YKA(SZ:300999)2025-11-22 08:57Group 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]