To tell this ridiculous story, we have to start from 1998. That year, Ukraine, for reasons of financial constraints, decided to sell an aircraft carrier that was crazy about "burning money". This news caused an uproar in China, because the aircraft carrier, named "Varyag", was actually a modified version of the famous "mother of aircraft carriers" Kuznetsov.
Once in the hands of another country, she will become a significant military force that could threaten China. As the state councilor in charge of the military industry, He Pengfei at that time sincerely hoped that the Varyag could return to the embrace of the motherland. Unfortunately, it was difficult for the country's financial resources to win the sky-high price of $200 million in one go, so He Pengfei had no choice but to go to Xu Zengping, a wealthy man in Hong Kong, and ask him to spend money to buy the aircraft carrier first, and then the state would buy it from him.
At first, Xu Zengping hesitated. After all, $200 million was not a small amount, and it was at the time of the Asian financial crisis. But He Pengfei lobbied hard, coupled with Xu Zengping's pure heart for the motherland, he was finally persuaded to found Macau Chuanglu Tourism Company, with an advance payment of 20 million US dollars.
Unexpectedly, on the eve of the two sides preparing to sign the contract, Hong Kong's economy was getting worse, and Xu Zengping's company's capital chain was in jeopardy, and it was obviously difficult for him to raise the full amount alone. Seeing the predicament of the Mandarin Ducks in Xiangjiang and the dream of the motherland's aircraft carrier is about to be a breakthrough, He Pengfei is eager to seek a breakthrough.
At this critical moment, a financial veteran living in Beijing was willing to come forward and shoulder this historical responsibility for the motherland with his own strength. He was Shao Chun, chairman of Huaxia Securities that year.
Although it is a small case in terms of money, for a securities company, the sky-high price of hundreds of millions is by no means a small amount. What's more, Shao Chun just heard the rumors that the aircraft carrier was intended to be sold, so he made up his mind to buy it. But it was this patriotic enthusiasm that made Shao Chun determined to buy the Varyag at any cost.
In order to cover up people's eyes, Shao Chun did not hesitate to secretly cross Chen Cang, through an obscure technology company, took out $20 million to pay a deposit first, and then added about $50 million in the following two consecutive payments to purchase the ship. In this way, under the strong obstruction of the United States, the Varyag was handled by the Chinese in the evening, and finally firmly supported the Chinese nation's aircraft carrier dream.
At that time, public opinion was in an uproar! Seeking the near and far, making a desperate bet, Shao Chun's approach is simply a complete departure from the prudent and rational style of entrepreneurs. However, for Shao Chun, the dignity of the motherland is far more important than money and the false name of entrepreneurs! The only thing that saddened him was that the Varyag, which had returned from Ukraine, had been detained in Turkey for a year, and was temporarily stopped by the relevant domestic departments because Shao Chun was maliciously reported when he paid the last final payment.
Fortunately, six years later, when the Varyag, renamed the "Pioneer Ship", returned to the waters of the motherland, the Chinese people were finally relieved from the long torment of mixed sorrows. Since then, it is destined to become the prototype of the Chinese Navy's aircraft carrier force, and eventually the Liaoning today.
However, while the Chinese were rejoicing, Shao Chun suffered an unwarranted disaster. In order to find the huge cost of purchasing the ship, he embezzled nearly 300 million yuan of public funds in hand of Huaxia Securities without permission. Accordingly, the regulator temporarily removed him from his post on charges of violating the rules, and launched a five-year repeated investigation.
It was not until 2018 that the misappropriation case of Huaxia Securities was finally settled. As a result, Shao Chun was acquitted, and the state not only reinstated him to his job, but also paid him all the wages, bonuses, and subsidies due from his suspension in 2003 to 2018, which lasted for 19 years.
This result, of course, is inseparable from Shao Chun's merits in investing in the purchase of ships. After all, without his "all-or-nothing" efforts, I am afraid that China's aircraft carrier cause would have been delayed for decades. However, from the perspective of judicial fairness, Shao Chun's misappropriation of public funds is actually a problem.
So, should he be severely punished as an example, or should he be "exempted" for his contributions? In this regard, there can be a lot of controversy and discussion in society.
Some people believe that the law is the law, and its existence is to restrain people's words and deeds, and cannot be different from person to person, otherwise it will lead to the paradox that you have the right to do whatever you want. What's more, Shao Chun knew the seriousness of embezzlement of public funds, but he still took risks, and his crime was unforgivable.
There are also those who believe that the national interest is above all else, and although Shao Chun's approach is illegal, its purpose is clear, and the investment has also achieved great strategic returns, so it should be possible to open up to personal mistakes.
Personally, I believe that whether this situation can be criminalized in the end depends on the law. According to the current company law, the person in charge of the company is indeed not allowed to misappropriate operating funds without authorization, which is already a clear regulation. However, if the public funds are temporarily used due to force majeure, and the company's interests are not damaged, and the company is eventually returned in full, there is some room for error in the law.
From this point of view, although Shao Chun's behavior was prudent and negligent, the purpose and significance of the loan were very noble, and the purpose was also in line with the national interest. In addition, in the end, there was no financial loss, so it should not be covered by the law. Perhaps, the original intention of the state to pay him back wages may be due to this consideration.
However, looking at the beginning and end of this incident, it seems that we can draw a deeper enlightenment: the significance of national interests.
What do you think about this? Feel free to interact with me in the comment section!