reported the case, denied, and blamed the blame. The incident of Gofei's 3.4 billion private equity fund stepped on the mine, and it has been twists and turns, and now it has become Rashomon. Chengxing fakes, JD.com denies, Noah reported the case, who is lying?
"From a macro perspective, the economy has reached the end of the cycle. When the economy is down, collateral is exhausted, and capital goods prices no longer rise, more and more explosions will explode, and systemic risks will become greater and greater. As an asset management institution with a certain scale, it is indeed difficult to avoid risks 100%. One of the fundamental reasons for the incident we encountered this time is that the macro market is currently at the end of the credit cycle, which may also be the fate of engaging in the financial industry that cannot resist."
This passage comes from a letter leaked on the evening of July 8, The founder and chairman of Noah Wealth internal communication sent to employees by Wang Jingbo .
This sudden and urgent communication occurred because of the reason: a fund managed by Gefei Asset Management with a total amount of approximately 3.4 billion yuan broke out.
Since then, the private equity fund's seller Noah Wealth , fund manager Gefei Assets, financing Chengxing International , and the underlying creditor JD , have become the protagonists of this 3.4 billion explosion case.
overnight, public opinion was in an uproar, and the incident attracted widespread attention.
On the morning of July 9, JD took the lead in clarifying. JD responded to the Investment China Network, saying, "This matter has nothing to do with JD ." After
JD responded, Gefei Asset made a new round of responses: the relevant parties of Chengxing International are JD suppliers, and there are a large number of long-term transactions between the two parties; Gefei has filed a judicial lawsuit against Chengxing and JD for this supply chain financing; Gefei is actively cooperating and respecting the results of the judicial investigation. What is the specific situation of this private equity fund that exploded in
?
Investment China.com found by querying the public information of private equity funds of the China Securities Investment Fund Association that there are 38 registered private equity funds containing the words "Chuangshi Core Enterprise". The fund managers are Gefei Asset Management Co., Ltd., Wuhu Gefei Asset Management Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Gefei Asset Management Co., Ltd., and the establishment time ranges from September 2015 to April 2018.
10 of the funds are currently displayed in advance liquidation status, and the two of them are only displayed as postponed liquidation. The 22 series containing the word "全" are currently displayed as in operation.
Why did this 3.4 billion fund explode? The attribution of the incident was said to be a fraud by Chengxing Holdings. Several parties denied whether Chengxing’s fraud was known. At present, the explosion case is in a situation of "Rashomon".
was involved in such a big explosion case, is JD known?
An institutional partner who is good at disposing of non-performing assets and restructuring followed China.com to analyze that if you have to guess the probability of fraud by these parties, " JD is less likely to participate in such fraud, and it is highly likely that Chengxing led the fraud incident."
"This matter has nothing to do with JD .It was Chengxing forged the business contract with JD for fraud against external fraud. We were very shocked about this behavior and have cooperated with the victim company to report the case. On the morning of July 9, in response to the above incident, JD official responded to Toutiao.com.
Regarding whether JD is aware of JD , an insider in the Internet finance industry questioned: JD own financial business, why does it have to cooperate with Gfei? In the whole process, Chengxing mainly plays a channel role. Now all parties know about the incident. Why does the fund last for so long and so large? Why do they have to wait until now to report the case?
An insider engaged in factoring business in the supply and marketing cooperative told Toutiao.com: JD supplies upstream and downstream It is very serious for chain enterprises to suppress payments. It is one of the important sources of income for JD . It is normal for Chengxing International to choose supply chain financing.
An employee of the financing department of an investment banking agency of a state-owned enterprise brokerage firm analyzed the matter to Investment Zhong.com, saying that JD only confirms accounts receivable but does not necessarily confirm rights for accounts receivable. The confirmation process of accounts receivable determines whether the debts of both buyers and sellers are established and whether the transaction is true.
This investment banker also revealed that many large state-owned enterprises are unwilling to cooperate with the confirmation of rights, so it is difficult for them to issue ABS. However, when selecting targets, securities companies still favor state-owned enterprises, such as Alibaba and JD . "We basically do not do ABS for private enterprises. "
" When we do accounts receivable pledge financing, we must confirm the rights of accounts receivable. Our kernel will review it, and the securities company's due diligence will still be more detailed. In addition, accounts receivable are easy to be fiction. The previous case of Dalian Machine Tool’s receivable ‘Radical Seal’ cheating of Zhongjiang Trust for 760 million yuan. "The above-mentioned investment banker said.
has such a big thing now. Has Gefei not done due diligence on the authenticity of JD accounts before? Has no one of the investors in private equity funds checked the underlying assets of the corresponding products?
In response, both Gefei and JD refused to respond further.
Such a huge financing number , the cost of fraud is so low?
The above-mentioned private equity fund manager analyzed to Toutiaozhong.com that the accounts receivable supply chain, as the investment target, is not a novel business, but is derived from the factoring business of traditional financial institutions.
Generally speaking, the key points of risk control for accounts receivable supply chain financing are upstream and downstream supply agreements, special VAT invoices and payment notices due. In addition to special VAT invoices, other documents are easily "falsed".
The private equity fund manager explained This is also the reason why many traditional financial institutions are slowly fading factoring business. Some value-added tax invoices are open every three months, so it is difficult to find the source. Upstream and downstream contracts and payment notices due are agreements in black and white, and it is too easy to "false".
If this incident is a drama "directed and acted by Chengxing International , it will be the "carrot seal incident" again. Noah, Gefei, and JD are all "victims" of this incident. But all this is The private equity fund manager has to wait until the police's investigation conclusion, and this private equity fund manager commented.
Speaking of "carrot seal", in March 2018, in a trust product issued by Zhongjiang Trust, Dalian Machine Tool's 760 million yuan receivable for BYD was fictional, and the official seal was also a carrot seal. This "carrot seal" case that attracted widespread attention at the time was seen in November last year: The Xihu District People's Court of Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province initially sentenced Dalian Machine Tool to commit fraudulent loans and sentenced a fine of 50 million yuan, and asked Dalian Machine Tool to return 600 million yuan of stolen money to Zhongjiang Trust.
4. The protagonist of Rashomon: There are loopholes in internal risk control?
As the manager of this 3.4 billion fund, how could Gefei not know about the big deal of forging a contract?
An internal training data picture released by Weibo blogger "Yuefeng_Investment Notes" on July 9 shows that the transaction structure and process of this fund product are as follows:
If the transaction process is indeed as mentioned above: without Noah's confirmation, Chengxing shall not transfer this receivable to other institutions or individuals, and JD does not accept Chengxing to change the above payment account. So one of the biggest doubts about this 3.4 billion explosion case:
As fund managers, does Gefei Asset have any problems with their risk control?
A private equity fund manager analyzed this matter to Toutiao.com: It is possible that Gefei Asset has not conducted a complete investigation and has not reviewed the corresponding information. However, there is indeed a low cost of fraud in financing accounts receivables. Risk control is only judged through surface or contract, and it is difficult to obtain authenticity.
How to confirm and verify the rights of real estate assets of accounts receivable?
The above-mentioned supply and marketing social security industry insider revealed to Toutiao.com that generally supply chain finance is a warehouse receipt, delivery order, transaction order, etc. The financing party ( Chengxing International ) provides transaction details to investors (Gofei Assets) to monitor, but whether this transaction details are real transaction details with JD . The key is to look at what risk control has Gefei Assets made on the authenticity of supply chain accounts of JD and Chengxing International .
"The most common thing is to give JD a fee, to realize the check of Chengxing International bills and JD ."
seems simple, but it is not simple in terms of operation details. "The commodity trade is too detailed, and the verification workload is very large, and the labor cost cannot be covered. Generally, it needs to be automatically monitored through software. JD has a large turnover." If you follow the software, then "at most it is a random check."
has exploded now, "Of course Chengxing has done his tricks. However, some of them are orders for JD , and the others are forged by himself, and then he deceived Gefei."
As a leading asset management company in China, Gefei currently controls these assets of 100 billion. How could he make such a mistake? In fact, as early as 5 years ago, the parent company of Gefei Capital had already stepped on the mine in the Jingtai incident.
5. The protagonist of Rashomon: Noah: 800 million funds were in danger 5 years ago
In the internal communication leaked, Wang Jingbo mentioned, "Everyone knows, in 2014, we encountered the Jingtai incident. At that time, we were blinded and had no experience in handling it."
Jingtai incident refers to: the Wanjia Win-win Jingtai Fund Asset Management Plan Project (hereinafter referred to as the "Jingtai Plan"), which was once known as "Noah's safest ABS", was exposed to have contract fraud and funds were maliciously misappropriated.
On August 13, 2014, news came out in the Shanghai public fund industry that the funds of the financial management product called "Wanjia Weight Jingtai Fund No. 1 to 4 Special Asset Management Plan " under Wanjia Weight were maliciously misappropriated, with the amount of funds reaching 800 million yuan.
and Noah Wealth is the fund seller of Jingtai Plan, and the issuer is Wanjia Win Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Wanjia Win"). According to media reports, Wanjia Win-Win is an asset management company established in February 2013 by Tianjin Gefei Asset Management Co., Ltd. and other institutions.
Investment Network checks Tianyan Check information and found that at present, Gefei Assets holds 28% of Wanjia Rongying Holdings and Wanjia Fund Management Co., Ltd. Holdings 60.8%. At that time, Wanjia Win-win staff told the media that the news of the misappropriation of funds was even learned from shareholder Gefei Asset Management.
According to the Economic Reference News, this financial product called "Wanjia Win Jingtai Fund No. 1 to 4 Special Asset Management Plan" was originally used to invest in some of the housing sales beneficiaries in cooperation with the Yunnan Branch of Bank of China.
However, on June 20, 2014, the cooperative company Shenzhen Jingtai violated the partnership agreement without the knowledge of the asset manager and investment consultant, and arbitrarily changed the investment strategy of Jingtai Phase I Fund and used the funds for other purposes.
After investigation, nearly 600 million yuan of the 800 million yuan misappropriated funds appeared in the account of a product of Jinyuan Baili Asset Management, an asset management subsidiary of another public fund company, Jinyuan Huili. The other 200 million yuan was used to repay a mature financial management project of Shenzhen Bank of China.
More than two years after the incident, in March 2017, the Shanghai Higher People's Court final trial. The two defendants, Li Zhigang, head of Shenzhen Wusi Fund, and Li Ruifeng, real estate developer in Chuxiong, Yunnan, were sentenced to life imprisonment and fined RMB 5 million and ten years of fixed-term imprisonment and fined RMB 3 million for contract fraud.
Some media reported that the qualitative judgment of the case dissipated the market's previous speculation and doubts about the transaction, bringing light to the report agency Noah and Wanjia win-win situation.
After 5 years, Gefei Assets has struck Chengxing for 3.4 billion yuan. Is the 3.4 billion yuan this time also misappropriated like the previous Jingtai incident? At present, the truth has been revealed and can only wait for the police to investigate the final investigation.
However, the incident just fermented, and a person from a non-performing asset disposal agency has already offered a price: "Based on the default debt of supply chain financial fraud, if such a subject is sold to us, our bid is likely to be less than 10%. "
Industry lawyers pointed out that if a creditor transfers his rights, he should notify the debtor. Without notice, the transfer will not be effective against the debtor. In other words, if the creditor Chengxing International Holdings in this incident wants to transfer the debt, it does not need to obtain the consent of the debtor JD , but only needs to notify the debtor JD .
6. The latest counterattack from JD : I hope Gefei faces management problems
However, the news just came out showed that JD is unwilling to remain silent anymore. A statement slapped Chengxing and Gefei respectively:
JD Statement of the Chengxing incident
1. Guangdong Chengxing Holding Group Co., Ltd. (referred to as Chengxing) is an ordinary supplier of JD and has certain business in JD . Without JD 's knowledge, Chengxing was suspected of forging contracts with companies such as JD to commit fraud. In this regard, JD has also reported the case to the local public security organs.
2. Shanghai Gefei Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Gefei) did not verify the authenticity of the contract with JD through any means during the fraud process, exposing its own major flaws in compliance and risk control. Regarding the fraud of Gefei, JD has actively cooperated with the police to investigate.
3. We hope that Goffie faces its management problems and does not try to shirk responsibility by confusing the public. Gefei's unreasonable lawsuit against JD has had a serious impact on the reputation of JD . JD solemnly condemned Gefei's actions of neglecting the facts and reserved the right to take legal measures against him.
Rashomon is still continuing, but more people are beginning to worry about the risk of the extension of this incident.
Independent researcher Guo Dagang raised his concerns about this matter: the absolute scale of 3.4 billion may not play a decisive role in the overall market, right? The key is to "see the smallest and know the truth"? From an external perspective, even for such leading institutions, there is still a lot of room for improvement in systems, right? At the end of the capital cycle, for institutions, internal control systems and professional capabilities, they will bear unprecedented pressure, right? What will the inter-institutional market react in the future? What certain situations will similar institutions face? Compared with the certainty, what is more worrying about the market is probably uncertainty?
Guo Dagang considered that this matter was not an isolated incident, but rather a landmark event in a certain stage of market development.
An industry insider engaged in supply chain finance research predicts that the risk events of supply chain finance will be exposed one after another in 2019. "The three core points of fraud risk, trading structure exposure, and liquidity risk are pressed to rise.” (Text/Buntang Chenxi Ellie Editor/Li Xiaoli Source/Touzhong.com)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-