Guan Meis cry out for grievances has attracted wide attention in the market. The reporter of Securities Times also tried to restore the truth of Zhou Jiancan, the chairman of the board of directors who had fallen, to the greatest extent through this interview.
Zhou Jiancan was born in 1963. He is the founder and actual controller of Jindun Co., Ltd. in Shangyu, Zhejiang Province. He holds 19.72% of the companys shares. As the chairman of a listed A-share company with the highest market value of more than 10 billion yuan, Zhou Jiancans reputation was as high as billions of yuan, combined with the assets of his Jindun Holding Group.
According to common sense, it should not be difficult for Zhou Jiancan to find someone to borrow money in Zhejiang, where the people are rich. However, private lending in Zhejiang also has its own social circle. It is understood that in the second half of 2017, the Zhejiang folk lending circle, which has a keen sense of smell, was aware of Zhou Jiancans pressure to pay off debts and had listed it on the dangerous list.
Due to the huge demand for funds, Zhou Jiancan can only raise money everywhere, and the object of borrowing is getting farther and farther. Henan, Chongqing, Hubei and Guangdong have all become places where Zhou Jiancan raises money. Zhou Jiancans private borrowers in the second half of 2017 mostly occurred in non-Zhejiang areas.
On February 11, 2018, Jindun shares received a notice from the Peoples Court of Changge City, Henan Province on the civil lending lawsuit. The reason for the prosecution is that on January 9 and 10, 2018, Shan Xinbao signed the Guarantee Loan Contract with Jindun Shares, which is 20 million yuan and 10 million yuan respectively, with a period of 15 days and 10 days respectively. When the agreed repayment expires, the defendants Jindun shares default on the principal of the loan.
Before the lawsuit, Shan Xinbao and Zhou Jiancan had borrowed and lent several times, totaling about 80 million yuan, and all the loans were paid to Zhou Jiancans account, Jinduns legal adviser said to Dawn. The 30 million yuan lawsuit against Danxinbao received on February 11, 2018 is a new loan, which was also paid to Zhou Jiancans account.
According to Zhang Xun, the manager of Zhou Jiancans loan, who was in charge of the investment and Financing Department of Jindun Holding Group at that time, as early as September 29, 2017, Zhou Jiancan had his first loan with Shan Xinbao, amounting to about 15 million yuan. Later Zhang Xun, suspected of illegally absorbing public deposits, has been investigated by public security organs.
According to Zhang Xun, Zhou Jiancan had never dealt with Changge in the past, and his loans to Changge were also introduced by intermediaries. When the first person from Changge in Henan came to borrow money, Zhou Jiancan personally participated in the negotiations. However, Zhou Jiancan himself did not participate in the subsequent borrowings, all of which were operated by Zhang Xun according to the previous model.
Judging from the flow of banks, when Zhou Jiancan and Dan Xinbao first borrowed 15 million yuan, Zhang Xun paid 1.8 million yuan in advance to Dan Xinbao. At the same time, before paying Zhou Jiancan 15 million yuan in loans, Shan Xinbaos bank account actually did not have 15 million yuan. So, where does the 15 million yuan loan to Zhou Jiancan come from? The banks running water also shows that there are many other peoples accounts, which are remitted to the single Xinbao account several times, plus Zhang Xuns advance payment of 1.8 million yuan in interest, which makes up 15 million yuan.
There are two problems in this kind of private lending relationship: cut-off interest rate and routine lending.
Zhou Jiancan and Dan Xinbao borrowed 15 million yuan for 12 days. According to the 1.8 million yuan cut-off rate, the average daily interest rate is 1%.
Guan Meimei said that Shan Xinbao and other people and Zhou Jiancan borrowed money and paid the amount of haircut interest. In fact, the daily interest of borrowing is about 1%, and the annual rate is about 360%. It is a veritable super usury and haircut interest.
According to the flow details of relevant banks and payment vouchers, Zhou Jiancan borrowed 140 million yuan from the plaintiffs in Changge four cases. The total amount of haircut interest paid on that day reached 16.28 million yuan. The income accounts of haircut interest were: Shan Xinbao himself, Yang Li, Huatian in Wuhu and Lin Chuanchuan. Among them, Yang Li not only collects money on behalf of Danxinbao, but also on behalf of Huatian in Wuhu. Among the money lent by Shan Xinbao to Zhou Jiancan, Yang Li immediately paid to Shan Xinbao after receiving the cut interest.
Bank flow shows that Yang Li, for example, after receiving haircut interest, quickly transferred the money to Shan Xinbao, which is a way for lenders to avoid haircut interest and usury. Say so to the dawn.
Hidden dangers buried in blank contracts
In Zhejiang Province, where private lending is active, when the borrower and the lender have a lending relationship, they often rely on the borrowers repayment strength. When the borrower and the lender agree orally on the repayment time limit and interest, they can lend money. In order to prevent the occurrence of running, sometimes the borrower will give the lender a blank sheet of paper signed and sealed in advance as a guarantee of repayment.
This kind of private lending behavior formed by personal credit is not easy to cause disputes if the borrower performs the contract normally. But once there are breaches of contract, running away, loss of connection and so on, a series of litigation disputes will arise.
At that time, Zhou Jiancan, chairman of Jindun Holding Group, with his own legal awareness and team of lawyers, should draw up a formal loan contract when borrowing money. However, there is an urgent need for capital turnover, which also follows the rules of private lending.
On February 1, 2018, the Changge District Court frozen many bank accounts of Jindun shares on the grounds of accepting the case of Xinbao Document v. Jindun Sharesprivate lending disputes. Up to now, because of the death of former chairman Zhou Jiancan, Jindun shares have triggered a series of incidents, resulting in 40 lawsuits, the total amount of the target is 2.569 billion yuan.
Guan Meimei said that the so-called loan contract of Xinbao on the plaintiffs bill was only one, and some places were blank. When Dan Xinbao sued, he filled in the blank contract as he wanted.
Guan Meimei also gave a positive response to Zhou Jiancans loan. According to Zhang Xuns statement to the police, Zhou Jiancans loan income is mainly used for two parts. One is to return the pre-interest; the other is to flow to the name of Jindun Holding Group controlled by Zhou Jiancan, including Zhejiang Jindun Fire Fighting Equipment Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Jindun Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd. Among them, interest repayment accounts for the main part. Of the 2.911 billion yuan of private lending debt involved, more than 1 billion yuan is used for interest repayment.
The adjudication of similar cases is different
It is understood that after Zhou Jiancans death and Changge Courts property preservation, Jindun shares found that the companys seal was forged, and immediately reported the case to Shangyu Branch Bureau of Shaoxing Public Security Bureau.
After receiving the report, the Shangyu Branch Bureau of Shaoxing Public Security Bureau investigated the case of forgery of the seal of the listed company on February 5, 2018. On February 28, Zhejiang Jindun Fire Fighting Equipment Co., Ltd. (Zhou Jiancan owns 90% of the shares) was investigated on suspicion of fund-raising fraud, and Zhang Xun (Minister of Investment and Finance Department of Jindun Group) was investigated on suspicion of illegally absorbing public deposits. It is understood that the public security organs later incorporated Jindun Holding Group into illegally absorbing public deposits. The suspect in the case.
Among them, the lawsuit case between Jindun Stock Company and Beijing Zhongtai Chuangying Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. was rejected by the first instance of Shaoxing Intermediate Court and the second instance of Zhejiang High Court. After that, Zhongtai Chuangying appealed to the Supreme Peoples Court. According to the announcement of Jindun shares, the Supreme Peoples Court issued a civil ruling No. 4250 (2018) on September 26, 2018, which considered that the case has involved economic crimes, whether the contract involved is established or not, and whether the liability of Jindun Fan Company is assumed depends on the determination of the seals in criminal cases. The original court of trial considered that the case has been confirmed. According to Article 11 of the Provisions of the Supreme Peoples Court on Several Questions Concerning Suspects of Economic Crimes in Trial of Economic Disputes, it is not improper to dismiss the lawsuit of China-Thailand Company. The Supreme Court eventually rejected the application for reexamination of Chuang Ying from China and Thailand.
However, the lawsuit disputes involving the four Changge cases did not stop. Recently, Jindun shares received a civil judgment issued by Xuchang Intermediate Court, which rejected the companys appeals in four cases and maintained the original judgment. Compared with the lawsuit of Sino-Thai Chuangying, the real situation of the four cases of Changge is more complex, not only the degree of suspected economic crimes is more obvious, but also involves cutting interest, and the third party collects cutting interest on behalf of others. If we need to find out the true situation of the four cases, only through the public security organs to investigate. To Dawn.
Four debt disputes involving Changge have been investigated by Shangyu Branch of Shaoxing Public Security Bureau in Zhejiang Province. The suspected economic crimes include forgery of company seals, fund-raising fraud and illegal absorption of public deposits. The case of illegal absorption of public deposits has been transferred to the procuratorate for examination and prosecution. It belongs to the same fact.
After losing the second instance with Changges four cases, Guan Meimei said: I am not satisfied with the judgment of the two courts and the listed companies. We will apply to the Henan Provincial Higher Peoples Court for a retrial and request the Henan Provincial Higher Peoples Court to find out the facts and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of listed companies.
Guarantee indemnity is puzzling
Returning to the case itself, the role of the plaintiff Henan Hezhong SME Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd. is puzzling.
Before that, Zhou Jiancan and Henan Hezhong SMEs Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd. did not intersect at all, so it was unreasonable for the company to provide guarantee in this loan. Moreover, in other loan contracts, the guarantor is Zhou Jiancans company. Henan Hezhong Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd. appears redundant in this loan.
After Zhou Jiancans fall on January 30, 2018, Henan Hezhong Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd. remitted money to Huatian in Wuhu on January 31 and February 1, fulfilling its compensatory responsibility, and filed a suit with Changge Court on February 1. The Changge Court accepted the suit on the same day and made a property preservation ruling on the same day. The next day, it was in Shangyu, Zhejiang Province. Several bank accounts of Jindun Share were closed.
It is noteworthy that Wuhu Huatian Rongchuang Investment Center (Limited Partnership) signed a loan contract with Jindun Share, which is also a pseudo-official seal loan contract. In similar radish seal cases, the guarantor will often shirk the responsibility of guaranty on the grounds of forgery of the official seal and invalidity of the main contract. But in this loan contract of Wuhu Huatian, like Henan Hezhong Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd., it is rare to take the initiative and quickly continue to fulfill the compensatory responsibility.
Henan Hezhong SME Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd. registered capital is 522 million yuan. Industry and commerce data show that there are three shareholders in the joint venture guarantee. Zhang Aimin, a natural person, only subscribes 21.5 million yuan. Henan Province SME Credit Guarantee Group Co., Ltd. only subscribes 12.95 million yuan. The remaining shareholder is Changge State-owned Asset Management Commission. In addition, Henan SMEs Credit Guarantee Group Co., Ltd. has 125 shareholders, involving the financial bureaus, SASASAC and state-owned enterprises of the counties and municipalities under the jurisdiction of Henan Province.
Who is behind the scenes?
In the four cases of Changge, it is not only the guaranteed compensation of state-owned enterprises that is puzzling, but also the trend of creditors capital flow and the complex relationship chart can not be ignored.
The plaintiffs in the four Changge cases are Shan Xinbao (2 litigation plaintiffs), Henan Hezhong Small and Medium Enterprises Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd. and Bai Yongfeng. The first defendant is Jindun Share. It is common for creditors to sue debtors for failing to repay on time. However, there are various signs that there may be others who are the real gold owners of the Changge four cases.
Guan Meimei said that because the series of cases were suspected of criminal offences, the Shangyu police went to the creditors one by one to find out about the situation. But Shan Xinbao couldnt find it. But it also involves litigation, so we contacted Changge as debtors. When the two sides communicate with each other on the debt issue, Zhang Jiechao first receives it, but the real entry into substantive negotiations is Zhang Weimins appearance. Therefore, it is speculated that Zhang Weimin is the real gold owner of borrowing funds, and Shan Xinbao is only a vest. Moreover, in Zhou Jiancans Henan Changge loan, Zhang Jiechao is also an intermediary.
At the same time, Jindun shares have also received notice of transfer of creditors rights, namely, Danxinbao transfers creditors rights to Zhang Aimin; Henan Hezhong SME Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd transfers creditors rights to Henan Hezhong Investment Holding Co., Ltd., which is controlled by Zhang Weimin and Zhang Aimin; and Bai Yongfeng transfers creditors rights to Yang Baofeng.
In addition, according to the flow of banks, many of the funds lent by Shan Xinbao to Zhou Jiancan come from Beijing Fenghu Jiayuan Equity Investment Management Center (Limited Partnership), and Shan Xinbao and Fenghu Jiayuan have very frequent capital exchanges and huge amounts. Taking November 24, 2017 as an example, the funds transferred from Fenghu Jiayuan to Shanxinbao account totaled 15, totaling 7 million yuan.
Further inquiries revealed that Zhang Aimin and Zhang Weimin, Beijing Fenghu Jiayuan Equity Investment Management Center (Limited Partnership), Henan Hezhong Investment Holding Co., Ltd., Henan Hezhong Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd., Wuhu Huatian Rongchuang Investment Center (Limited Partnership), the above-mentioned units and individuals have extremely complex relationships.
Article 4 of the Circular on Standardizing the Behavior of Non-governmental Lending and Maintaining the Economic and Financial Order, issued jointly by the Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission and other four departments, stipulates that in non-governmental lending, the lenders funds must be the self-owned funds of his legitimate income, and it is forbidden to absorb other peoples funds in disguised form for lending.
In this way, problems follow. Who is the real gold owner behind the loan of Danxinbao, Huatian Rongchuang Investment Center in Wuhu (Limited Partnership)? Does the source of funds of the lender who provides the loan meet the requirements? Is there a case of illegal absorption of public deposits or illegal collection? The truth behind it is only to be investigated by the courts or public security organs.
In order to get a more comprehensive understanding of the details of Chou Jiancans and Changges haircuts, on July 9 and 10, the reporter also tried to contact Yin Jinhui, the plaintiffs lawyer, many times, but his phone call was either unanswered or hung up directly.