"Eradicating" the original defendant: a multimillion dollar scavenger on the Hubei Red An loan route to the company's dissolution

Once both companies are in liquidation, they will be able to take care of their own business.

And de-legalize,

The current case of human rights violations is 120 million yuan.

"The plaintiff has no subject matter,

The defendant was also untargeted” and was completely dead.

The court has already ruled that the preservation of property will be reduced to waste paper.

The legal recourse to large-scale transferred assets will be completely cut off.

And in the process of liquidation,

The company's books are extremely vulnerable to “legal” loss, and the company's books are not available for sale.

Criminal pursuits have not been advanced.

A battle over control and interests around the district core commercial landmarks, which involved over billions of yuan, was being plunged into judicial ssawing in the Red An district of Hubei Province.

At the vortex centre of the case is Hubei Shengland Real Estate Development Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Hineiland”) and its associated company, Hubei Hengzheng Asset Operations Management Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Hinzung Company”). Several judicial instruments and correspondence indicate that this dispute over the right to know of a previously common shareholder is extremely difficult after it has entered the enforcement phase. The Executive Board of the Red An District People ' s Court faced allegations of negative implementation and procedural irregularities during its implementation for months.

What is even more disturbing is that after a number of years of litigation that led to the legal takeover of the company by its major shareholders and the prosecution of Henzheng for the theft of billions of dollars in rent, the Chinese firm’s real-account owner, Lee Seung-hwa, quickly dropped a rare litigation strategy: promoting the “dissolution” of the company in two companies.

The mystery of the hundreds of millions of dollars in financial flows, through both the plaintiff and the defendant in the “extermination” of the violation at the judicial and business levels, is at risk of being buried in its entirety.

1. “Max” in the Executive Board

All the core secrets are in the books of Henzheng.

On 17 April 2026, the Huanggang Intermediate People ' s Court issued a final judgement (2026) No. 997 of the 11th People ' s Final, which upheld the right of the shareholders of Henzheng to know Yuhua and ordered Henzheng to provide all the books of accounts and documents that had been made available for consultation since its establishment in

1. Ten days later, on 27 April, the case was opened in the People ' s Court of Red An District.

However, the effective judgement landed at the Executive Board of the Red An District Court, but entered a complex “maze”.

According to the applicant, Zhang Hua, after the judgement came into force, Li Xheng, the legal representative of Hengzheng Company (the son of Lee Seung-hwa), set a pre-condition for “the number of persons to be checked” to “the waiver of rights if he did not attend on time”.

Moreover, Li Xingxing first claimed that “the books were in Zhonghua's office”, and later wrote to Zhenghua to refute the “false” and then claimed that there were significant deficiencies in the information returned by the public security organs.

However, the handover records of the public security organs show that 141 books and all the documents that were retrieved in 2019 were returned to Hengzheng after the end of the investigation and were signed and received by Li Seong-gwan, wife and finance officer Chen.

The more intense clashes occurred at the security site on 29 July 2026.

Red An County Court

Zhang Yuhua Fong stated that, on that day, the Chief Executive Officer of the Red An County Court, Zhibin, led a team to the office of the Shengji company (where the Henzheng company's books were located) to secure the seizure, but that the Executive Board's action on the ground was more like a “search” than a “security”. As an applicant with a direct interest in the outcome of the execution, Zheng Yuanhua was completely excluded from the scene, which led to a violent clash between Zheng Yuanhua and Zhibin.

During this period, a bank of over $20 million was released from control. According to the management, the Director of the Executive Board, Zilbin, had initially allowed Hengzheng’s accountant to remove the U-guilder, which was seized by the applicant at the door and was seized by a mobile phone and the evidence was used to justify the seizure.

Moreover, Zhivin allowed finance staff to enter passwords in paper to block the computer keyboard and to modify and remove financial information on the computer.

The integrity of the books has become the focus of the game.

"Señor Square, Red An"

The video trails available to the applicant indicate that the executed persons were suspected of burning and destroying a large number of company accounts near the office premises. On 12 June, the applicant submitted a reminder to the Court requesting that the information on the alleged refusal to enforce the sentence, the convictions and the deliberate destruction of the accounting documents by Lee Qing and others be forwarded to the public security authorities, without a substantive response from the Executive Directorate.

On 13 August, the Red An District Court held a hearing. The hearing transcript shows that the Court has focused on “the need to confirm the integrity of the books before they are consulted”. At the hearing, Li Xheng, the legal representative of Hengzheng, admitted that 141 books returned by the public security authorities were currently stored in the company ' s rented staff dormitories and were not in the closed-off financial rooms.

Even in the face of objective facts of the books of accounts, which are located in two places and are suspected of being damaged, the enforcement court has tended to set a direct time limit for access. The court stated clearly at the hearing: “If the applicant and the person concerned do not appear before the court, the applicant is deemed to have waived his right of access and the case is closed. The blogger adds:

A final decision requiring full access has evolved into a single issue of “access to the missing books” and “renunciation of rights” almost four months after the case was filed.

"Shotside Square, Hong An"

Established in 2011, the Bounty Company is responsible for developing the “Hounti Square” project, which operates the Red Ant core, and has introduced major stores such as Wal-Mart and hundreds of small businesses. In the company ' s equity structure, Zheng Yuanhua (held by Wu Yi Yim) accounted for 51 per cent of the shares and Lee Seung-hwa for 49 per cent.

It is alleged that since December 2020 to June 2026, the Lee Seung-hwa family (including its father, Lee Dao-chhang, his son Li Xheng) held the official seal, the license and control of the company, and that Lee Seung-hwa used the facilities of the control company to keep the store rent, property management fees and house sales that each year were generated in the Square, which was constantly imported into and retained in the company ' s accounts.

The initial check by the applicant is extremely alarming: in the last six years, henzheng has earned about 120 million yuan in operating income, while the cash on hand that is currently seized is only about 20 million yuan, leaving a significant amount of about 100 million yuan in unaccounted for.

The head of the company said that this was the underlying motivation for the Lee Seung-hwa family to block the Hengzheng account book and resist the enforcement of the Right to Information Judgement

1. Once the books are fully made public, the true flow of hundreds of millions of dollars to and potential for job appropriation and misappropriation of funds will be disclosed to the public.

(SINGING IN CHINA) I'm not sure.

In May 2025, after a failed internal communication, the major shareholder, Wu Yiqiang, convened a shareholders ' conference, which removed the former legal representative, Li Da-Chang, and elected Zhang Yuhua as the new legal representative. Lee Seung-hwa immediately filed an appeal against the decision to withdraw. Finally, the Huanggang Intermediate People ' s Court, by final judgement No. 961 (2026), confirmed the validity of the shareholders ' council resolution.

On 14 July 2026, the hard-earned and troubled company finally completed the business change register of the legal representative, and the major shareholders took over the company at the legal level. Subsequently, the company filed a tort suit (2026) against 1122 people in the Red An County Court, No. 2830, demanding that Henzheng and Lee Seung-hwa, Lee Da Chang and Li Qing, along with others, return the confiscated proceeds of approximately 120 million yuan.

Between 19 July and 30 July, the Red An County Court issued a number of intensive preservation decisions prohibiting Henzheng from continuing to charge fees to its merchants and freezing his 15 million bank deposits and 49 per cent of his interest in Lee Seung-hwa.

The web of judicial accountability is being tightened, but counter-attacks are also coming.

"Señor Square, Red An"

On 17 July 2026, just three days after the Singji Company legally completed the change of legal representative registration, Lee Seung-hwa filed a complaint against the dissolution of Company No. 3565 (2026) O1,122 people before the Red An District Court.

In the indictment, Lee Seung-hwa described the company's “long-standing rivalry” in “suspect management as having serious difficulties”, not only in making no profit but in “defeating debt and being classified as a disbelieving person” and demanded that the company be dissolved under the Companies Act.

This indictment is extremely unusual in legal and commercial logic. In the six years of the illegal management company Lee Seung-hwa, it never advocated a “no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no The motive for the dissolution of the company was questioned at the critical point where the major shareholders had just completed the change of registration and had already filed a 120 million tort claim in court.

Source: Wecless Public, “The Play Revie”