Securities code: Zhejiang Busen Garments Co.Ltd(002569) securities abbreviation: St BUSEN Announcement No.: 2022018
Zhejiang Busen Garments Co.Ltd(002569)
Announcement on receipt of civil ruling for retrial
The company and all members of the board of directors guarantee that the information disclosed is true, accurate and complete without false records, misleading statements or major omissions.
Zhejiang Busen Garments Co.Ltd(002569) (hereinafter referred to as “the company”, “the company”, “listed company” or “BUSEN”) received the retrial civil ruling ((2022) Yue min Shen No. 1135) served by the higher people’s Court of Guangdong Province on April 27, 2022, and ruled to reject the retrial application of the retrial applicant Shenzhen Qianhai Huineng Financial Holding Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Qianhai Huineng”). The relevant matters are hereby announced as follows:
1、 Preliminary disclosure of this litigation
With regard to this lawsuit, the company has disclosed the announcement on receiving legal documents such as indictment and summons (Announcement No.: 2019057), announcement on receiving civil judgment (Announcement No.: 2020037), announcement on receiving civil ruling (Announcement No.: 2021081) and announcement on receiving civil ruling (Announcement No.: 2021081) on August 27, 2019, May 27, 2020, June 29, 2021 and February 19, 2022 respectively Announcement on receiving the notice of response to civil retrial cases (Announcement No.: 2022006). The main information is as follows:
(I) specific contents of indictment
Plaintiff: Shenzhen Qianhai Huineng Financial Holding Group Co., Ltd
Defendant 1: Tianma Bearing Group Co.Ltd(002122)
Defendant 2: Xu Maodong
Defendant 3: Fu Miao
Defendant 4: Kashgar Xinghe Venture Capital Co., Ltd
Defendant 5: Shanghai Ruiji asset management partnership (limited partnership)
Defendant 6: Zhejiang Busen Garments Co.Ltd(002569)
Defendant 7: Beijing Xinghe World Group Co., Ltd
Defendant 8: Xinghe Internet Group Co., Ltd
(the above eight defendants are collectively referred to as the “defendants”)
Facts and reasons:
The defendant 1 requested the plaintiff to borrow RMB 100 million (in words: RMB 100 million) for business needs. The plaintiff and the defendant 1 signed the loan contract on September 7, 2017, which agreed that the plaintiff would borrow RMB 100 million from the defendant for a period of 6 months and the loan interest rate was 3% per month. On September 7, 2017, the defendant 2 and the defendant 3 signed the guarantee contract with the plaintiff and assumed joint and several guarantee liabilities for the defendant 1’s performance of the obligations under the loan contract. On September 7, 2017, defendant 4, defendant 5, defendant 6 and defendant 7 signed a guarantee contract with the plaintiff and assumed joint and several guarantee liabilities for the defendant 1’s performance of the obligations under the loan contract. On September 7, 2017, the defendant 8 signed the guarantee contract with the plaintiff, and assumed joint and several guarantee liabilities for the defendant 1’s performance of the obligations under the loan contract.
According to the contract, the plaintiff provided a loan of RMB 30 million to the defendant’s designated account by bank transfer on September 8, 2017 (divided into two transactions, one of RMB 25 million and the other of RMB 5 million). After receiving the above loan, the defendant returned the principal of RMB 5 million on January 24, 2018. The remaining 25 million principal has not been returned after the expiration of the contract, and the defendant has not paid any interest since April 27, 2018. At the urging of the plaintiff, the first defendant still failed to pay the principal, interest and liquidated damages as agreed, and the second defendant, the third defendant, the fourth defendant, the fifth defendant, the sixth defendant, the seventh defendant and the eighth defendant also failed to perform the guarantee obligation.
The plaintiff believes that the loan contract signed by the plaintiff and the defendant is legal and valid; The guarantee contract signed between the defendant 2 and the defendant 3 and the plaintiff is legal and valid; The guarantee contract signed between defendant 4, defendant 5, defendant 6 and defendant 7 and the plaintiff is legal and valid; The guarantee contract signed by the defendant 8 and the plaintiff is legal and valid. All parties shall perform their contractual obligations in good faith, but the defendant refuses to pay the loan principal, interest and liquidated damages as agreed. The defendant 2, the defendant 3, the defendant 4, the defendant 5, the defendant 6, the defendant 7 and the defendant 8 also fail to perform their guarantee obligations. In order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff, the court is requested to make a judgment as requested.
Claim:
1. The court is requested to order the defendant I to return the principal of the plaintiff’s loan of RMB 2500000000 (in words: twenty-five million yuan only) and overdue interest. The overdue interest is calculated from April 27, 2018 to the date when the defendant I has repaid all the loans, and is temporarily calculated as RMB 700000000 until June 20, 2019.
2. The defendant is ordered to bear the litigation costs, preservation guarantee costs, preservation costs, etc. of the case.
3. The defendant 2, the defendant 3, the defendant 4, the defendant 5, the defendant 6, the defendant 7 and the defendant 8 are ordered to bear joint and several liabilities for the above three payment obligations of the defendant 1.
The provisional total amount is RMB 3200000000.
(II) judgment result of civil judgment of first instance
On May 19, 2020, the people’s Court of Qianhai cooperation zone in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province issued the civil judgment of the first instance of the case ((2019) Yue 0391 min Chu No. 3161).
According to articles 196, 197, 198, 205, 206 and 207 of the contract law of the people’s Republic of China, Articles 26, 29 and 30 of the provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the application of law in the trial of private lending cases, and Article 18 of the Guarantee Law of the people’s Republic of China, According to articles 64 and 144 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:
1、 The defendant Tianma Bearing Group Co.Ltd(002122) shall return the plaintiff Shenzhen Qianhai Huineng Financial Holding Group Co., Ltd. the loan principal of 25 million yuan and pay overdue interest (the overdue interest shall be calculated from April 27, 2018 to the date when the defendant pays off all the loan principal based on the principal of 25 million yuan and the annual interest rate of 24%);
2、 The defendant Tianma Bearing Group Co.Ltd(002122) shall pay the plaintiff Shenzhen Qianhai Huineng Financial Holding Group Co., Ltd. a lawyer’s fee of 158250 yuan within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment;
3、 The defendants Xu Maodong, Fu Miao, Kashgar Xinghe Venture Capital Co., Ltd., Shanghai Ruiji asset management partnership (limited partnership), Zhejiang Busen Garments Co.Ltd(002569) , Beijing Xinghe World Group Co., Ltd. and Xinghe Internet Group Co., Ltd. shall bear joint and several liability to the plaintiff Shenzhen Qianhai Huineng Financial Holding Group Co., Ltd. for the obligations of the defendant Tianma Bearing Group Co.Ltd(002122) in items I and II of this judgment;
4、 Reject other claims of the plaintiff Shenzhen Qianhai Huineng Financial Holding Group Co., Ltd.
If the obligation to pay money is not performed within the period specified in this judgment, the debt interest during the period of delayed performance shall be doubled in accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China.
The case acceptance fee of 201800 yuan (paid in advance by the plaintiff) is jointly borne by the defendants Tianma Bearing Group Co.Ltd(002122) , Xu Maodong, Fu Miao, Kashgar Xinghe Venture Capital Co., Ltd., Shanghai Ruiji asset management partnership (limited partnership), Zhejiang Busen Garments Co.Ltd(002569) , Beijing Xinghe World Group Co., Ltd. and Xinghe Internet Group Co., Ltd.
If the other party refuses to accept the judgment, it may file a copy of the appeal to the intermediate people’s Court of Guangdong Province within 15 days after the appeal is delivered to the intermediate people’s Court of Shenzhen.
(III) ruling result of civil ruling of second instance
On June 18, 2021, the intermediate people’s Court of Shenzhen, Guangdong Province issued the civil ruling of the second instance of the case ((2020) Yue 03 min Zhong No. 21418).
The court believes that in this case, on September 7, 2017, Qianhai Huineng financial holding company and Tianma Bearing Co., Ltd. signed the loan contract, which agreed that Tianma Bearing Co., Ltd. borrowed money from Qianhai Huineng financial holding company, and Zhejiang BUSEN Co., Ltd. and others provided guarantee for the loan. Tianma Bearing Co., Ltd. claims that the source of funds lent by Qianhai Huineng financial holding company is illegal. According to the investigation, before April 26, 2019, haihuineng financial holding company was put on file for investigation on suspicion of illegally absorbing public deposits, and the public security organ issued a notice requiring relevant enterprises and individuals in arrears to return the relevant funds to the special account for special collection in time. Therefore, the loan dispute in this case is suspected of criminal crime. 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, the prosecution of this case shall be rejected and transferred to the public security organ.
In conclusion, in accordance with 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, Article 119 and item 3 of paragraph 1 of Article 154 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China, it is determined as follows:
1、 Cancel the civil judgment (2019) Yue 0391 min Chu No. 3161 of the people’s Court of Shenzhen Qianhai cooperation zone, Guangdong Province;
2、 Reject the lawsuit of Shenzhen Qianhai Huineng Financial Holding Group Co., Ltd.
The case acceptance fee of the first instance of this case is 201800 yuan (Shenzhen Qianhai Huineng Financial Holding Group Co., Ltd. has paid in advance), which shall be returned to Shenzhen Qianhai Huineng Financial Holding Group Co., Ltd. by the court of first instance.
The case acceptance fee of the second instance is 403600 yuan ( Tianma Bearing Group Co.Ltd(002122) , Zhejiang Busen Garments Co.Ltd(002569) 201800 yuan in advance), which shall be returned to Tianma Bearing Group Co.Ltd(002122) , Zhejiang Busen Garments Co.Ltd(002569) .
This ruling is final.
2、 Basic information of retrial civil ruling
According to the retrial civil ruling served by the higher people’s Court of Guangdong Province ((2022) Yue min Shen No. 1135):
In the retrial, the applicant Shenzhen Qianhai Huineng Financial Holding Group Co., Ltd. and the respondent Tianma Bearing Group Co.Ltd(002122) , BUSEN Co., Ltd., Xu Maodong, Fu Miao, Kashgar Xinghe Venture Capital Co., Ltd., Shanghai Ruiji asset management partnership, Beijing Xinghe World Group Co., Ltd. and Xinghe mutual Group Co., Ltd. refused to accept the civil ruling of Guangdong Shenzhen intermediate people’s Court (2020) Yue 02 min Zhong No. 21418 due to private lending disputes, Apply to the court for retrial. The court formed a collegial panel for examination according to law, and the examination has been concluded.
Shenzhen Qianhai Huineng Financial Holding Group Co., Ltd. applied to the court for retrial, saying that the case and the so-called “suspected” criminal act are neither the same fact nor the same legal relationship. Each respondent is neither a suspect of the so-called “case of illegally absorbing public deposits” nor a fund-raising participant in the case of illegally absorbing public deposits. In fact, each respondent is the debtor of the retrial applicant. Request to revoke the ruling of second instance and retrial the case. The court believes that the focus of dispute in this case is whether the case should be accepted. Shenzhen Qianhai Huineng Financial Holding Group Co., Ltd. sued and claimed that on September 7, 2017, Shenzhen Qianhai Huineng Financial Holding Group Co., Ltd. and Tianma Bearing Group Co.Ltd(002122) signed a loan contract, which stipulated that Tianma Bearing Group Co.Ltd(002122) borrowed money from Shenzhen Qianhai Huineng Financial Holding Group Co., Ltd., and BUSEN shares and others provided guarantee for the loan. Now, Shenzhen Qianhai Huineng Financial Holding Group Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit to order Tianma Bearing Co., Ltd. to return the loan, and the guarantor shall bear the guarantee liability Tianma Bearing Group Co.Ltd(002122) claimed that the source of funds lent by Shenzhen Qianhai Huineng Financial Holding Group Co., Ltd. was illegal. The evidence in the case shows that on April 26, 2019, Shenzhen Qianhai Huineng Financial Holding Group Co., Ltd. was put on file for investigation on suspicion of illegally absorbing public deposits. The public security organ issued a notice requiring the relevant arrears enterprises and individuals to return the relevant funds to the special account for special collection in time. Therefore, the loan dispute in this case is suspected of criminal crime. 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 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 ruling to reject the prosecution has factual and legal basis.
In conclusion, in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 211 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China and paragraph 2 of article 393 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:
The retrial application of Shenzhen Qianhai Huineng Financial Holding Group Co., Ltd. was rejected.
3、 Does the company have any other major litigation and arbitration matters that have not been disclosed
As of the disclosure date of this announcement, the company has no other litigation and arbitration matters that should be disclosed but not disclosed, except for the cases that have been disclosed and this disclosure.
4、 Possible impact of this re litigation on the company’s profits in the current period or after the current period
The loan dispute in this case has been transferred to the public security organ for investigation because the lender qianhaihuineng is suspected of the criminal crime of illegally absorbing public deposits. According to Article 4 of the notice on the case of Shenzhen Qianhai Huineng Financial Holding Group Co., Ltd. suspected of illegally absorbing public deposits (hereinafter referred to as the “notice”) issued by Futian branch of Shenzhen Municipal Public Security Bureau, the public security organ warned the relevant arrears enterprises and individuals to fulfill their repayment obligations in accordance with the law and return the relevant funds to the special account for special collection as soon as possible.
The company believes that the company is not the suspect, illegal fund raiser and illegal fund-raising helper of the criminal case of illegally absorbing public deposits suspected by Qianhai Huineng; The company shall not be liable for guaranteeing the performance of the obligation of repaying the illegal fund-raising funds and their proceeds. This ruling and the case of qianhaihuineng illegally absorbing public deposits have no significant adverse impact on the financial situation of the company.
The company will fulfill the obligation of information disclosure in time according to the progress. Please pay attention to the investment risks. The information disclosure media designated by the company are China Securities News, securities times, securities daily and cninfo. Com. All information of the company shall be subject to the announcement published by the company in the above media. This lawsuit
