Stock Code: 000752 stock abbreviation: * ST Xifa Announcement No.: 2022-017 Tibet Development Co.Ltd(000752)
Announcement on the progress of disputes involving the right of recourse of (2019) Chuan 0112 minchu No. 6523 bill
The company and all members of the board of directors guarantee that the information disclosed is true, accurate and complete without falsity
Records, misleading statements or material omissions.
Risk tips:
1. As of the announcement date, six bank accounts of the company have been frozen (five of the above frozen accounts are the accounts of the parent company, one is the account of the subsidiary Tibet Galaxy Trading Co., Ltd., and the company is a holding company. The freezing of the accounts involved has not affected the normal production and operation of the company’s business, and the above accounts are not the main bank accounts of the company). The amount frozen by the parent company is 327038000 yuan, The actual frozen amount is 2.0647 million yuan; The shares of Tibet Lhasa Beer Co., Ltd., Tibet Galaxy Trading Co., Ltd., Suzhou Huaxin shandalichuang investment enterprise (limited partnership), Sichuan Hengsheng Technology Development Co., Ltd. and Zhongcheng Shanda (Suzhou) Asset Management Co., Ltd. held by the company are frozen or waiting to be frozen. Please pay attention to the risks.
2. The company solemnly reminds investors that the information disclosure media designated by the company are China Securities News, securities times and cninfo（ http://www.cn.info.com.cn. ）, all information of the company is subject to the information published in the above designated media. Please pay attention to relevant announcements, invest rationally and pay attention to risks.
1、 Basic information of the case
The Board Office of Tibet Development Co.Ltd(000752) (hereinafter referred to as “the company” and “Tibet development”) received the subpoena, civil complaint, list of evidence and other materials of the dispute over the right of recourse of Rizhao Shenghui Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd. against the company’s bills ((2019) Chuan 0112 minchu No. 6523) served by the people’s Court of Longquanyi District, Chengdu City (hereinafter referred to as “the court”) on November 7, 2019. The plaintiff Rizhao Shenghui Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd. brought a lawsuit to the court on the grounds of the dispute over the right of recourse of the bill. The main claim is: to order the defendant Tibet development to pay the plaintiff 2 million yuan and interest (the interest is based on 2 million yuan and calculated according to the loan interest rate of the people’s Bank of China for the same period, from June 27, 2019 to the completion date of payment); Request that the defendants Jiangxi Xicheng Trading Co., Ltd. and shanneng International Energy Investment Co., Ltd. be jointly and severally liable for the first claim; It is requested to order that all expenses arising from the lawsuit in this case shall be borne by the above three defendants. The hearing time of this case is 9:30 a.m. on December 10, 2019.
At nearly 17:00 on December 6, 2019, the office of the board of directors of the company received a telephone notice from the people’s Court of Longquanyi District, Chengdu, 1 / Tibet Development Co.Ltd(000752)
Due to problems in the delivery of materials by the court to the defendant Jiangxi Xicheng Trading Co., Ltd., the hearing time of this case was postponed, and the specific time will be notified by the court. On the morning of December 9, 2019, the legal adviser of the company contacted the court for confirmation on the extension of the hearing of this case. On June 2, 2020, the office of the board of directors of the company received the subpoena, notice of proof and other materials sent by the people’s Court of Longquanyi District, Chengdu (hereinafter referred to as “the court”) on the case of (2019) Chuan 0112 minchu No. 6523. The court determined that the hearing time was 14:00 p.m. on June 29, 2020.
On the afternoon of June 29, 2020, the people’s Court of Longquanyi District of Chengdu organized a hearing on the case. The company appointed lawyers from Beijing Anbo (Chengdu) law firm to attend the trial. After the court investigation, court debate and final statement, the company appointed lawyers to propose to the court that Wang Chengbo, Wu Gang and others involved in the issuance of bills in the leading case are suspected of criminal crimes and have been arrested. The case materials should be transferred to the announcement authority for handling. The case was not adjudicated in court. According to the court records, it is tentatively scheduled to resume the court or adjudicate in the morning of July 10, 2020.
On July 10, 2020, the company obtained the civil ruling of Chengdu Longquanyi District People’s Court ((2019) Chuan 0112 minchu No. 6523) through the lawyer of Beijing Anbo (Chengdu) law firm. The main contents are as follows: Chengdu Longquanyi District People’s court has found that the former legal representative of Tibet development, Wang Chengbo The former director Wu Gang and others were criminally detained by the public security organ and arrested with the approval of the procuratorial organ on suspicion of economic crimes, including contract fraud and misappropriation of funds. During the trial, Tibet development stated that the acceptance bill issued in the dispute in this case may fall within the scope of the criminal offence of Wang Chengbo and others, According to Article 11 of the provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on several issues involving the suspicion of economic crimes in the trial of economic dispute cases, “if the people’s court accepts a case as an economic dispute and believes that it is not an economic dispute case but is suspected of economic crimes, it shall rule to reject the prosecution and transfer the relevant materials to the public security organ or procuratorial organ”, The court transferred the case to Lhasa Public Security Bureau for handling. In accordance with Item 4 of Article 119, item 3 of paragraph 1 of Article 154 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China and Article 11 of the provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on several issues involving suspicion of economic crimes in the trial of economic dispute cases According to the third paragraph of Article 208 of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China, the ruling is as follows: reject the lawsuit of Rizhao Shenghui Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd. If you are not satisfied with this ruling, you can submit a petition to the people’s Court of Longquanyi District of Chengdu within 10 days from the date of service of the ruling and appeal to the intermediate people’s Court of Chengdu. On March 11, 2021, the company obtained the subpoena of Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court of Sichuan Province ((2021) Chuan 01 min Zhong No. 6674). The plaintiff Rizhao Shenghui Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd. appealed against the first instance judgment of Chengdu Longquanyi District People’s court. The court session was held at 13:30 on March 23, 2021.
On March 24, 2021, the office of the board of directors of the company received the opening statement of the (2021) chuan01 Minzhong No. 6674 bill recourse dispute case provided by Beijing Anbo (Chengdu) law firm. The main contents are as follows: in the afternoon of March 23, 2021, the intermediate people’s court of Chengdu, Sichuan Province organized a second instance hearing, The company appoints Beijing Anbo (Chengdu) lawyer 2 / Tibet Development Co.Ltd(000752)
The lawyer of the firm attended the trial. After the court investigation (including the parties’ statement, proof and cross examination), court debate and final statement, the company appointed a lawyer to put forward to the court: 1. The appellant Rizhao Shenghui Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd. obtained the bill involved in the case through bill discount, and the appellant is not a legal holder; 2. According to the available evidence, it is sufficient to determine that Wang Chengbo, the then legal representative of Tibet development and Wu Gang, the director of Tibet development, took advantage of Tibet development to commit a series of economic crimes. The bills involved in the case are not economic dispute cases but suspected of economic crimes; 3. According to Article 11 of the provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on several issues involving the suspicion of economic crimes in the trial of economic dispute cases, if the people’s court accepts a case as an economic dispute and believes that it is not an economic dispute case but is suspected of economic crimes, it shall rule to reject the prosecution and transfer the relevant materials to the public security organ or inspection organ.
In conclusion, the company believes that the court of first instance found the facts correct and the applicable law correct, and should reject the appeal according to law and maintain the original ruling. The case was not pronounced in court.
On April 7, 2021, the office of the board of directors of the company received the Sichuan intermediate people’s Court (2021) No. 6674 civil ruling, the main contents of which are as follows: the court believes that the first paragraph of Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China stipulates that “the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence for their own claims.” In this case, the evidence submitted by Tibet development can only prove that Wang Chengbo, Wu Gang and others are suspected of criminal crimes, but can not prove that the facts of their suspected crimes are related to this case, and their evidence is lack of relevance. Therefore, The court of first instance only based on Tibet development’s statement that “the acceptance bill issued in the dispute in this case may fall within the scope of criminal crimes committed by Wang Chengbo and others”, and determined that this case is not an economic dispute case and is improperly suspected of economic crimes, and this court shall correct it according to law. According to Article 10 of the provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on several issues involving the suspicion of economic crimes in the trial of economic dispute cases “In the trial of economic dispute cases, if the people’s court finds the clues and materials of economic crime suspected of being involved in the case but not having the same legal relationship with the case, it shall transfer the clues and materials of crime suspected to the relevant public security organ or procuratorial organ for investigation and punishment, and the trial of economic dispute cases shall continue”, the case shall continue to be tried by the court of first instance. In conclusion, the plaintiff’s appeal of Rizhao Shenghui Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd. is established and should be supported. The first instance ruling rejected the plaintiff’s improper prosecution, and the court corrected it. According to Article 171 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China and article 332 of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China, the ruling is as follows: 1. Revoke the civil ruling (2019) Chuan 0112 min Chu No. 6523 of the people’s Court of Longquanyi District of Chengdu; 2. The case was ordered to be tried by the people’s Court of Longquanyi District, Chengdu. This ruling is final.
On November 5, 2021, the office of the board of directors of the company received a summons from the people’s Court of Longquanyi District, Chengdu ((2021) Chuan 0112 minchu No. 7150). The court informed that the hearing time of the case was 9:30 a.m. on January 4, 2022.
On January 5, 2022, the office of the board of directors of the company received the hearing on the dispute over the recourse of (2021) Chuan 0112 minchu No. 7150 bill involved by the company provided by the appointed lawyer. The main contents are as follows: on the morning of January 4, 2022, the people’s court of Longquanyi District of Chengdu City held a hearing on Rizhao Shenghui Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd., Tibet development Shanneng International Energy Investment Co., Ltd. 3 / Tibet Development Co.Ltd(000752)
The first instance of the bill recourse dispute of limited company was reiterated, and a court hearing was organized.
The company appointed lawyers from Beijing Anbo (Chengdu) law firm to attend the trial. After the court investigation (including the parties’ statement, proof and cross examination), court debate and final statement, the company appointed a lawyer to propose to the court: 1. The plaintiff Rizhao Shenghui Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd. obtained the bill involved in the case through bill discount, and the plaintiff is not a legal holder; 2. According to the available evidence, it is sufficient to determine that Wang Chengbo, the former legal representative of Tibet development, and others took advantage of Tibet development to commit a series of economic crimes when the bills involved in the case were issued. The bills involved in the case are not economic dispute cases but suspected of economic crimes; 3. According to Article 11 of the provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on several issues involving suspicion of economic crimes in the trial of economic dispute cases, if the people’s court accepts a case as an economic dispute and considers that it is not an economic dispute case but suspected of economic crimes, it shall rule to reject the prosecution and transfer the relevant materials to the public security organ or procuratorial organ; 4. Even if the court considers that this case belongs to the scope of civil cases, Rizhao Shenghui Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd. has no real transaction relationship and creditor’s right and debt relationship, is not a legal holder, and cannot exercise the rights of the bill; 5. The lawyer filed a counterclaim to request Rizhao Shenghui Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd. to return the bill and the rights on the bill. To sum up, we urge the court to reject all claims of Rizhao Shenghui Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd. according to law, and urge the court to support all counterclaims of the company according to law. The case was not pronounced in court.
On January 12, 2022, the office of the board of directors of the company received the civil judgment of the people’s Court of Longquanyi District, Chengdu, Sichuan Province ((2021) Chuan 0112 minchu No. 7150), the main contents of which are as follows: the court believes that, According to Article 10 of the negotiable instruments law of the people’s Republic of China, “the issuance, acquisition and transfer of negotiable instruments shall follow the principle of good faith and have a true transaction relationship and creditor’s right and debt relationship. The acquisition of negotiable instruments must pay consideration, that is, the corresponding consideration recognized by both parties to the instrument shall be paid” Article 2 of the provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the trial of bill dispute cases “according to Article 10 of the bill law, the debtor (and the drawer) of the bill If a lawsuit is brought for the return of the bill on the grounds that the basic relationship when the bill is not transferred is illegal, the two parties do not have a real transaction relationship and creditor’s right and debt relationship, and the holder pays the consideration but fails to pay the consideration, the people’s court shall accept it according to law, The plaintiff Rizhao Shenghui Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Rizhao Shenghui Company”) has a real transaction relationship and creditor’s right and debt relationship, It submitted to the court the automobile sales contract signed with Rizhao Guangchuan Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Rizhao Guangchuan company”), five printed copies of vehicle invoice and one copy of situation statement issued by the plaintiff to Rizhao Fengbang Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Rizhao Fengbang company”), Although the plaintiff provided the automobile sales contract signed with richao Guangchuan company, it could not provide the vehicle delivery form, acceptance form, vehicle purchase tax certificate and other documents with Rizhao Guangchuan company to confirm the authenticity of the automobile sales fact; Secondly, the plaintiff claimed that he had resold the car under the car sales contract to the outsider Rizhao Fengbang company, and provided 5 printed copies of the vehicle invoice issued to Rizhao Fengbang company to prove the existence of the transfer. After investigation, the vehicle model, vehicle quantity and The automobile price is inconsistent with the automobile sales contract, and the plaintiff is not 4 / Tibet Development Co.Ltd(000752)
It is also inconsistent with common sense that it can provide the car sales contract and corresponding payment voucher signed with Rizhao Fengbang company, the outsider, and the resale price of 353000 yuan specified in the unified invoice for motor vehicle sales is significantly lower than 356000 yuan specified in the car sales contract; Third, the statement of circumstances issued by the plaintiff is unilateral evidence and is not admissible; In conclusion, the evidence provided by the plaintiff cannot prove that it has a real transaction relationship and creditor’s right and debt relationship with Rizhao Guangchuan company, and it shall bear the adverse legal consequences of failure to provide evidence; The counterclaim request of Tibet Development Co.Ltd(000752) is established and the court supports it.
In accordance with Article 10 of the bill law of the people’s Republic of China, Article 2 of the provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the trial of bill dispute cases, and articles 67 and 144 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China
