news

A factory worth 130 million yuan was sold for 18,000 yuan? The creditor was so angry that he almost fainted: If the transaction was more than 30 million yuan, the debt would be ruined

2024-08-11

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

A factory building in Hefei, Anhui Province with an assessed value of 130 million yuan was auctioned by the Beijing Xicheng District People's Court with a starting price of 1 yuan, and the final transaction price was only 18,000 yuan.

On August 5, 2024, Anhui local media Da Wan News reported the auction on the JD.com auction platform that day. The huge contrast between the transaction price and the appraisal price attracted widespread attention and criticism.

On August 7, the auction platform deleted all information about the sale. Public information shows that the Xicheng District People's Court said that the court attaches great importance to this incident and is carefully investigating the organizers and will definitely give the public a satisfactory answer.

On August 8, a reporter from The Paper went to Yunfei Road in Hefei High-tech Zone. The building involved in the case is 6 stories high and covers an area of ​​about 5 acres. It is currently a production and office space rented by Anhui Rijing Control Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Rijing Company).

The factory was previously auctioned off, but now it has been cancelled. What exactly happened?

The appraisal price is 7158 times the transaction price

Starting from July 7, the Xicheng District People's Court of Beijing issued an announcement on the JD Asset Trading Platform. The announcement shows that the Xicheng District People's Court of Beijing will conduct a public sale on the JD.com judicial auction network platform of the Xicheng District People's Court of Beijing from 10:00 on August 2, 2024 (the sale period is 60 days) (excluding the bidding period and delay) (court account name: Xicheng District People's Court of Beijing). The total number of floors of the house is 6, the floors where the assessment object is located are 1-6, the total construction area is 9550.64 square meters, the house structure is reinforced concrete, and the planned use is industrial.

The factory building with a total construction area of ​​9,550.64 square meters and a market price of 130 million yuan was sold for 1 yuan. The final transaction price was only 18,000 yuan, with the price per square meter being less than 2 yuan.

The announcement shows that the auctioned property is property involved in a criminal case. The property failed to be sold in the last auction, so this court will auction it without a reserve price. The reference price is 130,576,350 yuan, the sale price is 1 yuan, the sale prepayment is 1 yuan, the deposit is 0.2 yuan, and the increase is 0.01 yuan.

According to Da Wan News, the auction started at 10:00 on August 2, and soon someone offered 1 yuan to bid. The auction ended at 06:10:13 on August 5, and the final bid was 18,161.97 yuan. The bidder was a natural person named Liu Tao.

Compared with the transaction price of 18,161.97 yuan, the appraisal reference price of 130,576,350 yuan is 7,158 times the former.

The reporter from The Paper learned that if the auction is finally completed successfully, Liu, the creditor of the factory involved in the case, will become the biggest victim. Many years ago, Liu sold the factory to the person being executed in this case.

An insider said that about 10 years ago, Liu sold the factory by transferring equity and only received part of the funds. The debt was originally frozen by the local court in Hefei. "Who would have thought that the buyer was arrested for illegal absorption of public deposits, involving more than 10 billion yuan. The case was heard in Beijing, and according to the principle of criminal first and civil second, the case was transferred to Beijing."

This statement has not been confirmed by the court system.

Public reports show that Liu said: "If this building is sold for 18,000 yuan, the more than 30 million yuan debt owed to me by the owner of this building will be completely ruined. On the morning of August 5, when I saw the bidding for the sale of 18,000 yuan ended, I was so angry that I almost fainted. That day, I took my whole family to report the situation to the Beijing Xicheng District People's Court."

The first refusal party has not received any notification?

On the morning of August 8, a reporter from The Paper went to Yunfei Road in Hefei High-tech Zone.

Public information shows that the Hefei Hi-Tech Zone covers an area of ​​194 square kilometers. It is the core area of ​​Hefei National Comprehensive Science Center, the National Independent Innovation Demonstration Zone, and the core area of ​​USTC Silicon Valley. It is the main carrier for Hefei to build a science and technology city.

This is the core area of ​​Hefei Hi-Tech Zone, only a few hundred meters away from iFLYTEK Voice Industry Base.

The building involved in the case is 6 stories high and covers an area of ​​about 5 mu. It is currently the production and office space of Rijing Company. A staff member said that it was rented by the company.

Rijing Company has a preferential purchase right in this sale.

Public reports show that during the entire auction process, no bidders marked as "preferred purchasers" were found to have made bids. Ms. Zhou from the company's office said that the court did not notify the company of the specific time when the auction would begin, and when the company's leaders found out that the sale had ended, they were particularly surprised.

The auction that ended on August 5 and was subsequently canceled had no impact here.

Why was this factory building, which was worth 130 million yuan, sold for 1 yuan? Why was the price increase limited to 0.01 yuan each time? What is the legal basis for this?

The auction transaction confirmation shows that the bidder is a natural person named Liu Tao. If the auction procedure is legal and compliant, and the auction result is revoked after the transaction, does the court need to compensate the successful buyer? What is the legal basis for the revocation?

As of August 9, the court has not yet responded to the above questions.

Previous reports