Recently, I saw a verdict and thought it was a little interesting, hoping to help everyone avoid a little risk.
Because the case is a thing, in judicial practice, it is particularly valuable.
Generally speaking, what are the underlying assets of Sino-Turkish Trust? It's real estate. Most trusts only recognize real estate, after all, real estate as collateral, is valuable, and other things, have a wool value.
As you like, whatever production line and equipment you have, you can only use scrap iron as a price. Wood has a way, this is the national condition.
Of course, real estate can be mortgaged as the underlying assets, this is the last way, the trust company still has to take money, no one wants to take a few buildings in the end.
So when doing risk control, by the way, I am doing risk control, and I will definitely require that the money in the real estate company's account, such as pre-sale money, also be used as a source of repayment.
In this way, the interests of investors can be guaranteed to the greatest extent.
But a recent judgment makes this risk control measure meaningless.
It is said that there is a trust called Daye Trust, the name is very good, maybe the trust owner is more fond of Sui and Tang history.
This trust, invested a sum of money to a real estate company, and then the real estate company could not pay back the money, the trust company sued for freezing in 2021, and took back 234 million from the pre-sale account.
Debt repayment, right?
But, things have changed a bit.
In 2022, the housing bureau in Tangshan, where the real estate company is located, sued the trust again, saying that the money could not be repaid because the pre-sale money could only be used for construction:
Then, the trust, was executed.
Is there any basis for it? Yes.
Article 6 of the Measures for the Supervision of Pre-sale Funds for Tangshan Commodity Housing stipulates that all proceeds from the pre-sale of commercial housing shall be deposited into the supervision account, and the regulatory authorities shall carry out key supervision over the part of the key supervision quota and give priority to ensuring the construction of the project.
Article 45 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Administration of Urban Real Estate stipulates that "the proceeds from the pre-sale of commercial housing must be used for relevant engineering construction", the pre-sale funds of commercial housing involved in this case were originally used for the construction of the construction project, but due to the enforcement of the Guangzhou Intermediate Court, the project has been completely stopped, which has caused great damage to the interests of buyers, so that mass incidents and large-scale "banner pulling" occurred.
Well, now there are two truths in front of us.
One, is to owe money to the debt;
One, is the Baojiao building.
At present, it is the second truth that overwhelms the first.
After all, ensuring the delivery of the building is already a ZZ task, so it is a bitter investor.
But, investors and real estate companies should not be opposites, they are originally friends.
Lend money to a real estate company, which builds a house and sells it to earn money to pay it back.
So why not? It must have been moved, and the borrowed money was paved for a bigger stall.
Therefore, the logic now becomes, trust sues real estate, housing construction sues trust.
Little truth, obey the big reason.
But, here comes the problem again.
What is a trust company, it is an intermediary, and the money invested by the trust company is an investor.
After getting the money back, return it to the investor according to the contract, it is only right. What if the trust company has already returned the money to the investor? When investors get their investment money back, do they also have to "return", and to whom will they return their money?
It doesn't seem appropriate, and I'm sure justice won't do that either.
So, do you have money on the books and take it?
It doesn't seem to be appropriate, in case it is an investor who invests in other projects and has nothing to do with this project, is it reasonable at all? I still believe that when the judiciary is executed, confrontation with a bona fide third party should not happen.
Who is the most innocent person in this matter, which is two groups of people:
Home buyers, and investors.
Relatively innocent, it is the trust company, and the local housing bureau;
Who is the most problematic? It's a real estate developer, where did you get the money?
Now, all parties are protecting their interests and doing the relatively right thing. The trust company takes the money back to the investor, there is no problem; The housing bureau chased money to ensure the handover of the building, and there was no problem; Real estate developers hide and pretend to be dead, and there is nothing wrong with them.
Then, let's see, who will bear the cost, anyway, either to buy a house, or to invest.
What is the most likely result of this event? Is the execution of nothing, the investor gets his money back, you say break the sky, can not let the family return, unless the trust company has not returned the money to them.
Executing other investors is even more inappropriate.
It's okay if the implementation is fruitless, and the housing construction certificate fulfills its duties, and it is enough. Buyers should have nothing to say, or go to a real estate agent.
It seems that everything is ok and nothing has changed, but the change is secret, fate has long marked the price.
At this price, investors no longer dare to buy trusts, and a financing route disappears out of thin air.
Do buyers dare to buy off-plan housing? I think, except for the special head iron.
You see, is the matter of shrinking the balance sheet all right, and there is nothing to do?
Manpower is sometimes poor!
(End)