asianqualifiersworldcup2022live| ST Wanlin and Shanghai Fanchang's advance money dispute was exposed. The company replied that it was led by the former actual controller

Although St Wanlin (rights protection) (603117Asianqualifiersworldcup2022liveIt has been three years since the change of ownership, but the troubles left by the former actual controller are still affecting the company. A few days ago, a reporter from the Huaxia Times received an exclusive news that Huang Baozhong signed a false contract in order to avoid related party transactions during his "power" period. The contract mentioned above is one of the disputes over import and export agency business wrapped around St Wanlin.

According to the previous announcement, in September 2022, STWanLinzi Shanghai Mailin International Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Shanghai Mailin") filed a lawsuit with the Shanghai Minhang District people's Court for arrears of payment, agency fees and warehouse management service fees paid by Shanghai Fanchang Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Shanghai Fanchang"). The amount involved in the case reached 42.5298 million yuan. In response to the case, a person familiar with the matter said that Huang Baozhong proved in writing as a witness during the lawsuit that the procurement contract between Shanghai Mailin and Shanghai Fanchang was not "real". He provided a written testimony document signed by Huang Baozhong to the reporter of the Huaxia Times, which showed that Shanghai Fanchang was only the signatory of the eight contracts involved in the dispute between the two sides. in fact, the advance funds from Shanghai Mailin were not provided to Shanghai Fan Changfang, but to Xu Jie and Zou Qinfang, who were negotiating acquisition cooperation with listed companies at that time, and in the end, the other party did not supply them to Shanghai Mailin. Nor did the advance be returned.

The reporter wrote to STWanlin about the above situation, and the company replied: "the company paid in advance for the purchase of Shanghai Fanchang timber, but Shanghai Fanchang did not supply the goods to the company for a long time, so the company filed a lawsuit with the court, asking Shanghai Fanchang to return the advance payment or supply." In the course of the lawsuit, Huang Baozhong, the former controller of the company, claimed in court testimony that the advance payment was actually arranged for Xu Jie and Zou Qin to use, not the real purchase money. At present, because the situation mentioned by Huang Baozhong involves false statements about the purpose of foreign exchange payment, it has met the criminal conditions for fraudulently purchasing foreign exchange, so the court ruled that the case should be transferred to public security. "

However, when the reporter asked Huang Baozhong for confirmation, Huang Baozhong denied the above-mentioned matters mentioned by the reporter-"the contents of your text messages are not consistent with the facts."

The contract with Shanghai Fanchang is fake.Asianqualifiersworldcup2022live?

It is understood that the cooperative business between Shanghai Fanchang Company and Shanghai Mailin has been doing business since 2014. Judging from the materials provided by the whistleblowers, Shanghai Fanchang commissioned Shanghai Mailin to import raw timber or other timber from designated foreign businessmen, and signed a series of "import agency agreements" (hereinafter referred to as "agency agreements") with Shanghai Mailin. At the same time, Wang Jianhua (Shanghai Fanchang legal representative), Gu Ruizhen (former investor and supervisor) and Wang Yi (now major shareholder and supervisor) issued a corresponding "letter of guarantee commitment" to each agency agreement. to provide joint and several liability guarantee for all expenses such as the payment and interest incurred by Fanchang Company to Shanghai Mailin under each agency agreement. Wang Jianhua, Gu Ruizhen and Wang Yi undertake to settle all payments and all fees payable by Fanchang Company within three days from the date of Shanghai Mailin's written notice to the guarantor. According to the agency agreement, Shanghai Mailin signed the corresponding import contract of log or other timber to go through the import and export formalities of the goods according to the requirements of Fanchang Company, and advanced the corresponding payment and related fees. But in the follow-up, Shanghai Fanchang did not pay the relevant fees as agreed, so Shanghai Mailin sued Shanghai Fanchang and related personnel to court.

However, in the lawsuit, Shanghai Mailin claimed that it had sorted out eight import agency agreements involving 17ML-8801 to 17ML-8808 in the evidence exchange and found that the foreign exchange paid by Shanghai Mailin to foreign companies under the eight import agency agreements was as high as 4079366.67 US dollars and 2707167.7 euros, of which Shanghai Mailin paid 900000 US dollars to overseas companies under Import Agency Agreement No. 17-8804 and never received any goods. Under the rest of the import agency agreement, even if the goods are received, they will not receive the goods until at least two years after the signing of the contract, or only a small amount of goods will be received.

"with regard to these eight contracts, Huang Baozhong issued testimony to the Shanghai Minhang District people's Court, and the specific performance of the contract has nothing to do with Shanghai Fanchang." The person familiar with the matter told reporters. He also showed reporters a scan of Huang Baozhong's testimony he had obtained.

According to the scan, Xu Jie and his wife proposed that they need to be prepaid by Shanghai Mailin and then repaid by timber supply because of cash flow difficulties in the company they controlled during the acquisition cooperation with STWanlin in 2017. As related party transactions may be involved at that time, all parties discussed the signing of an import agency agreement between Shanghai Fanchang and Shanghai Mailin. The relevant contents were agreed by Shanghai Mai Lin and Xu Jie. Shanghai Fanchang was only responsible for stamping the seal and did not care about the rest. The actual implementation of the contract is the responsibility of Shanghai Mai Lin and Xu Jie and has nothing to do with Fanchang. Shanghai Mailin remitted the money to a company controlled by Xu Jie and his wife, and then Xu Jie and his wife supplied goods to Shanghai Mailin, which offset the remittance from Shanghai Mailin. The imported goods arranged under the eight contracts were directly disposed of by Xu Jie and his wife and were not delivered to Shanghai Fanchang. In practice, Shanghai Mailin finally did not receive the goods and did not recover the advance.

With regard to the material provided by the whistleblower, a reporter from the Huaxia Times sent a text message to Huang Baozhong to find out the details after he failed to call Huang Baozhong. Huang Baozhong responded: "I refuse to be interviewed. Now I would like to formally inform you through this message that the contents of your text message are not in line with the facts and are suspected of slander, which has affected my personal reputation and corporate goodwill. Please stop the above report as soon as you receive the above information and respect the investigation, evidence collection and judgment of the cases accepted by the court. If this leads to our losses, we will resolutely take legal action against the infringing parties to protect our legitimate rights and interests. " The follow-up reporter confirmed to Huang Baozhong once again the photocopy of the written witness testimony provided by the whistleblower that the other party did not directly answer the authenticity of the document, but only replied: "I don't know where you got this."

On the other hand, the side of ST Wanlin Company said that it was true about Huang Baozhong's testimony. at present, with regard to the above-mentioned case, St Wanlin staff told the China Times: "the case has been handed over to Shanghai Xuhui Branch, and we are also waiting for it to be dealt with."

Receive non-standard opinions due to problems left over by history

It is worth noting that the "bad debt" between St Wanlin and the former controller and Xu Jie and his wife is not only the Shanghai Fanchang case.

At the end of last month, St Wanlin released the 2023 annual report and a special note on the matters involved in the audit report issued by accounting firms with qualified opinions. Due to the failure to obtain sufficient and appropriate audit evidence on the recoverable amount of 95.554 million yuan in advance due to St Wanlin and its subsidiaries, Asia Pacific (Group) issued an audit report with reservations on St Wanlin's 2023 financial report. The above receivables come from the related party Yulin International and its subsidiary Litong (Hong Kong) Development Co., Ltd.

The situation between the company and the above-mentioned related parties can be traced back to 2017. in June of that year, St Wanlin issued the announcement on the acquisition of the equity interest in Yulin International Wood Co., Ltd., according to the announcement, the company intends to acquire 55% of the shares held by Xu Jie and Zou Qin, and the transaction amount is 293 million yuan based on the valuation confirmed in the asset evaluation report. According to public information, before St Wanlin acquired Yulin International, Xu Jie held a 60% stake and Zou Qin held a 40% stake in Yulin International. Yulin International has a controlling stake in four forestry companies registered and established in the Gabonese Republic of Africa (hereinafter referred to as "Gabon Company"). The Gabonese companies are mainly engaged in log logging, plank processing and timber export business.

After the acquisition of Yulin International's stake, Yulin International also brought benefits to listed companies in the short term, but after the end of its three-year performance commitment, Yulin International quickly returned to its previous state of losses. not only that, Yulin International and its subsidiaries also owed operating payments such as large advance payments to listed companies.

In November 2022, Shanghai Mailin International Trading Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of St Wanlin, filed a lawsuit with the Shanghai Minhang District people's Court, demanding that Litong (Hong Kong) Development Co., Ltd. return the prepaid payment in full. It is understood that Litong Hong Kong and its parent company, Yulin International Wood Co., Ltd., were then holding subsidiaries within the scope of St Wanlin merger. In July 2023, the Minhang District people's Court of Shanghai ruled in favor of Mailin Trade, but Litong Hong Kong had no enforceable property.

In July 2023, because Yulin International suffered heavy losses and was unable to repay the timber purchase payments advanced by listed companies and subsidiaries, St Wanlin transferred it to Gongqingcheng Platinum Chen Investment Co., Ltd., controlled by Fan Jibo, the actual controller of the company. Litong Hong Kong, as a subsidiary of Yulin Wood, was also transferred. By the end of 2023, St Wanlin and its subsidiaries Mailin Trading, Jingjiang profit Port Co., Ltd., Wanlin International (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd., received 95.554 million yuan from Yulin International Wood Co., Ltd and its subsidiary Litong (Hong Kong) Development Co., Ltd., and the provision for bad debts was 0 yuan.

"this part of the payment is due to the failure to supply and recover the prepaid timber purchase money generated in 2021 and before the change of the actual controller. After receiving the payment, Litong paid the payment to four forestland companies in Gabon in the form of prepaid timber purchase money. so it can finally be traced to four forestlands in Gabon. Although the net assets of the four forestland companies in Gabon are already negative, the value of the woodland needs to be further assessed, and if the economic environment can improve, it may also be able to generate some income in the future to repay this part of the arrears or supply. At the same time, in order to solve the st problem of the company, the controlling shareholder put Yulin International out of the list of listed companies. In the process of issuing the table, the controlling shareholder also made a commitment to solve the problem. Therefore, although Litong has no assets to repay its debts, there is the possibility of future operating income in its woodland holdings, and the controlling shareholder has made a commitment to resolve the matter, so no provision has been made. " ST Wanlin staff explained to the "Huaxia Times" reporter. In addition, he said that the company is currently investigating the dereliction of duty of Huang Baozhong, the former controller of the company, and his management team in the course of business, such as advancing capital knowing that there are significant risks and failing to exercise the power of controlling shareholders, resulting in significant operating losses, and has sued the Shanghai Municipal Financial Court.

(source: Huaxia Times)