新规的正式实施，参与其中的信托机构也将面临更严厉的借款利率、以及 平台名单管理等约束。 低利率叠加强监管的环境下，"重返"消费金融市场的信托机构 ...

一纸判决书，曝光了华能贵诚信托有限公司（简称"华能信托"）的项目风险。 近日，记者获悉的民事判决书显示，多位投资者将华能信托和徽商银行告上法庭，原因是其购买的信托 产品未能如期兑付本金和收益。据知情人士透露，诉讼中涉及的信托产品之所以无法如期兑付，背后其 实是华能信托和徽商银行都未能预料到的"骗局"。 记者采访获悉，2019年开始，深圳兴睿信息科技有限公司（简称"兴睿科技"）实际控制人迟金龙等人通 过伪造保单、冒用人头等方式骗取华能信托与徽商银行"信保贷"项目中的贷款，金额超过10亿元。在业 内人士看来，此次"信保贷"项目不仅对投资者造成巨大伤害，还为行业敲响了警钟。信托公司未来开展 非标业务时，必须强化现场尽调、"核保核贷"意识，不盲目相信担保增信，真正做到卖者尽责。 投资人将华能信托告了 近日，记者获悉的两份民事判决书显示，多位投资者将华能信托告上法庭。 相关判决书显示，2021年11月12日，原告（投资人）通过徽商银行的金融服务平台"徽常有财"App，购 买了华能信托发行的"华能信托金盈30号"信托产品。原告认购信托产品的本金金额为200万元。 不过，2022年11月15日信托产品到期后，原告要求徽商银 ...

一纸判决书，曝光了华能贵诚信托有限公司（简称"华能信托"）的项目风险。 近日，记者获悉的民事判决书显示，多位投资者将华能信托和徽商银行告上法庭，原因是其购买的信托 产品未能如期兑付本金和收益。据知情人士透露，诉讼中涉及的信托产品之所以无法如期兑付，背后其 实是华能信托和徽商银行都未能预料到的"骗局"。 记者采访获悉，2019年开始，深圳兴睿信息科技有限公司（简称"兴睿科技"）实际控制人迟金龙等人通 过伪造保单、冒用人头等方式骗取华能信托与徽商银行"信保贷"项目中的贷款，金额超过10亿元。在业 内人士看来，此次"信保贷"项目不仅对投资者造成巨大伤害，还为行业敲响了警钟。信托公司未来开展 非标业务时，必须强化现场尽调、"核保核贷"意识，不盲目相信担保增信，真正做到卖者尽责。 相关判决书显示，2021年11月12日，原告（投资人）通过徽商银行的金融服务平台"徽常有财"App，购 买了华能信托发行的"华能信托金盈30号"信托产品。原告认购信托产品的本金金额为200万元。 不过，2022年11月15日信托产品到期后，原告要求徽商银行和华能信托给付信托本金并按照5.35%/年的 利率支付信托收益，但被拒绝支付。 对于投资 ...

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].

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]