news

Da Wan News On August 7, Da Wan News reporter learned that the Xicheng District People's Court of Beijing has cancelled the judicial sale page of "130 million yuan factory sold for 18,000 yuan". According to insiders, if this sale is not cancelled, the huge debts of related creditors will be irrecoverable.

Question: Why did the price increase drop from 100,000 yuan each time to 0.01 yuan each time?

A reporter from Da'an News checked the auction records released by JD.com's asset trading platform and found that this factory building with a nominal value of 130 million yuan had three auction records: the starting price of the first auction was more than 91.4 million yuan, the bidding deposit was 18 million yuan, the increment was 100,000 yuan, and the bidding period was 1 day; the starting price of the second auction was more than 73.12 million yuan, the bidding deposit was 14 million yuan, the increment was 100,000 yuan, and the bidding period was 1 day.

Both the first and second auctions failed because no one signed up to participate.

On July 17, the Xicheng District People's Court of Beijing issued a sale notice stating: "The property to be auctioned is property involved in a criminal case. The property failed to sell at the last auction, so this court will auction it without a reserve price."

Starting from August 2, the property entered the sale stage with a reference price of 130,576,350 yuan, a sale price of 1 yuan, a sale prepayment of 1 yuan, a deposit of 0.2 yuan, and an increase of 0.01 yuan.

One shot failed

Second auction failed

When selling without reserve price, it was sold at an ultra-low price of 18,000 yuan

A comparison shows that the bidding deposit dropped from 18 million (first auction) to 14 million (second auction), and finally to 0.2 yuan in the sales stage; the bid increase also dropped from 100,000 yuan to 0.01 yuan.

Whether it is an organization or an individual, as long as you pay 1 yuan in advance, you can participate in this sale, thus attracting 140 bidders to participate in the bidding.

Online platform: The sale rules are formulated and interpreted by the executing court

Some people question whether there is any legal basis for selling an object with a nominal value of 130 million yuan for 1 yuan?

Some lawyers also pointed out that "for assets with a reference price of over 100 million yuan, the selling price is 1 yuan, the prepaid sale amount is 1 yuan, the deposit is 0.2 yuan, and the increase is 0.01 yuan." Such a no-reserve-price sale rule is obviously unreasonable.

Bid record

At 10 a.m. on August 2, after the no-reserve sale began, nearly a hundred people raced against time to bid for this huge factory building worth 130 million yuan.

When participating in the auction as a natural person, a reporter from Da Wan News found that there were two buttons on the bidding page, one was the "increase" button and the other was the "bid" button. If the bidder directly presses the "bid" button to bid, the system will automatically add 0.01 yuan to the current price to become the latest bid; if the bidder wants to increase the price significantly to get rid of other bidders, he can continue to click the "increase" button, and the button will start from "0.01 yuan and increase in sequence to become a new increase". Da Wan reporters found that there was no button on the bidding page to change the bid amount by themselves, and it was very difficult for bidders to increase the price significantly at once, so they gave up and continued bidding.

On the morning of August 6, a reporter from Da Wan News called the JD auction platform according to the contact number (4006229586) on the sale announcement. The platform staff told the reporter that the rules of this sale were formulated by the executing court, and the content of the sale announcement was uploaded to the online platform by court personnel, and should be interpreted by the Beijing Xicheng District People's Court.

Priority purchaser: I thought I could purchase first without participating in the auction

Da Wan News reporter checked the sale announcement and found that there was a priority purchaser for this sale - Anhui Rijing Control Technology Co., Ltd. The current status of the house is that Anhui Rijing Control Technology Co., Ltd. actually occupies and uses it. However, during the entire auction process, no bidder marked as "priority purchaser" was found to bid.

According to the auction rules, the person with the right of first refusal must bid together with other bidders, otherwise he will be deemed to have automatically waived his right of first refusal.

The factory being sold

Is this preferential purchaser "Rijing" or "Rijing"? Are these two companies the same company? Why did they not participate in the bidding? Dawan News reporter inquired and called Anhui Rijing Control Technology Co., Ltd., and Ms. Zhou from the company's office told him that Anhui Rijing Control Technology Co., Ltd. is the preferential purchaser of this sale, and the name "Anhui Rijing Control Technology Co., Ltd." is wrong. The court got the company name wrong.

Ms. Zhou said that although the Beijing Xicheng District People's Court recognized the company as the preferred purchaser, no one told the company that it "must participate in the auction to obtain the priority purchase qualification." The company's leaders have always believed that no matter how much others bid for the property, the court will eventually confirm that "Rijing" is the final preferred purchaser.

A reporter from Da Wan News explained that according to the judicial sale announcement, the sale has ended and the company has waived its qualification as the right of first refusal.

Ms. Zhou said that the court did not inform the company of the specific time when the sale would begin, and when the company leaders found out that the sale had ended, they were very surprised. She believed that the sale was unreasonable, especially that "bidding for a property worth 130 million yuan by increasing the price by 1 cent each time felt like a fake!"

Bidder: A stranger called me and asked me not to raise the price

Mr. Wang, a citizen of Hefei, is an employee of Anhui Rijing Control Technology Co., Ltd. As a natural person, he received the news and participated in the auction.

He said that he had bid several times since August 2, until the afternoon of August 4, when he suddenly received a call from the number 17822657818. The caller told him, "Don't raise the price anymore. Just give me the house and I'll pay you." Mr. Wang was very surprised: Who is this person? Why would he stop him from bidding? "Bidding is my private matter. Who leaked the news of my participation in the auction? Who leaked my phone number to the other party?" Mr. Wang felt terrified. "I don't know who the other party is. I'm worried that he will retaliate, so I gave up raising the price."

"I wonder if this person called every bidder?" Mr. Wang was still frightened.

A reporter from Da Wan News told Mr. Wang about his experience: "I also participated in the auction, but no one called me to stop me from continuing to bid; I gave up bidding because this auction was a waste of time and I had my own job."

Mr. Wang said it was this mysterious number that stopped him from continuing to bid

Mr. Wang took screenshots of the call record between him and the mysterious person and sent them to the Da Wan News reporter. The Da Wan News reporter found that 17822657818 was a number from Tianjin, and the call with Mr. Wang lasted for 2 minutes and 24 seconds at 17:50 on August 4.

A reporter from Da'an News called 17822657818, but the number could not be connected. The phone voice prompt said: "The number you dialed cannot be connected. Please call the merchant again through Douyin. You need to enter the mobile phone number you are currently using when calling."

The court responded: We will report the situation after the investigation is complete.

After several twists and turns, at around 11:30 on August 6, the Da Wan News reporter finally dialed the court's reporting and supervision phone number and stated his identity, hoping to interview and answer questions from the public. The staff explained that due to the recent office move, the supervision and reporting phone line was not connected in time. The Da Wan News reporter asked for the mobile phone number of Judge Ling, the judge handling the case. The staff said that the judge's mobile phone number could not be disclosed and suggested that the reporter call the judge's office for an interview during the afternoon work. So the reporter left his own phone number, hoping that the judge handling the case would contact the reporter when he was free to answer questions.

Around 4 p.m. on August 6, someone claiming to be Judge Gong of the Xicheng District People's Court in Beijing called Da Wan News and said that Judge Ling, the judge in charge of the sale, could not be interviewed by reporters because of something else and could not provide Judge Ling's mobile phone number. Judge Gong said that she did not know the details of the sale and would report the situation to Da Wan News after she had investigated it thoroughly.

Latest development: The "sale" page has been removed by the court

On August 7, a reporter from Da Wan News logged into the JD auction platform again and found that the content related to the sale had been deleted.

A reporter from Da Wan News checked the order for his participation in this auction and saw that the order link showed "Sorry! The page you are visiting is disconnected."

A reporter from Da Wan News called the JD auction platform, and the platform staff said: The auction order you are inquiring about has been revoked by the court.

The reporter checked the auction order and it showed: "Sorry, the page you visited is disconnected"

The Da Wan News reporter called the Xicheng District People's Court again, and the staff told the Da Wan News reporter that the court leaders attached great importance to this incident and were organizing personnel to conduct a serious investigation and would definitely give the public a satisfactory answer.

Da Wan News reporter Zhang Hongjin

Editor: Peng Ling