SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. LI HUI AND OTHERS

HCMP 896/2022

[2026] HKCFI 4217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 896 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

________________________

Introduction

1.  On 12 July 2022, the Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”)  presented a petition to commence the present proceedings under section 214 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571)  (“SFO”)  seeking, inter alia, disqualification orders against the 1^st to 6^th Respondents[1] in respect of the business or affairs of National United Resources Holdings Limited (“Company”).

2.  On 31 July 2023, a Points of Claim, which is substantially the same as the petition, was filed pursuant to my Order dated 24 July 2023.  Notwithstanding the said Order, the 3^rd Respondent has not filed any Points of Defence as of the time of these Reasons.

3.  Subsequently, the SFC and the 3^rd Respondent have agreed to dispose of these proceedings by way of the Carecraft procedure[2].  Based on the facts set out in a Statement of Agreed Facts dated 27 November 2025 (“Statement of Agreed Facts”), which I have appended to these Reasons, the 3^rd Respondent agrees that the business or affairs of the Company have been conducted in a manner described in sections 214(1)(a) to (d) of the SFO and that he should be disqualified for a period of 6 years under section 214(2)(d) of the SFO accordingly[3].

Factual Background

4.  The relevant factual background has been summarised at [9]–[65] of the Statement of Agreed Facts.  It suffices to highlight the following.

5.  On 28 July 1972, the Company was incorporated in Hong Kong in the name of Success Holdings Limited. Since its incorporation, the Company has changed its name several times.  On 21 January 2014, the Company changed its name to National United Resources Holdings Limited[4].

6.  The Company has been listed on the Main Board of The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (“SEHK”)  with Stock Code No. 254 since 16 November 1972[5].

7.  At all material times, the Company was an investment holding company.  The Company and its subsidiaries (together, “Group”)  operated principally in the following three business segments: (1)  resources trading business, i.e. trading of coking coal, aluminium rod and fuel oil, (2)  online platform business, i.e. provision of online platform for trading and deferred spot delivery services of precious metals, and (3)  media and advertising business[6].

8.  NUR Clean Energy Investment Limited (“NUR Clean”, formerly Power Sky International Enterprise Limited before 11 May 2015)  was, at the material time, one of the Company’s wholly-owned indirect subsidiaries principally involved in the Group’s trading activities[7].

9.  At all material times, the Respondents were the Company’s former officers[8]:

(1)  The 1^st to 4^th Respondents were the Company’s executive directors;

(2)  The 5^th Respondent was the Company’s secretary, financial controller and authorised representative; and

(3)  The 6^th Respondent was the Company’s shadow and/or de facto director.  He was part of the Company’s senior management and was the consultant of the Group regularly giving instructions to its staff.

10.  Moreover, at all material times, the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th Respondents were NUR Clean’s directors whilst the 5^th Respondent was NUR Clean’s company secretary[9].

The 2015 Transactions

11.  On 25 August 2015, NUR Clean purportedly entered into two back-to-back supply and sale transactions (together, “2015 Transactions”)  with[10]:

(1)  Huge Power Company Limited (“Huge Power”), for the supply of 140,000 metric tons of straight run fuel oil for USD269/metric ton from Huge Power to NUR Clean (“2015 Supply Transaction”); and

(2)  Wealthy Union Pte Limited (“Wealthy Union”), for the sale of 140,000 metric tons of straight run fuel oil for USD270/metric ton from NUR Clean to Wealthy Union (“2015 Sale Transaction”).

12.  The delivery of straight run fuel oil under the 2015 Sale Transaction was purportedly supported by three bills of lading (“NUR Bills of Lading”)[11].

13.  The SFC submitted that the 2015 Transactions were fictitious for, inter alia, the following reasons.

(1)  Huge Power and Wealthy Union were not genuine counterparties to the 2015 Transactions.  They were entities controlled by the Company and/or persons closely connected to the Group[12].

(2)  The NUR Bills of Lading were not genuine. According to the independent inquiries conducted by the SFC with the shipper, the carrier, the shipping agent and the receiving party of the fuel oil as stated in the NUR Bills of Lading, neither the Company, Huge Power, Wealthy Union nor NUR Clean were their customers[13].

(3)  The money that NUR Clean had purportedly paid to Huge Power for the 2015 Supply Transaction was eventually returned to the Company and/or persons closely connected to the Group[14].

(4)  The money that NUR Clean had purportedly received from Wealthy Union for the 2015 Sale Transaction was eventually returned to Wealthy Union[15].

False or Misleading Statements in the 2015 Annual Results and the 2015 Annual Report

14.  On 30 March 2016 and 28 April 2016, the announcement containing the annual results (“2015 Annual Results”)  and the annual report of the Group for the year ended 31 December 2015 (“2015 Annual Report”)  were published respectively.  The 2015 audited financial statements were incorporated in the 2015 Annual Report for publication[16].

15.  The 2015 Annual Results and the 2015 Annual Report contained, inter alia, the following statements (“Statements”)[17].

(1)  The Group “had … expanded its resources trading business in the second half of 2015, which now includes resources such as coking coal, aluminium rod and fuel oil”.

(2)  The Group recorded a total revenue of HKD382,789,000 in 2015 of which HKD337,729,000 was derived from “resources trading” and HKD304,971,000 was derived from a customer located in Singapore who had individually contributed 10% or more to the Group’s revenue in that year.

(3)  Trade receivables amounted to approximately HKD325,322,000, representing an increase of approximately 901.33% when compared to HKD32,489,000 as at 31 December 2014.  “This dramatical increase was mainly due to significant trading transactions in resources commodities occured [sic] in the fourth quarter of 2015”.

16.  The SFC submitted that, as a result of the fictitious nature of the 2015 Transactions, the Statements were in fact false or misleading in various aspects and did not reflect the true state of affairs of the Company[18]:

(1)  The revenue for 2015 was purportedly derived from the 2015 Transactions, which were fictitious;

(2)  The customer who had individually contributed 10% or more to the Group’s revenue in 2015 was Wealthy Union, which was an entity controlled by the Company or persons closely connected to the Group; and

(3)  In reality, the Group did not expand its resources trading business in the second half of 2015, or conduct significant trading transactions in resources commodities in the fourth quarter of 2015.

Applicable Principles to Section 214 of the SFO

17.  Before relief under section 214(2) of the SFO can be granted, the following three conditions must be satisfied, namely, (1)  the corporation in question is or was a listed corporation, (2)  the business or affairs complained of are those of the corporation, and (3)  the conduct complained of falls within one or more heads of misconduct specified in sections 214(1)(a) to (d) of the SFO[19].

18.  In respect of the first condition, “listed” means “listed on a recognised stock market”[20].

19.  As regards the second condition, the conduct complained of can be that of the listed company and/or the subsidiaries directed by or under the control of such listed company.  The Court will take a realistic approach in determining whether the affairs of the subsidiary are the affairs of the holding company[21].

20.  In respect of the third condition:

(1)  “Oppressive” under section 214(1)(a) of the SFO has been described as tyrannical conduct, abuse of power or a visible departure from the standards of fair dealing.  It typically involves an abuse of one’s rights or powers as a majority to procure the occurrence or non-occurrence of events unfair or prejudicial to the complainants who, by reason of their minority status, can only submit;

(2)  As to section 214(1)(b) of the SFO:

(a)  “Defalcation” is defined as “misapplication, including misappropriation, of any property”. Misapplication means the disposition of the company’s property which the company or the board is forbidden, incompetent or unauthorised to make, or which is carried out by the directors in breach of their duties in good faith to promote the success of the company and for proper purposes;

(b)  “Misfeasance” is defined as “the performance of an otherwise lawful act in a wrongful manner”. The notion of misfeasance overlaps with that of breach of fiduciary duty and seemingly covers a wide range of conduct.  In particular, it covers a director’s breach of his duties to exercise reasonable care and diligence in his management of the company, and to act in good faith in the best interests of the company;

(c)  The words “other misconduct” connote improper or wrong behaviour or mismanagement, or culpable neglect of duties.  This term is something of a “belt and braces exercise”, and is intended to cover the “widest range of possible misconduct” including a director’s breach of the duty to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in the management of a company;

(3)  Regarding section 214(1)(c) of the SFO, it can be complementary to the other subsections and covers situations such as (a)  the making of misleading or false announcements and (b)  situations requiring publication of periodic financial statements and announcements, as members are entitled to expect the listed company to provide complete and accurate information in respect of such matters; and

(4)  As to section 214(1)(d) of the SFO, the conduct in question does not have to be wrong per se.  “Unfairly prejudicial” conduct covers a range of conduct, from fraud on the one end to neglect or inaction on the part of those to whom the affairs of a company are entrusted on the other end.  The question to be asked in such circumstances is whether the conduct concerned is that which can be expected from the managers of the company to whom those affairs have been entrusted.  It covers the case where the listed company has (a)  failed to comply with the disclosure requirements, (b)  made misleading or false announcements and (c)  failed to publish periodic financial statements and announcements, as members are entitled to expect the listed company to provide complete and accurate information in respect of such matters.

Application of Section 214 of the SFO

21.  Based on the Statement of Agreed Facts, I am satisfied that the three conditions for granting relief under section 214(2) of the SFO have been met in this case.

22.  The first condition is satisfied since the Company has been listed on the Main Board of the SEHK since 16 November 1972.

23.  The second condition is satisfied since the conduct complained of by the SFC (which is summarised at [11]–[16] above)  concerns the business or affairs of the Company and its subsidiary, namely, NUR Clean, which was under the Company’s control at all material times.

24.  I am also satisfied that the conduct complained of by the SFC falls within sections 214(1)(a), (b), (c) and/or (d) of the SFO, thereby meeting the third condition.

(1)  As to section 214(1)(a) of the SFO, conducting the business or affairs of the Company in the manner described at [11]–[16] above prevented its members from knowing the true position of the Company, namely, that the Company had been improperly utilised for entering into the fictitious 2015 Transactions with allegedly genuine counterparties, such that the Company’s business or affairs are said to have been conducted in a manner which was oppressive to its members.

(2)  Regarding section 214(1)(b) of the SFO:

(a)  Given that Huge Power was not a genuine counterparty to the 2015 Transactions, funds should not have been paid out of the Company to Huge Power under the guise of purchase money for the 2015 Supply Transaction.  The said payment, therefore, constituted misapplication of the Company’s funds and amounted to “defalcation”;

(b)  “Fraud” was involved when the Company entered into the fictitious 2015 Transactions with allegedly genuine counterparties as they were, in fact, controlled by the Company and its related entities; and

(c)  “Misfeasance or other misconduct” were involved because the fictitious 2015 Transactions were approved in breach of the relevant Respondent directors’ duties.

(3)  As to section 214(1)(c) of the SFO, I accept the SFC’s submission that the Statements were false and/or misleading. As a result, members of the Company were not given all the information with respect to its business or affairs that they might reasonably expect, namely, the fictitious nature of the 2015 Transactions and the Company’s control over the counterparties to the 2015 Transactions, i.e. Huge Power and Wealthy Union.

(4)  Regarding section 214(1)(d) of the SFO, the business or affairs of the Company were conducted in a manner which was unfairly prejudicial to its members.  The Statements, which were included in the 2015 Annual Results and the 2015 Annual Report, were false and/or misleading such that its members were prevented from knowing the true position of the Company.

Applicable Principles to Disqualification Order

25.  The applicable principles guiding the Court’s determination of the appropriate period of disqualification have been summarised in SFC v Superb Summit International Group Limited[22]. In gist:

(1)  The power to determine the appropriate period of disqualification is a discretionary power.  It will be necessary for the Court to be satisfied that the director’s involvement in the relevant matter involves a sufficiently serious failure to satisfy his duties that some period of disqualification is justified and fair;

(2)  The objectives of a disqualification order are twofold: (a)  to protect the public and (b)  as a general deterrence.  The former is recognised to be the primary purpose.  It is of the greatest importance that any individual who undertakes the statutory and fiduciary obligations of being a company director should realise that these are personal responsibilities;

(3)  In deciding whether to make a disqualification order, the Court adopts a broad-brush approach.  Earlier decided cases are of limited assistance to the exercise of the Court’s discretion;

(4)  The Court must be independently satisfied, based on the agreed facts, that the business or affairs of the Company have been conducted in a manner described in section 214(1)(a), (b), (c) or (d) of the SFO and, if so satisfied, determine the scope and duration of the disqualification order;

(5)  The Court is not bound by the agreement reached between the parties.  However, in practice, the Court is likely to be guided by the agreement that the SFC, as a responsible regulator, has reached;

(6)  The period of disqualification must reflect the gravity of the offence.  The period of disqualification may be fixed by starting with an assessment of the correct period to fit the gravity of the conduct, and a discount is then given for mitigating factors;

(7)  Generally speaking, the Court has divided the maximum period of disqualification of 15 years into three brackets, though these are only guides and not straitjackets:

(a)  The top bracket, of disqualification for over 10 years, for particularly serious cases;

(b)  The middle bracket, of disqualification for between 6 to 10 years, for cases which, although serious, are not so serious as to merit a period of disqualification in the top bracket;

(c)  The minimum bracket, of disqualification for up to 5 years, for relatively less serious cases; and

(8)  The Court will have regard to a wide range of considerations, including the age, state of health and character of the offender, the nature of the breaches, the honesty and competence of the offender, the length of time he has been in jeopardy, whether he appreciates and/or admits the breaches, his general conduct before and after the offence, the periods of disqualification of his co-directors that may have been ordered by other courts, and the interest of shareholders, creditors and employees.

26.  It bears emphasis that whilst the Court is not bound by the agreement reached between the parties, it will not interfere as long as the disqualification periods are within the range that the Court thinks is reasonable, even if the Court might have imposed a slightly different period of disqualification absent an agreement[23].

Disqualification Order

27.  Mr Norman Nip SC[24], leading counsel for the SFC, submitted that the SFC’s case against the 3^rd Respondent is one of recklessness and breach of directors’ duties.

28.  In terms of the directors’ duties owed by the 3^rd Respondent, it was submitted that:

(1)  As a director of NUR Clean and an executive director of the Company, the 3^rd Respondent had a duty to properly manage the affairs of the Company and NUR Clean.  Given his education and extensive experience in business administration[25], one would expect the 3^rd Respondent to discharge his duties to the standard of an experienced director of a listed company; and

(2)  As an authorised signatory of NUR Clean’s bank account, the 3^rd Respondent (along with the 1^st Respondent)  had a duty to take proper and reasonable care to ensure that the counterparties to the 2015 Transactions were genuine and that it was in the interest or best interest of NUR Clean to enter into such transactions by, for example, making reasonable inquiries and taking proper steps of due diligence.

29.  The SFC’s case against the 3^rd Respondent is threefold.

30.  First, in relation to the 3^rd Respondent’s conduct of the affairs of the Company and NUR Clean, including the 2015 Transactions:

(1)  The 3^rd Respondent claims that he did not receive and was not aware of having received the contract for the 2015 Supply Transaction, even though the contract was specifically addressed for his attention[26];

(2)  The 3^rd Respondent unreasonably followed the 1^st Respondent’s instructions not to participate in any of NUR Clean’s business, including the 2015 Transactions, on the basis that each director had a different scope of work and that he was not based in Hong Kong for an extended period of time[27];

(3)  The 3^rd Respondent simply rubber-stamped matters that required his input and/or approval, despite knowing that one of his roles as a director of NUR Clean was to prevent other directors from misappropriating corporate funds.  Further, the 3^rd Respondent, in his capacity as an authorised signatory of NUR Clean’s bank account, had approved payments of approximately HKD302.3 million to be made by NUR Clean to Huge Power for the purported settlement of the 2015 Supply Transaction by providing pre-signed telegraphic transfer application forms to the 1^st Respondent and related parties, without questioning the purpose of the fund transfers[28];

(4)  The 3^rd Respondent lacked proper understanding of the nature of NUR Clean’s business, including the 2015 Transactions, and failed to ensure proper conduct of NUR Clean’s business and affairs.  This is especially egregious because the 2015 Transactions constituted approximately 80% of the Group’s revenue for the year ended 31 December 2015 and that the relevant fund transfers that he had approved amounted to over HKD300 million[29];

(5)  For the above reasons, the 3^rd Respondent had recklessly committed NUR Clean to the fictitious 2015 Transactions by[30]:

(a)  Failing to take proper and reasonable steps to ensure that the 2015 Transactions were genuine;

(b)  Failing to take proper and reasonable steps to ensure that the 2015 Transactions were in the interest or best interest of the Company or NUR Clean;

(c)  Providing to the 1^st Respondent and related parties pre-signed telegraphic transfer application forms to authorise the use of NUR Clean’s corporate funds, without questioning the purpose of the fund transfers;

(d)  Failing to exercise reasonable care to ensure that the payments were made for proper and genuine transactions; and

(6)  Had the 3^rd Respondent properly discharged his duties as a reasonably prudent director of the Company, he would have inquired into the purpose of the fund transfers and the true state of affairs of the 2015 Transactions, and would have noticed that there was little commercial sense in committing NUR Clean to the 2015 Transactions[31].

31.  Second, the 3^rd Respondent failed to convene a board meeting to discuss the 2015 Transactions before committing NUR Clean to the same, even though the Transactions concerned a substantial amount of over HKD300 million[32].

32.  Third, the 3^rd Respondent wrongfully allowed or did not prevent the Statements, which contained false or misleading information, to be published in the 2015 Annual Results and the 2015 Annual Report by (1)  approving the publication of the Statements at a board meeting held on 30 March 2016, and/or (2)  omitting to provide material information regarding the true state of affairs of the 2015 Transactions to the board for consideration[33].

33.  The SFC and the 3^rd Respondent have agreed to the following mitigating factors[34]:

(1)  The 3^rd Respondent accepts liability and has been cooperative with the SFC in relation to the present proceedings;

(2)  The 3^rd Respondent has adopted a reasonable course of action in agreeing to conclude these proceedings by way of the Carecraft procedure, which would save time and costs for the SFC as well as the Court; and

(3)  The 3^rd Respondent has not made any personal gains from the above misconduct.

34.  In these circumstances, Mr Nip submitted that the 3^rd Respondent’s conduct is sufficiently serious to fall within the lower end of the middle bracket and warrants a disqualification period of 6 years.  In so doing, Mr Nip drew to my attention the case of SFC v Kwok Wing & Ors[35]which similarly concerns an executive director failing to exercise reasonable care and diligence in the management of a listed company.  The relevant complaints against the respondent in that case included (1)  signing various loan agreements, without independent inquires, on the instructions of another executive director who was her uncle, (2)  approving the grant of share options to two employees whom she knew could not pay the subscription prices, without independent inquiries or judgment, and (3)  approving an acquisition agreement that she knew nothing about.  There, Au-Yeung J agreed with the parties that a disqualification period of 6 years would be appropriate in view of the respondent’s “high degree of incompetence and irresponsible attitude”[36] and the following mitigating factors, namely, (1)  she was not the main culprit, (2)  she only had education up to level 3 in secondary school in the Mainland, (3)  her work experience was mostly in merchandising, product development and design, with limited financial expertise such that she had to entrust it to the other executive directors, (4)  she was appointed as an executive director at the request of her uncle and she had simply reposed her trust in him, (5)  she was in this role for a relatively short period of time, i.e. one and a half years, and (6)  she was cooperative and was willing to bear the costs of the SFC.

35.  I accept Mr Nip’s submission that a disqualification period of 6 years is commensurate with the gravity of the 3^rd Respondent’s conduct and gives appropriate regard to the above mitigating factors.  I note, in particular, that:

(1)  The SFC’s case against the 3^rd Respondent is a case of recklessness (rather than negligence)  and breach of directors’ duties;

(2)  The 3^rd Respondent is a seasoned businessman who has a doctorate degree in Economics, and has had years of experience in business administration at local enterprises.  At all material times, he was an executive director of the Company and a director of NUR Clean which was the very company that was involved in the 2015 Transactions.  In his capacity as an authorised signatory of NUR Clean’s bank account, the 3^rd Respondent had approved the 2015 Supply Transaction, thereby committing NUR Clean to the fictitious 2015 Transactions;

(3)  Whilst the 3^rd Respondent was not the main culprit and has not made any personal gains from the 2015 Transactions, his sophistication and positions within the Company and NUR Clean meant that he was well-placed to scrutinise the true state of affairs of the 2015 Transactions.  He did not do so.  Instead, the 3^rd Respondent rubber-stamped matters that required his input and/or approval by providing pre-signed telegraphic transfer application forms to the 1^st Respondent and related parties.  To this extent, the 3^rd Respondent had demonstrated markedly irresponsible attitude and had fallen far short of the standards expected of a highly educated and experienced director of his standing;

(4)  The 3^rd Respondent accepts liability.  He has also been cooperative with the SFC in the present proceedings; and

(5)  The 3^rd Respondent agrees to pay the SFC costs in the agreed sum of HKD30,000 as full and final settlement of the SFC’s costs in these proceedings within 14 days from the date of the order to be made[37].

36.  Lastly, I also accept Mr Nip’s submission that there should be parity between the disqualification period imposed against the 3^rd Respondent and that against his co-director, namely, the 4^th Respondent.

(1)  By way of the Carecraft procedure, the 4^th Respondent agreed with the SFC that he, as an executive director[38] of the Company controlling the Company’s cash flow at all material times, had been negligent in committing NUR Clean to the 2015 Transactions in that he had, without convening a board meeting, approved payments of approximately HKD302.3 million to be made by the Company to NUR Clean for the purported settlement of the 2015 Supply Transaction.  He had also wrongfully allowed or did not prevent the Statements, which contained false or misleading information, to be published in the 2015 Annual Results and the 2015 Annual Report.  As a result, the 4^th Respondent was disqualified for a period of 3 years[39].

(2)  It seems to me clear that the SFC’s case against the 3^rd Respondent is more serious than that against the 4^th Respondent. For one, the case against the 3^rd Respondent is one of recklessness (rather than negligence).  For another, the 3^rd Respondent was a director of NUR Clean for a much longer period[40] than the 4^th Respondent, such that he would have been (or certainly his position would have allowed him to be)  more involved in the 2015 Transactions.  I, therefore, take the view that it is fair and proportionate for the 3^rd Respondent to be disqualified for twice as long as the 4^th Respondent, i.e. 6 years.

Disposition

37.  Accordingly, I made an order in terms of the draft order submitted by the SFC to this Court on 18 May 2026.

就呈请人与第三答辩人之间的Carecraft和解而拟备的不受争议事实陈述书

A.  引言

1.  于2022年7月12日，证券及期货事务监察委员会（“呈请人”）根据《证券及期货条例》（第571章）（“该条例”）第214条提起法律程序，就包括以下人士在内的六名答辩人对国家联合资源控股有限公司（“该公司”）的业务或事务的经营或处理，寻求法庭作出针对他们的取消资格令：-

(a)  第一答辩人李辉；

(b)  第二答辩人冯永明（“冯”）

(c)  第三答辩人田松林（“田”）；

(d)  第四答辩人罗嘉伟（“罗”）

(e)  第五答辩人林文杰（“林”）；及

(f)  第六答辩人李涛。

2.  在获法庭批准的前提下，呈请人与第三答辩人同意以Re Carecraft Construction Co Limited [1994] 1 WLR 172一案中认许，并获英国上诉法院在Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rogers [1996] 1 WLR 1569一案中厘清，及由此法庭在多宗涉及根据该条例第214条提起法律程序的案件（包括但不限于有关山河控股有限公司[2007] 4 HKLRD 46一案，证券及期货事务监察委员会　诉　冯照及其他人[2009] 2 HKC 19一案，证券及期货事务监察委员会　诉　沈家燊及沈毅（HCMP 1014/2008，未经汇报，2009年5月22日）一案，有关大凌集团有限公司 [2011] 1 HKLRD 96一案，证券及期货事务监察委员会　诉　张镜清及其他人（HCMP 1869/2008，未经汇报，2010年3月18日）一案和证券及期货事务监察委员会　诉　郭荣及其他人（HCMP 3392/2013，未经汇报，2015年3月27日）一案）中采纳的简易程序方式（“Carecraft程序”），处置针对第三答辩人的此等法律程序。

3.  在此法庭可以Carecraft程序处理及处置针对第三答辩人的有关法律程序的基础上，提出本陈述书旨在列明呈请人在此等法律程序中所倚赖而第三答辩人没有提出争议的重要事实。

4.  纯粹为了以Carecraft程序解决针对第三答辩人的此等法律程序，并藉提述下文B节所载列的事实（经第三答辩人承认及接纳），第三答辩人接纳于相关期间内，即大约2015年6月至2016年4月左右，该公司的业务或事务（而他身为该公司的执行董事为该等业务或事务负有责任）曾以该条例第214(1)(a)至(d)条所描述的方式经营或处理，即：

(a)  欺压其成员或其任何部分成员；

(b)  涉及对该公司或其成员或其任何部分成员作出亏空、欺诈、不当行为或其他失当行为；

(c)  导致其成员或其任何部分成员未获提供他们可合理期望获得的关于其业务或事务的所有资料；及

(d)  对其成员或其任何部分成员造成不公平损害。

5.  基于下文B节所载列的事实及下文C节所载列的经议定的减轻刑罚因素，呈请人与第三答辩人同意，而第三答辩人亦准备接纳，适宜根据该条例第214(2)(d)条针对第三答辩人作出取消资格令，饬令他在6年内未经法庭许可，不得：

(a)  担任或留任香港任何上市或非上市法团的董事或清盘人，或香港任何上市或非上市法团的财产或业务的接管人或经理人；或

(b)  以任何方式直接或间接关涉或参与香港任何上市或非上市法团的管理。

“法团”指在香港或其他地方成立的公司或其他法人团体。

6.  如法庭藉提述本陈述书而作出针对第三答辩人的取消资格令，则：

(a)  呈请人与第三答辩人同意将会共同向此法庭申请作出指示，以将本陈述书附录于此法庭的判决书；及

(b)  呈请人保留为与此等法律程序有关或其附带的所有目的（包括（但不限于）针对其他答辩人继续进行此等法律程序）而提述本陈述书的权利。

7.  如此法庭基于任何理由，认为此等法律程序不得以Carecaft程序来处理，或认为适宜进行全面聆讯，则呈请人或第三答辩人在未经双方事先书面同意下，不得在此等法律程序的任何继后聆讯中，提述或依赖任何一方作出的承认或妥协，亦不得提述或依赖本陈述书内提述的任何取消资格建议或取消资格期或支付讼费的法律责任。

B.  不受争议的事实

8.  本陈述书B节的结构如下：-

(a)  B1至B2节列出有关该公司及其管理层的背景资料；

(b)  B3至B5节列出呈请人所依赖的事实，以支持其指该公司的业务或事务曾以《证券及期货条例》第214(1)(a)、(b)、(c)及(d)条所述的方式经营或处理的论据。

(c)  B6至B7节列出呈请人所依赖的事实，以支持其指第三答辩人须对该公司业务或事务的上述经营或处理负责的论据。

B1.   该公司

公司背景及管理层

9.  该公司于1972年7月28日在香港注册成立，及自1972年11月16日起在香港联合交易所（“联交所”）主板上市，股份代号为254。当该公司注册成立时，其名称为广联企业有限公司。该公司自注册成立以来曾数次更改其名称。该公司于2014年1月21日更名为国家联合资源控股有限公司。

10.  在所有关键时间：

(a)  该公司的注册办事处位于香港湾仔港湾道18号中环广场52楼5208室（“该公司办事处”）。该公司的注册办事处在2020年9月11日改为香港德辅道中61至65号华人银行大厦11楼1106-08室；

(b)  该公司是一家投资控股公司；及

(c)  该公司及其附属公司（统称“该集团”）主要经营三个业务分部，分别是资源贸易业务（即买卖焦煤、铝杆及燃油）、网上平台业务（即提供贵金属买卖及现货延期交收服务的网上平台）和媒体及广告业务。

11.  国家联合资源清洁能源投资有限公司（“清洁能源公司”，在2015年5月11日之前称为威天国际企业有限公司）及创先实业集团有限公司（“创先”，在2015年6月29日之前称为创先物流集团有限公司）是该公司的全资间接附属公司，主要参与该集团的贸易活动。

B2.  各答辩人

12.  第一答辩人李辉：-

(a)  在2013年加入该公司，及在2015年7月17日至2016年9月19日期间担任该公司的执行董事；

(b)  在2015年5月8日至2016年8月2日期间担任清洁能源公司的董事；

(c)  在2012年2月13日至2016年8月2日期间担任创先的董事；及

(d)  在2013年12月20日获委任为该公司于中国的全资附属公司北京创先智尚资产管理有限公司（“北京附属公司”）的总经理。

13.  第二答辩人冯在2014年9月1日至2017年5月19日期间担任该公司的执行董事。

14.  第三答辩人田：-

(a)  在2014年加入该公司担任副总裁；

(b)  在2015年7月17日至2017年11月10日期间担任该公司的执行董事；及

(c)  在2015年5月26日至2017年11月10日期间担任清洁能源公司的董事。

15.  第四答辩人罗，又名Eddy Lo：-

(a)  在2013年10月17日至2017年5月19日期间担任该公司的执行董事；及

(b)  在2014年1月22日至2015年5月8日期间担任清洁能源公司的董事。

16.  第五答辩人林，又名Jason Lam：-

(a)  在2013年12月4日至2017年4月25日期间担任该公司的公司秘书；

   (b)   在2013年11月25日获委任为该公司的财务总监；

(c)   在2014年1月22日至2016年7月20日期间担任清洁能源公司的公司秘书；及

(d)  在2013年12月12日至2017年4月25日期间担任该公司的授权代表。

17.  第六答辩人李涛在所有关键时间担任该公司的幕后控制人和董事。他是该公司高级管理层的一员，在该公司于北京的办事处拥有办公室，及被员工称为“大老板”。他是该集团的顾问，并定期向该公司及其附属公司的员工发出指示（特别是包括下文第32(b)段所述的创先财务经理陈俊雄）。

B3.   该等2015年交易

18.   在2015年8月25日，清洁能源公司据称与以下各方签订了两项背对背供应及出售交易（统称“该等2015年交易”）：

(a)  泰力有限公司（“泰力”），藉以按每公吨269美元的价格，由泰力向清洁能源公司供应140,000公吨的直流式燃油（“该2015年供应交易”）；及

(b)  Wealthy Union Pte Ltd（“Wealthy Union”），藉以按每公吨270美元的价格，由清洁能源公司向Wealthy Union出售140,000公吨的直流式燃油（“该2015年出售交易”）。

B3.1  该2015年供应交易

19. 该2015年供应交易据称由一份日期为2015年8月25日、标题为“出售确认书”、文件编号为“HP201508-01TT-NC”，由泰力作为卖方与清洁能源公司作为买方签署的文件（“《供应合同》”）所支持。

20.  《供应合同》被致送给田以提请其注意，及由李辉代表清洁能源公司签署。

21.  根据《供应合同》：

(a)  泰力同意向清洁能源公司出售140,000公吨（+/- 5%）符合《供应合同》第4条指明的某些规格的直流式燃油（第1至5条）。

(b)  这些燃油将以“单一批满舱，在一个安全港口进行目的港船上交货／一个安全泊位，太平洋区域驳运”（ONE LOT AS FULL CARGO, DES ONE SAFE PORT/ONE SAFE BERTH, PACIFIC AREA LIGHTERING）的方式，在2015年9月10日至2015年10月10日期间交付（第6条）。

(c)  单价为每公吨269美元（第7条）。

(d)  清洁能源公司同意在获出示泰力的商业发票后90天内向泰力全额付款。款项将在“获出示[泰力]的商业发票及标准装运单据（包括全套三份提单的正本）” （presentation of [Huge Power]’s commercial invoice and standard shipping documents including full set 3/3 original bill of lading(s)）后执行（第8条）。

22.  清洁能源公司向泰力作出合共七笔总金额为302,285,021.49港元的付款，据称是为了结清一张由泰力就该2015年供应交易发出、日期为2015年9月21日的发票（发票编号：HP201508-01TT-NC），其金额为38,954,059.47美元（按照《供应合同》第7条及该发票本身所载的适用汇率7.76港元兑1美元计算，相等于302,283,501港元）。经扣除银行收费后，泰力收到合共302,283,501.49港元。这些汇款金额的详情如下：

汇款日期	清洁能源公司支付的款额	泰力收到的款额
2015年10月30日	10,000,240港元	10,000,000港元
2015年11月11日	30,000,240港元	30,000,000港元
2015年11月19日	50,000,200港元	50,000,000港元
2015年11月26日	60,000,200港元	60,000,000港元
2015年12月3日	60,000,200港元	60,000,000港元
2015年12月8日	60,000,200港元	60,000,000港元
2015年12月14日	32,283,741.49港元	32,283,501.49港元
合共：	302,285,021.49港元	302,283,501.49港元

B3.2  该2015年出售交易

23. 该2015年出售交易据称由一份日期为2015年8月25日、标题为“出售确认书”，文件编号为“NC201508-01TT-WU”，由Wealthy Union作为买方与清洁能源公司作为卖方签署的文件（“《出售合同》”）所支持。

24.  《出售合同》由李辉代表清洁能源公司签署。

25.  根据《出售合同》：

(a)  清洁能源公司同意向Wealthy Union出售140,000公吨（+/- 5%）符合《出售合同》第4条指明的某些规格的直流式燃油（第1至5条）。

(b)  这些燃油将以“单一批满舱，在一个安全港口进行目的港船上交货／一个安全泊位，太平洋区域驳运”（ONE LOT AS FULL CARGO, DES ONE SAFE PORT/ONE SAFE BERTH, PACIFIC AREA LIGHTERING）的方式，在2015年9月10日至2015年10月10日期间交付（第6条）。

(c)  单价为每公吨270美元（第7条）。

(d)  Wealthy Union同意在获出示清洁能源公司的商业发票后180天内向清洁能源公司全额付款。款项将在“获出示[清洁能源公司]的商业发票及标准装运单据（包括全套三份提单的正本）”（PRESENTATION OF [NUR CLEAN]’S COMMERCIAL INVOICE AND STANDARD SHIPPING DOCUMENTS INCLUDING FULL SET 3/3 ORIGINAL BILL OF LADING(S)）后执行（第8条）。

26.  这些直流式燃油的交付据称由三张提单（统称“该等国家联合资源提单”）所支持，分别是：

(a)  日期为2015年9月12日的油轮提单（编号PAL/S-1），其内容有关付运144,810.630公吨RMG 380燃油（“第一张国家联合资源提单”）；

(b)  日期为2015年8月25日的提单（承运人标准数字编码：PPDPALIA15009A），其内容有关付运43,376.306公吨燃油（“第二张国家联合资源提单”）；及

(c)  日期为2015年8月21日的提单（承运人标准数字编码：PPDPALIA15009），其内容有关付运9,885.554公吨燃油（“第三张国家联合资源提单”）。

27.  在2015年9月21日，清洁能源公司据称向Wealthy Union发出了一张商业发票（“清洁能源公司商业发票”）。

(a)  清洁能源公司商业发票旨在要求就144,810.630公吨直流式燃油支付39,098,870.10美元（按照《出售合同》第7条及该发票本身所载的适用汇率7.76港元兑1美元计算，相等于303,407,231.976港元）。

(b)  清洁能源公司商业发票的付款到期日被述明为2016年3月19日。

(c)  清洁能源公司商业发票由李辉签署。

28. Wealthy Union向清洁能源公司作出合共六笔总金额为149,507,231.98港元的付款，据称是为了结清有关该2015年出售交易的清洁能源公司商业发票。经扣除银行收费后，清洁能源公司收到合共149,506,141.98港元。这些汇款金额的详情如下：

付款日期	Wealthy Union支付的款额	清洁能源公司收到的款额
2016年3月18日	49,500,000港元	49,499,785港元
2016年3月23日	24,507,231.98港元	24,507,016.98港元
2016年3月23日	50,000,000港元	49,999,785港元
2016月5至23日	5,500,000港元	5,499,985港元
2016年6月3日	9,800,000港元	9,799,785港元
2016年6月16日	10,200,000港元	10,199,785港元
合共：	149,507,231.98港元	149,506,141.98港元

29.  除上文第28段所载清洁能源公司直接收到的149,506,141.98港元付款外，清洁能源公司亦在2016年10月18日至2016年10月20日期间，透过其全资附属公司遐兴（上海）投资管理有限公司从北京京滨投资管理有限公司（代表Wealthy Union）收到三笔总额为人民币75,000,000元的付款，有关付款据称是为了结清清洁能源公司商业发票。这三笔付款的详情如下：

付款日期	遐兴（上海）投资管理有限公司从北京京滨投资管理有限公司收到的款额
2016年10月18日	人民币1,000,000元
2016年10月18日	人民币49,000,000元
2016年10月20日	人民币25,000,000元
合共：	人民币75,000,000元

30.  在此前提下，清洁能源公司从Wealthy Union收到合共149,506,141.98港元及人民币75,000,000元，据称是为了结清有关该2015年出售交易的清洁能源公司商业发票。

B4.   该等2015年交易的虚构性

31.  基于将在下文第32至51段所作诉的事宜，该等2015年交易是虚构的。

B4.1  泰力并非真实的对手方

32.   基于下述情况，泰力是由该公司或与该公司或其附属公司有密切关连的人士所控制的实体：-

(a)  泰力于2015年7月28日在澳门注册成立，在不足一个月后，清洁能源公司与泰力据称在2015年8月25日签订《供应合同》。

(b)  有关注册成立泰力并将注册成立泰力的发票致送创先（而非泰力）的指示，是由一个名为陈俊雄的人（“陈俊雄”）在2015年6月向泰力的公司秘书Keng Ou Secretarial Service Limited发出的。陈俊雄是创先的财务经理，惯于按照李辉及李涛的指令或指示行事。

(c)  呈请人于2016年6月14日在该公司办事处进行搜查行动（“该搜查行动”）期间，在冯涛的办公桌上发现了泰力两名注册董事兼股东（即汪娜（“汪娜”）及蓝幕（“蓝幕”））的护照正本。冯涛是创先的董事兼副总经理，惯于按照李辉及李涛的指令或指示行事。

(d)  呈请人亦在该搜查行动期间，于该公司办事处发现了泰力的商业登记及税务申报文件，以及泰力与其他第三方订立的某些合同文件。

(e)  根据汪娜所述，她是按照冯涛的指示成立泰力的。她不知道泰力从事何种业务。她不曾见过《供应合同》或泰力与其他第三方签订的任何其他合同文件；她还将其护照正本交了给冯涛以便为泰力开立证券帐户。

33.  在此前提下，泰力是由该公司或与该公司或其附属公司有密切关连的人士所控制的实体，及并非该2015年供应交易的真实对手方。

B4.2  Wealthy Union并非真实的对手方

34.   基于下述情况，Wealthy Union是由该公司或与该公司或其附属公司有密切关连的人士所控制的实体：-

(a)  Wealthy Union于2015年8月28日在新加坡注册成立，即清洁能源公司与Wealthy Union据称在2015年8月25日签订《出售合同》后三日。它在2018年4月5日被新加坡会计与企业管制局（Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority）剔除。

(b)  有关注册成立Wealthy Union并将注册成立Wealthy Union的发票致送创先（而非Wealthy Union）的指示，是由陈俊雄在2015年7月21日向Wealthy Union的公司秘书CS Corporate & Advisory Services Pte Limited发出的。

(c)  在所有关键时间，一个名为诸文尧的人（“诸文尧”）是Wealthy Union的唯一股东兼两名董事之一。Wealthy Union的另一名董事是一个名为王芳的人，来自Wealthy Union的公司秘书（即CS Corporate & Advisory Services Pte Limited）。诸文尧与创先的董事兼副总经理冯涛共用同一个联络号码（86-135-1082-5210）。

(d)  呈请人于该搜查行动期间，在陈俊雄于该公司办事处的办公桌上发现了一些经处理的银行汇款表格，当中显示陈俊雄在2015年3月16至23日期间，代表Wealthy Union向新加坡华侨银行提交了为数合共1.24亿港元的银行汇款表格，据称是为了结清该2015年出售交易。

(e)  呈请人亦在该搜查行动期间，于陈俊雄在该公司办事处的办公桌抽屉内发现了已预先签署的Wealthy Union银行汇款表格，当中载有诸文尧的签名。

(f)  Wealthy Union的电邮帐户（wealthyunion@gmail.com）在2016年3月11日于该公司办事处透过一个固定的IP地址（210.3.86.106）创建。

35.  在此前提下，Wealthy Union是由该公司或与该公司或其附属公司有密切关连的人士所控制的实体，及并非该2015年出售交易的真实对手方。

B4.3  该等国家联合资源提单并不真实

B4.3.1 向付运人作出的独立查询

36.根据该等国家联合资源提单，付运人是溢锋国际贸易有限公司（“溢锋国际”）。

37.  然而，根据溢锋国际向呈请人提供的资料，溢锋国际并无指示付运在该等国家联合资源提单上述明的燃油。反而，溢锋国际指示付运另一批燃油，其详情在另一套不同的提单上述明（“该等溢锋国际提单”）。

38.  这两套提单之间存在重大差异。该等国家联合资源提单与该等溢锋国际提单之间的不同之处如下：

	该等国家联合资源提单	该等溢锋国际提单
第一张提单──油轮提单（编号PAL/S-1）
产品描述	RMG380燃油	RMK 500燃油
交货港	中国，以供出售	新加坡，以供出售
备注	“不可流转文本”	“第一份正本”
第二张提单──承运人标准数字编码：PPDPALIA15009A
交货港	中国，以供出售	新加坡，以供出售
备注	没有备注	“第一份正本”
第三张提单──承运人标准数字编码：PPDPALIA15009
交货港	中国，以供出售	新加坡，以供出售
付运人申报重量	9,885.554公吨 9,729.427长吨 62,751.000美桶 @ 60°F 9,884.790立方米 @ 60°F 2,611,290.002美加仑	12,826.698公吨 12,624.081长吨 80,670.209美桶 @ 60°F 12,825.515立方米 @ 60°F 3,388,148.778美加仑

39.  溢锋国际向呈请人确认，国家联合资源、清洁能源公司、Wealthy Union及泰力均非溢锋国际的实际客户。

B4.3.2 向承运人作出的独立查询

40.  从第二张国家联合资源提单及第三张国家联合资源提单表面上看来，有关燃油是由一艘名为“M. T. ALIAKMON”的船只运送。

41.  应呈请人查询，“M. T. ALIAKMON”的管理人兼拥有人Pleiades Shipping Agents S.A. （“Pleiades”）确认它没有付运在第二张国家联合资源提单及第三张国家联合资源提单上述明的燃油。

42.  Pleiades向呈请人提供了两张提单，当中显示了“M. T. ALIAKMON”实际承运的货物（“该等Pleiades提单”）。就货物数量及付运目的地而言，该等Pleiades提单与该等溢锋国际提单（而非该等国家联合资源提单）相符。

B4.3.3 向船务代理人作出的独立查询

43.  从第一张国家联合资源提单表面上看来，船务代理人是Transmarine Navigation Corporation（“TNC”）。

44.  应呈请人查询，TNC确认：

(a)  尽管第一张国家联合资源提单上据称有一个来自TNC的签署，但这并不是由TNC编制的文件。

(b)  经彻底检视TNC的档案后，并没有发现第一张国家联合资源提单。

(c)  TNC不曾就有关船只装载货物与该公司、Wealthy Union或泰力进行任何通讯，也没有与该等公司有关的任何提单副本。

45.  TNC向呈请人提供了它实际上按照溢锋国际的指示而编制的油轮提单（“Transmarine提单”）。Transmarine提单的内容与该等溢锋国际提单的内容相符。

46.  根据TNC所述，实际付运的货物被交付至中国舟山及马来西亚丹戎帕拉帕斯（Tanjung Pelepas）。

(a)  TNC在2015年10月5日上午10时30分从溢锋国际收到一份弥偿保证书副本（“该弥偿保证书”），以便有关船只可分别在中国和马来西亚卸载部分货物。

(b)  在该弥偿保证书中，就中国舟山所列出的收货人是深圳光汇集团股份有限公司（“深圳光汇”），而就马来西亚丹戎帕拉帕斯所列出的收货人是SK Energy International Pte Ltd（“SK Energy”）。

B4.3.4 向燃油的收货方作出的独立查询

47.  深圳光汇向呈请人确认：

(a)  在2015年10月7至8日期间，深圳光汇在中国舟山从“SONANGOL KALANDULA”收到所付运的56,861.732公吨RMK 500燃油。

(b)  有关货物是Brightoil Petroleum (S’pore)  Pte Ltd （“Brightoil S’pore”）以在中国舟山一个安全港口／泊位进行目的地交付（Delivered at Place，根据《国际贸易术语解释通则2010》，简称DAP）的方式向溢锋国际买入，并在2015年10月5至9日期间交付。深圳光汇获Brightoil S’pore授权代表Brightoil S’pore在舟山收取及储存有关货物。

(c)  Brightoil S’pore在其作为船只燃料供应商的业务过程中，使用有关燃油来向其客户位于舟山及附近拟被用作燃料船的船只供应燃料。

(d)  该公司、清洁能源公司、泰力及Wealthy Union均非深圳光汇的客户。

48.  SK Energy向呈请人确认：

(a)  2015年10月21日，SK Energy在马来西亚丹戎帕拉帕斯从“M. T. SONGANGOL KALANDULA”收到所付运的87,524.557公吨RMK 500燃油。

(b)  有关货物是SK Energy向溢锋国际买入，而溢锋国际在2015年10月1日向SK Energy发出一份出售确认书。

(c)  这些燃油没有售予SK Energy的客户，而是被SK Energy储存在其于Jubilee Star的储存设施以供混合之用。

(d)  该公司、清洁能源公司、泰力及Wealthy Union均非SK Energy的客户。

49.  在此前提下，该等国家联合资源提单并非真实的提单。

B4.4  与该等2015年交易有关的循环资金流动

B4.4.1  购买款项

50.  基于在下文所作诉的事宜，清洁能源公司就该2015年供应交易据称已支付给泰力的款项（“购买款项”）最终退还予该公司或与该公司或其附属公司有密切关连的公司／人士。

(a)  在2015年10月30日至2015年12月14日期间，清洁能源公司向泰力支付了约3.02亿港元，据称是为了结清该2015年供应交易。上文第22段在此处重复。

(b)  在大约2015年11月4日至2015年12月16日期间，泰力将上述3.02亿港元购买款项中的约2.71亿港元汇给友诚物流有限公司（“友诚物流”）。

(c)  在大约2015年11月6日至2015年12月23日期间，友诚物流将约2.68亿港元汇给创先。

(d)  在大约2015年11月18日至2015年12月11日期间，创先将约2.37亿港元转回该公司。

(e)  为说明与该2015年供应交易有关的上述付款而编制的资金流动图表，连同上文第50(a)至(d)段所述的个别资金转帐的明细表，附载于附表内的附件I。

(f)  基于在下文所作诉的事宜，友诚物流是一家与该公司或该集团或与该公司或该集团有密切关连的人士有关的公司：-

(1)  呈请人于2016年10月14日进行的一次搜查行动期间，在冯的住所发现了友诚物流的银行及公司文件，包括其网上银行编码器、网上银行密码、支票簿、支票存款通知及股权转移文件。

(2)  在所有关键时间，商业秘书顾问有限公司（“商业秘书”）是一家向以下公司提供公司秘书及其他企业服务的公司：汉志有限公司（“汉志”）、汉志集团有限公司（“汉志集团”）、友诚物流、中金贸易（香港）有限公司（“中金”）及尚成有限公司（“尚成”）。

(3)  田媛媛是就友诚物流向商业秘书发出指示的联络人。友诚物流日期为2015年10月4日的周年申报表将商业秘书列为公司秘书。田媛媛在2014年1月1日至2015年5月31日期间担任北京附属公司总经办的助理，及自2015年7月29日起担任北京附属公司项目规划部的部门助理。李辉在2013年12月20日获委任为北京附属公司的总经理。

(4)  商业秘书就友诚物流而收取的服务费，由创先发出并经由李辉和冯涛签署的支票结清。

(5)  友诚物流由李涛透过冯涛及陈俊雄所控制。

(i)  尽管汪娜是友诚物流的董事及股东，但她在所有关键时间是受冯涛或李涛控制的代名人。汪娜是友诚物流银行帐户的获授权签署人。她应冯涛或李涛的要求就友诚物流签署文件及预先签署支票。

(ii)  陈俊雄应李涛的要求控制友诚物流的银行帐户。

(6)  在上述来自友诚物流及创先的转帐中，有七次是透过该公司办事处的一个固定IP地址（210.3.86.106）在网上执行的。

(g)  在此前提下，清洁能源公司、泰力、友诚物流及该公司之间并无真实的业务关系，因为它们互有关连，及上述有关该2015年供应交易的付款是循环式的，没有真实的商业目的。

B4.4.2 出售款项

51.  基于在下文所作诉的事宜，清洁能源公司据称已从Wealthy Union收到以结清该2015年出售交易的款项（“出售款项”），最终退还予Wealthy Union。

(a)  在2016年3月18日至2016年6月16日期间，Wealthy Union向清洁能源公司支付了约1.5亿港元，据称是为了结清该2015年出售交易。上文第28段在此处重复。

(b)  出售款项最终由清洁能源公司直接或间接透过与该公司或其附属公司有关连的公司（包括泰力、汉志及尚成）退还予Wealthy Union：-

(1)  清洁能源公司在大约2016年3月21日至2016年6月6日期间向泰力作出合共七笔总金额为约1.45亿港元的付款（“2016年预付款项”）

(2)  2016年预付款项据称是依据清洁能源公司与泰力日期分别为2015年11月1日、2015年11月10日及2015年11月10日的出售确认书（编号分别为HP 201511-01TT-NC、HP 201511-02TT-NC及HP 201511-03TT-NC）（统称“该等2015年11月销售确认书”）而支付的，且根据有关的出售确认书，清洁能源公司据称同意按每公吨226美元、251美元及220美元的价格，分别向泰力买入40,000公吨、40,000公吨及21,000公吨（+/- 5%）高硫燃油（“该等据称在2015年11月进行的交易”）。

(3)  事实上，该等据称在2015年11月进行的交易是虚构的，因为泰力根本没有向清洁能源公司交付任何高硫燃油。

(i)  在该搜查行动期间，呈请人检获三份题为“货物收据”且日期全部为2016年1月13日的文件（“该等据称的货物收据”），据称由清洁能源公司向泰力发出，以确认已就该等据称在2015年11月进行的交易收到高硫燃油。

(ii)  在该搜查行动期间，呈请人亦检获三张提单，当中载列有关油轮名为“M.T. BRIGHTOIL LION”（提单编号E4832、E4835及E4830）（“该等Brightoil提单”）。该等Brightoil提单所述明的高硫燃油的数量，与该等据称的货物收据所述明的数量相符。

(iii)  光汇石油（控股）有限公司（“光汇石油”）的全资附属公司Brightoil Shipping Singapore Pte Ltd是机动船“BRIGHTOIL LION”的管理人。

(iv)  光汇石油透过日期为2016年8月26日及2016年11月7日的函件向呈请人确认，该等Brightoil提单所述的有关高硫燃油的付运，其性质是为了Brightoil Petroleum (S’pore)  Pte Ltd.（“Brightoil S’Pore”）（光汇石油的全资附属公司，从事原油和石油产品交易以及向远洋船只供应船只燃料的业务）本身的目的而搬移货物，特别是为了支持Brightoil S’pore在中国的石油交易及向远洋船只供应船只燃料的业务。光汇石油进一步确认，该公司、清洁能源公司及泰力并非Brightoil S’Pore的客户。

(v)  在此前提下，该等据称的货物收据及该等Brightoil提单并非可证明清洁能源公司根据该等据称在2015年11月进行的交易从泰力收到高硫燃油的真实文件。

(4)  2016年预付款项据称是依据清洁能源公司与泰力所签订的一份日期为2016年1月8日的补充协议（“据称在2016年1月订立的协议”）而支付的。按照据称在2016年1月订立的协议：

(i)  泰力同意清洁能源公司的“退货”要求（即该等2015年11月销售确认书所述的高硫燃油）（前言）。

(ii)  尽管这份据称的协议列明清洁能源公司须把上述高硫燃油退回给泰力，但泰力将按照原本的该等2015年11月销售确认书向清洁能源公司出具发票（第1条），及清洁能源公司将按照正常程序发出货物交付收据（第2条）。

(iii)  泰力须积极地为该等高硫燃油寻找新客户（第3条）。

(iv)  清洁能源公司须在2016年6月30日或之前，向泰力支付不少于1.45亿港元的款项，目的据称是维持泰力适时就有关货物履行其付款责任的能力（第4条）。

(v)  泰力将在收到其新客户的付款后十日内，且无论如何不迟于2016年12月31日，不计利息全额退回清洁能源公司已支付的款项（第5条）。

(5)  于据称在2016年1月订立的协议后，泰力在2016年2月至2016年6月期间发出多份催办函（“该等据称的催办函”），据称当中催促清洁能源公司按照据称的2016年1月订立的协议第4条，在2016年6月30日或之前履行其支付1.45亿港元的责任。

(6)  据称在2016年1月订立的协议及该等据称的催办函并非真实商业交易的证明文件，而只是用以掩饰2016年预付款项的性质的文书：

(i)  基于在上文第32段所作诉的事宜，泰力并非清洁能源公司的真实对手方。

(ii)  基于在上文第51(b)(3)段所作诉的事宜，泰力事实上并无向清洁能源公司交付任何高硫燃油。

(iii)  无论如何，清洁能源公司与泰力议定（透过据称在2016年1月订立的协议），在一段短时间内向后者支付不少于1.45亿港元的款项（相当于大部分该等2015年11月销售确认书所指明的原本的合约款额），或实际上向泰力提供一笔免息贷款，据称以待泰力找到新客户或直至2016年12月31日，都是完全没有商业意义的。

(7)  2016年预付款项最终由泰力直接或间接透过汉志及尚成转帐给Wealthy Union。不论是依据据称在2016年1月订立的协议或其他协议，该等款项都从未偿还给清洁能源公司。

(c)  此外，在上文第51(a)段所作诉由Wealthy Union支付予清洁能源公司的1.5亿港元中，有1,500万港元乃源自中金。

(d)  为说明与该2015年出售交易有关的上述付款而编制的资金流动图表，连同上文第51(a)至(c)段所述的个别资金转帐的明细表，附载于附表的附件II。

(e)  涉及出售款项的资金流动的公司与该公司或该集团或与该公司或该集团有密切关连的人士有关。尤其是：

(1)  汉志：

(i)  李涛在大约2013年7月15日至2014年11月26日期间及2013年9月3日至2014年11月25日期间，分别是汉志的股东及董事。他的继任人是刘子栋（在2014年11月26日至2014年12月18日期间担任股东，及在2014年11月25日至2015年4月30日期间担任董事，且仅在北京附属公司担任司机），其后是李蕾（自2015年4月30日起担任董事）。在所有关键时间，李涛一直是控制汉志的人。

(ii)  向商业秘书发出指示以将汉志的股东及董事由李涛改为刘子栋的是田媛媛，当时她是北京附属公司总经理李辉的助理。田媛媛亦指示商业秘书编制一套文件以供日后使用，当中包括：(i)  一封将由刘子栋签署的董事辞职信；(ii)有关转移汉志全部股权的文件（当中新股东的身分留白）；及(iii)有关更改汉志董事的文件（当中新董事的身分留白）。

(iii)  向商业秘书发出指示以将汉志的股东及董事由刘子栋改为汉志集团，及将汉志的董事由刘子栋改为李蕾的，亦是田媛媛。

(iv)  汉志集团是由商业秘书按照田媛媛的指示注册成立的。李涛在2014年11月6日至2014年11月29日期间是汉志集团的唯一独事兼唯一股东。在田媛媛的指示下，汉志集团的唯一董事兼唯一股东在2014年11月29日由李涛改为刘子栋，其后在2015年5月1日由刘子栋改为李蕾。

(v)  商业秘书就汉志及汉志集团而收取的服务费，由创先发出并经由李辉和冯涛签署的支票结清。

(vi)  李涛是汉志银行帐户的获授权签署人。

(vii)  李涛是汉志于越秀证券有限公司（“越秀证券”）的证券帐户的获授权交易人。

(2)  尚成：

(i)  尚成是由商业秘书按照田媛媛的指示注册成立的。

(ii)  李涛在2014年11月21日至2015年5月20日期间是尚成的唯一股东兼唯一董事。

(iii)  李涛是尚成银行帐户的获授权签署人。

(iv)  李涛是尚成于越秀证券的证券帐户的获授权交易人。

(v)  尚成向Wealthy Union作出的两笔总额为2,000万港元的转帐，是透过该公司办事处的一个固定IP地址（210.3.86.106）在网上执行的。

(vi)  在2015年5月20日，尚成的股权被转移给刘子栋，而他亦被委任为董事。执行上述转移及委任的相关指示，是由田媛媛向商业秘书发出的。

(vii)  商业秘书就尚成而收取的服务费，由创先发出并经由李辉和冯涛签署的支票结清。

(3)  中金：

(i)  在所有关键时间，陈俊雄是中金的唯一股东兼董事，也是中金银行帐户的获授权签署人。

(ii)  商业秘书向中金提供服务而收取的服务费，由创先发出并经由李辉和冯涛签署的支票结清。

(4)  泰力：基于在上文第32段所作诉的事宜，泰力与该公司或该集团有关连。此外，泰力是由陈俊雄按照李涛的指示注册成立的。

(5)  李涛：基于在上文第17、50(f)(5)、51(e)(1)至(4)段所作诉的事宜，他是与该公司或该集团有关连的人士。

(f)  在此前提下，清洁能源公司、Wealthy Union、泰力、汉志、尚成及中金之间并无真实的业务关系，因为它们互有关连，及有关该2015年出售交易的付款是循环式的，没有真实的商业目的。

B4.5 有关该等2015年交易的虚构性的结论

52.  基于在上文B4.1至B4.4节所作诉的事宜，该等2015年交易是虚构的。

B5.  2015年度业绩及《2015年报》内的该等表述

53.  在2016年3月30日，该公司董事会（“董事会”）在该公司办事处举行会议（“2016年3月30日董事会会议”）。

54.  除李辉外，该公司所有董事（包括冯、田及罗）及公司秘书（即林）均出席了2016年3月30日董事会会议。

55.  在2016年3月30日董事会会议上：

(a)  该集团截至2015年12月31日止年度的经审计财务报表（“2015年经审计财务报表”）及与该集团截至2015年12月31日止年度的年度业绩有关的公告草拟本（分别为“2015年度业绩公告”及“2015年度业绩”）被提交以供考虑及批准。

(b)  有关会议议决（除其他事项外）在2016年股东周年大会上向该公司股东呈示2015年经审计财务报表，及授权该公司任何一名执行董事或公司秘书安排在联交所及该公司网站刊发2015年度业绩公告。

56.  2015年度业绩公告及该集团截至2015年12月31日止年度的年报（“《2015年报》”）分别在2016年3月30日及2016年4月28日发布。2015年经审计财务报表纳入《2015年报》刊载。

57.  2015年度业绩及《2015年报》载有（其中包括）以下表述（统称“该等表述”）：

(a)  该集团“于二零一五年下半年已……扩充资源贸易业务，……该业务分部现包含焦煤、铝杆及燃油等资源”。

(b)  该集团在2015年录得总收益382,789,000港元。

(c)  在2015年的总收益中，337,729,000港元源自“资源贸易”。

(d)  在2015年的总收益中，304,971,000港元源自一名位于新加坡的客户。

(e)  “主要客户资料”一节述明：

“业务收益约304,971,000港元（二零一四年︰104,428,000港元、78,603,000港元、51,883,000港元及41,550,000港元）乃源自资源贸易分部中一名客户（二零一四年：四名客户），该客户个别占本集团截至二零一五年十二月三十一日止年度之收益10%或以上。”（“估算2015年收益”）（底线为本文所加，以示强调）

(f)  “应收贸易款”一节述明：

“于二零一五年十二月三十一日，一名（二零一四年十二月三十一日：三名）客户应占本集团应收贸易款总额之94%（二零一四年十二月三十一日：95%）。”（底线为本文所加，以示强调）

(g)  “财务回顾”一节述明：

“应收贸易款约为325,322,000港元，较二零一四年十二月三十一日之32,489,000港元增加约901.33%。应收贸易款大幅增加乃主要由于二零一五年第四季进行大宗资源商品买卖交易所致。”（底线为本文所加，以示强调）

58.  基于在上文B4节所作诉的事宜，该等表述在以下方面属虚假或具误导性：

(a)  估算2015年收益据称源自该等2015年交易，而基于在上文B5节所作诉的事宜，该等2015年交易是虚构的。

(b)  该等表述提及的“一名客户”即Wealthy Union，是由该公司或与该公司或其附属公司有密切关连的人士所控制的实体。上文第34段在此处重复。

(c)  事实上，该集团在2015年下半年并无扩充资源贸易业务，也没有在2015年第四季进行大宗资源商品买卖交易。

(d)  在此前提下，该等表述属虚假或具误导性，且未能反映该公司的真实事务状况。

B6.  第一至第六答辩人对该公司负有的责任

59.  在所有关键时间，李辉、冯、田、罗及李涛各自对该公司负有（其中包括）以下责任：

(a)  真诚地及以公司最佳利益为前提行事的责任，包括向该公司及其股东披露所有相关重要资料的责任。

(b)  在履行其作为该公司董事（就李涛的情况而言作为幕后董事）的职责时，以合理水平的谨慎、技巧及努力行事的责任。

(c)  在没有向该公司作出全面及坦诚的披露并取得该公司知情同意的情况下，不得令其处于其本身（包括与其有关联的实体）的利益或任何第三方的利益会或可能会与该公司利益有所冲突的状况的责任。

(d)  在履行其作为该公司董事的职责时，作出独立判断的责任。

60.  此外，为了担任该公司董事，李辉、冯、田、罗曾经各自签署一份正式声明，分别向联交所承诺，在行使该公司董事的权力及职责时，遵守及促使该公司遵守（其中包括）不时生效的《上巿规则》。

61.  在所有关键时间，《上巿规则》规定（除其他事项外）：

(a)  第2.13(2)条：

“2.13 ……《上市规则》所要求的任何公告或公司通讯均必须按下列一般原则编备：……

(2) 文件所载资料在各重要方面均须准确完备，且没有误导或欺诈成分。”

   (b)   第3.08条：

“3.08 发行人的董事会须共同负责管理与经营业务。本交易所要求董事须共同与个别地履行诚信责任及应有技能、谨慎和勤勉行事的责任，而履行上述责任时，至少须符合香港法例所确立的标准。即每名董事在履行其董事职务时，必须：

(a) 诚实及善意地以公司的整体利益为前提行事；

(b) 为适当目的行事；

(c) 对发行人资产的运用或滥用向发行人负责；

(d) 避免实际及潜在的利益和职务冲突；

(e) 全面及公正地披露其与发行人订立的合约中的权益；及

(f) 以应有的技能、谨慎和勤勉行事，程度相当于别人合理地预期一名具备相同知识及经验，并担任发行人董事职务的人士所应有的程度。……”

   (c)   第13.04条：

“13.04 发行人的董事须共同及个别地负责确保发行人全面遵守《上市规则》。”

(d)  第13.47条：

“13.47 发行人的年度报告必须符合《上市规则》附录十六中有关年度报告的条文。发行人的财务摘要报告必须符合《公司（财务摘要报告）规例》所载条文的规定。”

(e)  附录十六第2段：

“年度报告、上市文件或通函内所呈列的每份财务报表，均须能真实而公平地反映上市发行人的事务状况以及其营运业绩及现金流量情况。”

B7.  第三答辩人在该条例第214(1)及(2)条下的法律责任

62.  基于上述事宜，该公司的业务或事务曾以上文第4段所作诉的方式经营或处理，而第三答辩人对该公司的业务或事务曾如此经营或处理负有责任。

63.  田罔顾后果地促使该公司的全资附属公司清洁能源公司签订虚构的该等2015年交易。

(a)  根据该公司的《2015年报》：

(1)  田在日本接受教育。他在日本取得经济学硕士及博士学位。

(2)  田曾在日本一家房地产公司工作近四年，并具有多年国内企业的经营管理经验。

(3)  田亦是中国民主建国会的会员及中国人民政治协商会议北京市东城区第13届委员。

(b)  田是清洁能源公司的董事，而他及李辉是清洁能源公司银行帐户的获授权签署人。然而，他没有参与清洁能源公司的任何业务，并只是就需要由他协助完成／批准的事务担任橡皮图章。

(c)  《供应合同》特别注明请他注意，但田表示他没有收取亦不知悉曾经收取该合同。他被李辉指示不需要参与清洁能源公司的任何业务（包括该等2015交易），因为田长期不处于香港，而且李辉向田解释说每个董事有不同的职责范围。虽然如此，但田身为清洁能源公司的董事，但他没有履行其职责或去了解及确保公司的业务是否妥当。

(d)  作为清洁能源公司银行帐户的其中一名获授权签署人，田（透过预先签署的电汇申请表格的方式）批准了清洁能源公司向泰力作出多笔总额约为3.02亿港元的付款，据称是为了结清该2015年供应交易。上文第22段在此处重复

(e)  虽然田身为清洁能源公司的董事，并在没有事先查询资金转帐目的为何的情况下向李辉及相关人士提供了预先签署的电汇申请表格，但他对该等2015年交易却毫不知情。虽然他身为清洁能源公司的董事，但他完全没有履行其职责。

(f)  在上述情况下，田在清洁能源公司订立该等2015年交易时，因罔顾后果而没有采取适当及合理的步骤，以确保有关交易是适当和真实的交易，或清洁能源公司签订有关交易乃符合该公司或清洁能源公司的利益或最佳利益。他亦因罔顾后果而向李辉及相关人士在没有任何具体原因或情况下提供预先签署的电汇申请表格以批准动用公司的资金，没有以合理水平的谨慎妥善地确保有关款项是为适当和真实的交易而支付的。就此而言，上文第59及63(a)至(d)段在此处重复，及进一步依据以下事项：

(1)  田作为该公司的执行董事，有责任妥善地管理该公司的事务。鉴于他过往在经营管理方面的经验，他在履行其责任时，理应达到一名在有关范畴具丰富经验的资深上市法团董事应有的标准。

(2)  田不仅是该公司的董事，还是清洁能源公司（即那家涉及该等2015年交易的附属公司）的董事。

(3)  田有责任以适当及合理水平的谨慎（包括采取适当的尽职审查步骤及作出合理的查询），确保该等2015年交易的对手方是适当和真实的对手方，该等2015年交易是真实和适当的交易，及签订有关交易乃符合清洁能源公司的利益或最佳利益。

(4)  值得注意的是，田知悉他获委任为清洁能源公司的董事，是为了防止其他董事挪用资金。然而，他在没有参与清洁能源公司的业务及该等2015年交易的情况下，向李辉及相关人士提供了预先签署的电汇申请表格，最终导致清洁能源公司据称是为了结清该2015年供应交易的付款而向泰力转帐了3.02亿港元。上文第20及63(c)段在此处重复。

(5)  田不符合一名合理地胜任的董事应达到的标准，原因是他不了解清洁能源公司的业务性质及向泰力作出的付款的性质。以下情况尤其凸显了这一点：该等2015年交易佔该集团截至2015年12月31日止年度收入的80%；及超过3亿港元在短时间内经他批准被转帐给泰力，而他并不知道资金转帐的目的。

(6)  若田有适当地履行其作为该公司一名合理地审慎的董事的责任，他理应会就该等2015年交易的背景及资金转帐的目的进行查询。

(7)  若田有以合理水平的谨慎获得对该等2015年交易适当的了解，那么促使清洁能源公司订立该等2015年交易的商业价值甚低一事，对田而言亦应是显而易见的。

(g)  在该等2015年交易涉及超过3亿港元巨款的情况下，田没有召开董事会会议以讨论有关交易，便促使清洁能源公司订立该等2015年交易。

64.  在上述情况下，田罔顾后果地导致虚假或具误导性的表述或陈述得以发布。

(a)  田透过以下方式导致该等表述得以发布：

(1)  在2016年3月30日董事会会议上批准发布该等表述；

(2)  没有向董事会提供有关该等2015年交易的真实事务状况的重要资料，以供其考虑；或

(3)  允许或没有以其他方式防止发布该等表述。

(b)  基于在上文第58段所作诉的事宜，该等表述是虚假或具误导性的。

(c)  田罔顾该等表述是否虚假或具误导性及是否显示该公司的真实事务状况。上文第63段在此处重复。

65.  在此前提下，基于田的作为或不作为，该公司的业务或事务曾以下述方式经营或处理：

(a)  该条例第214(1)(a)条所指的欺压其成员或其任何部分成员；

(b)  该条例第214(1)(b)条所指的涉及对该公司或其成员或其任何部分成员作出亏空、欺诈、不当行为或其他失当行为；

(c)  该条例第214(1)(c)条所指的导致其成员或其任何部分成员未获提供他们可合理期望获得的关于该公司的业务或事务的所有资料；及

(d)  该条例第214(1)(d)条所指的对其成员或其任何部分成员造成不公平损害。

C.  经议定的减轻刑罚因素

66.  第三答辩人一直就此等法律程序与呈请人合作及接受法律责任。

67.  第三答辩人已采取合理的行动，同意透过可省却呈请人及法庭的时间及讼费的Carecraft程序，结束此等法律程序。

68.  第三答辩人并无从上文列明的失当行为中获得任何私利。

D.  建议的命令

69.  基于上文B节所载列该等不受争议的事实及上文C节所载列经议定的减轻刑罚因素，呈请人与第三答辩人同意，适宜根据该条例第214(2)(d)条作出针对第三答辩人的取消资格令，饬令他在6年内未经法庭许可，不得：-

(1)   担任或留任香港任何上市或非上市法团的董事或清盘人，或香港任何上市或非上市法团的财产或业务的接管人或经理人；或

(2)   以任何方式直接或间接关涉或参与香港任何上市或非上市法团的管理。

70.  如法庭依据本陈述书循简易方式处置此法律程序，呈请人已与第三答辩人就此法律程序的讼费达成协议。第三答辩人同意于命令作出日期计十四日内，向呈请人支付协定讼费港币30,000元，作为第三答辩人于此法律程序中应承担的所有及最终清偿的讼费。

日期：2025年11月27日

证券及期货事务监察委员会 呈请人 由 代表呈请人签署		田松林 第三答辩人

附件I

该2015年供应交易相关资金流的示意图及明细表

资金流1A的资金转帐明细表

资金流1B的资金转帐明细表

资金流1C的资金转帐明细表

资金流1D的资金转帐明细表

资金流1E的资金转帐明细表

附件II

该2015年出售交易相关资金流的示意图及明细表[41]

资金流2A的资金转帐明细表

资金流2B(i)的资金转帐明细表

资金流2B(ii)的资金转帐明细表

资金流2C(i)的资金转帐明细表

资金流2C(ii)的资金转帐明细表

资金流2C(iii)的资金转帐明细表

资金流2D的资金转帐明细表

资金流2E(i)的资金转帐明细表

资金流2E(ii)的资金转帐明细表

资金流2E(iii)的资金转帐明细表

STATEMENT OF FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE FOR THE PURPOSES OF A CARECRAFT SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3^RD RESPONDENT

1.  On 12 July 2022, the Securities and Futures Commission (“Petitioner”)  issued proceedings under section 214 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571)  (“SFO”)  seeking disqualification orders against the following 6 respondents:-

(a)  Li Hui (“LI HUI”), the 1^st Respondent;

(b)  Feng Yongming (“FENG”), the 2^nd Respondent;

(c)  Tian Songlin (“TIAN”), the 3^rd Respondent;

(d)  Lo Ka Wai (“LO”), the 4^th Respondent;

(e)  Lam Man Kit (“LAM”), the 5^th Respondent; and

(f)  Li Tao (“LI TAO”), the 6^th Respondent

in respect of their conduct of the business or affairs of National United Resources Holdings Limited (the “Company”).

2.  Subject to the approval of this Court, the Petitioner and the 3^rd Respondent consent to the disposal of these proceedings against the 3^rd Respondent by way of the summary procedure sanctioned in Re Carecraft Construction Co Limited [1994] 1 WLR 172 (“Carecraft Procedure”), as clarified by the English Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rogers [1996] 1 WLR 1569 and as adopted by this Court in a number of cases including but not limited to Re Riverhill Holdings Ltd [2007] 4 HKLRD 46, Securities and Futures Commission v Fung Chiu and Others [2009] 2 HKC 19, Securities and Futures Commission v Shum Ka Sang Charlie and Shen Yi (HCMP 1014/2008, unrep, 22.05.2009), Re Styland Holdings Ltd [2011] 1 HKLRD 96, Securities and Futures Commission v Cheung Keng Ching and Others (HCMP 1869/2008, unrep, 18.03.2010)  and Securities and Futures Commission v Kwok Wing & Others (HCMP 3392/2013, unrep, 27.03.2015)  in respect of proceedings under section 214 of the SFO.

3.  This Statement is produced in order to set out the material facts relied upon by the Petitioner in these proceedings that are not disputed by the 3^rd Respondent, on the basis that the proceedings against the 3^rd Respondent may be dealt with and disposed of by this Court by way of the Carecraft Procedure.

4.  Solely for the purpose of resolving these proceedings against the 3^rd Respondent by way of the Carecraft Procedure, and by reference to the facts set out in Section B below (which the 3^rd Respondent admits and accepts), the 3^rd Respondent accepts that during the relevant period from around June 2015 to April 2016, the business or affairs of the Company, for which he, as an Executive Director of the Company, was responsible, have been conducted in a manner described in section 214(1)(a)  to (d)  of the SFO, namely:

(a)  oppressive to its members or any part of its members;

(b)  involving defalcation, fraud, misfeasance or other misconduct towards the Company or its members or any part of its members;

(c)  resulting in its members or any part of its members not having been given all the information with respect to its business or affairs that they might reasonably expect; and

(d)  unfairly prejudicial to its members or any part of its members.

5.  On the basis of the facts set out in Section B below and the agreed mitigating factors set out in Section C below, the Petitioner and the 3^rd Respondent agree, and the 3^rd Respondent is prepared to accept, that it would be appropriate for a disqualification order to be made against him under section 214(2)(d)  of the SFO under which he shall not for a period of 6 years, without the leave of the Court:

(a)  be, or continue to be, a director, liquidator, or receiver or manager of the property or business, of any listed or unlisted corporation in Hong Kong; or

(b)  in any way, directly or indirectly be concerned, or take part, in the management of any listed or unlisted corporation in Hong Kong.

“Corporation” means a company or other body corporate incorporated either in Hong Kong or elsewhere.

6.  In the event of a disqualification order being made against the 3^rd Respondent by reference to this Statement:

(a)  the Petitioner and the 3^rd Respondent agree that they will jointly apply to this Court for a direction that this Statement be annexed to a judgment of this Court; and

(b)  the Petitioner reserves the right to refer to this Statement for all purposes connected with or ancillary to these proceedings including, but not limited to, the continuation of these proceedings against the other Respondents.

7.  The Petitioner and the 3^rd Respondent agree that in the event this Court for whatever reason is of the view that these proceedings shall not be dealt with by way of the Carecraft  Procedure or that a full hearing is appropriate, no admission or concession by either the Petitioner or the 3^rd Respondent nor any proposal for disqualification or the period of disqualification herein referred to or liability to pay costs shall be referred to or relied upon by either party at any subsequent hearing in these proceedings without the prior written consent of both parties.

B.  Facts not in dispute

8.  The structure of Section B of this Statement is as follows:-

(a)  Sections B1 to B2 set out the background information relating to the Company and its management;

(b)  Sections B3 to B5 set out the facts relied upon by the Petitioner in support of its case that the business or affairs of the Company have been conducted in such manner described in sections 214(1)(a), (b), (c)  and (d)  of the SFO; and

(c)  Sections B6 to B7 set out the facts relied upon by the Petitioner in support of its case that the 3^rd Respondent was responsible for the aforesaid conduct of business or affairs of the Company.

B1.  The Company

Corporate Background and Management

9.  The Company was incorporated on 28 July 1972 in Hong Kong and has been listed on the Main Board of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong (the “HKSE”)  with Stock Code No. 254 since 16 November 1972.  At the time when the Company was incorporated, it was named Success Holdings Limited.  The Company has changed its name several times since its incorporation.  On 21 January 2014, the Company changed its name to National United Resources Holdings Limited.

10.  At all material times:

(a)  the registered office of the Company was Suite 5208, 52/F., Central Plaza, 18 Harbour Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong (“Company’s Office”).  On 11 September 2020, the Company’s registered office was changed to Suites 1106-08, 11^th Floor, The Chinese Bank Building, 61-65 Des Voeux Road Central, Hong Kong;

(b)  the Company was an investment holding company; and

(c)  the Company and its subsidiaries (together, the “Group”)  principally operated in three business segments, namely the resources trading business (i.e. trading of coking coal, aluminium rod and fuel oil), the online platform business (i.e. provision of online platform for the trading and deferred spot delivery services of precious metals)  and the media and advertising business.

11.  NUR Clean Energy Investment Limited (“NUR Clean”, formerly Power Sky International Enterprise Limited before 11 May 2015)  and First Concept Industrial Group Limited (“First Concept”, formerly First Concept Logistics Limited before 29 June 2015)  are the Company’s wholly-owned indirect subsidiaries principally involved in the Group’s trading activities.

B2.  The Respondents

12.  The 1^st Respondent, LI HUI:-

(a)  joined the Company in 2013 and was an executive director of the Company from 17 July 2015 to 19 September 2016;

(b)  was a director of NUR Clean from 8 May 2015 to 2 August 2016;

(c)  was a director of First Concept from 13 February 2012 to 2 August 2016; and

(d)  was appointed as the General Manager of 北京創先智尚資產管理有限公司, a wholly owned PRC subsidiary of the Company (the “Beijing Subsidiary”), on 20 December 2013.

13.  The 2^nd Respondent, FENG, was an executive director of the Company from 1 September 2014 to 19 May 2017.

14.  The 3^rd Respondent, TIAN:-

(a)  joined the Company as vice president in 2014;

(b)  was an executive director of the Company from 17 July 2015 to 10 November 2017; and

(c)  was a director of NUR Clean from 26 May 2015 to 10 November 2017.

15.  The 4^th Respondent, LO, also known as Eddy Lo, was:-

(a)  an executive director of the Company from 17 October 2013 to 19 May 2017; and

(b)  a director of NUR Clean from 22 January 2014 to 8 May 2015.

16.  The 5^th Respondent, LAM, also known as Jason Lam, was:-

(a)  the company secretary of the Company from 4 December 2013 to 25 April 2017;

(b)  appointed as the financial controller of the Company on 25 November 2013;

(c)  the company secretary of NUR Clean from 22 January 2014 to 20 July 2016; and

(d)  the authorised representative of the Company from 12 December 2013 to 25 April 2017.

17.  The 6^th Respondent, LI TAO, was at all material times the shadow controller and director of the Company.  He was part of the senior management of the Company.  He had an office in the Company’s offices in Beijing and was known to the staff as the “Big Boss” (“大老闆”).  He was the Consultant of the Group and regularly gave instructions to staff of the Company and its subsidiaries (including in particular Gary Chan, the Finance Manager of First Concept, as referred to in paragraph 32(b)  below).

B3.  The 2015 Transactions

18.  On 25 August 2015, NUR Clean purportedly entered into two back-to-back supply and sale transactions (together, the “2015 Transactions”)  with:

(a)   Huge Power Company Limited (“Huge Power”), for the supply of 140,000 metric tons of straight run fuel oil for USD$269/metric ton from Huge Power to NUR Clean (the “2015 Supply Transaction”); and

(b)   Wealthy Union Pte Ltd (“Wealthy Union”), for the sale of 140,000 metric tons of straight run fuel oil for US$270/metric ton from NUR Clean to Wealthy Union (the “2015 Sale Transaction”).

B3.1  The 2015 Supply Transaction

19.   The 2015 Supply Transaction was purportedly supported by a document entitled “Sales Confirmation” dated 25 August 2015 with reference “HP201508-01TT-NC” signed between Huge Power as the seller and NUR Clean as the buyer (the “Supply Contract”).

20.  The Supply Contract was addressed to TIAN’s attention and signed by LI HUI on behalf of NUR Clean.

21.  According to the Supply Contract:

(a)  Huge Power agreed to sell to NUR Clean 140,000 metric tonnes (+/- 5%)  of straight run fuel oil meeting certain specifications as specified under Clause 4 of the Supply Contract (Clauses 1-5).

(b)  The fuel oil would be delivered in “ONE LOT AS FULL CARGO, DES ONE SAFE PORT/ONE SAFE BERTH, PACIFIC AREA LIGHTERING” and that it would be delivered during the period from 10 September 2015 to 10 October 2015 (Clause 6).

(c)  The unit price is US$269 per metric ton (Clause 7).

(d)  NUR Clean agreed to pay Huge Power in full within 90 days after presentation of Huge Power’s commercial invoice.  Payment was to be effected against “presentation of [Huge Power]’s commercial invoice and standard shipping documents including full set 3/3 original bill of lading(s)” (Clause 8).

22.  A total of 7 payments in the aggregate amount of HK$302,285,021.49 were made by NUR Clean to Huge Power in purported settlement of an invoice in the amount of US$38,954,059.47 (equivalent to HK$302,283,501 according to the Applied Exchange Rate of HK$7.76 to US$1 as set out in Clause 7 of the Supply Contract and the invoice itself)  issued by Huge Power dated 21 September 2015 in respect of the 2015 Supply Transaction (Invoice No.: HP201508-01TT-NC).  Net of bank charges, a total amount of HK$302,283,501.49 was received by Huge Power.  The details of these remittance sums are as follows:

B3.2  The 2015 Sale Transaction

23.  The 2015 Sale Transaction was purportedly supported by a document entitled “Sales Confirmation” dated 25 August 2015 with reference “NC201508-01TT-WU” signed between Wealthy Union as the buyer and NUR Clean as the seller (the “Sales Contract”).

24.  The Sales Contract was signed by LI HUI on behalf of NUR Clean.

25.  According to the Sales Contract:

(a)  NUR Clean agreed to sell to Wealthy Union 140,000 metric tonnes (+/- 5%)  of straight run fuel oil meeting certain specifications as specified under Clause 4 of the Sales Contract (Clauses 1-5).

(b)  The fuel oil would be delivered in “ONE LOT AS FULL CARGO, DES ONE SAFE PORT/ONE SAFE BERTH, PACIFIC AREA LIGHTERING” and that it would be delivered during the period from 10 September 2015 to 10 October 2015 (Clause 6).

(c)  The unit price is US$270 per metric ton (Clause 7).

(d) Wealthy Union agreed to pay NUR Clean in full within 180 days after presentation of NUR Clean’s commercial invoice. Payment was to be effected against “PRESENTATION OF [NUR CLEAN]’S COMMERCIAL INVOICE AND STANDARD SHIPPING DOCUMENTS INCLUDING FULL SET 3/3 ORIGINAL BILL OF LADING(S)” (Clause 8).

26.  The delivery of straight run fuel oil was purportedly supported by three bills of lading (together, the “NUR Bills of Lading”), namely:

(a)  a Tanker Bill of Lading (No. PAL/S-1)  dated 12 September 2015 for the shipment of 144,810.630 metric tons of RMG 380 fuel oil (“NUR B/L 1”);

(b)  a bill of lading (SCAC Code: PPDPALIA15009A)  dated 25 August 2015 for the shipment of 43,376.306 metric tons of fuel oil (“NUR B/L 2”); and

(c)  a bill of lading (SCAC Code: PPDPALIA15009)  dated 21 August 2015 for the shipment of 9,885.554 metric tons of fuel oil (“NUR B/L 3”).

27.  On 21 September 2015, NUR Clean purportedly issued a commercial invoice to Wealthy Union (“NUR Clean Commercial Invoice”).

(a)  The NUR Clean Commercial Invoice was for the payment of US$39,098,870.10 (equivalent to HK$303,407,231.976 according to the Applied Exchange Rate of HK$7.76 to US$1 as set out in Clause 7 of the Sales Contract and the invoice itself)  for 144,810.630 metric tons of straight run fuel oil.

(b)  The due date of payment of the NUR Clean Commercial Invoice was stated to be 19 March 2016.

(c)  The NUR Clean Commercial Invoice was signed by LI HUI.

28.  A total of 6 payments in the aggregate amount of HK$149,507,231.98 were made by Wealthy Union to NUR Clean in purported settlement of the NUR Clean Commercial Invoice in respect of the 2015 Sale Transaction.  Net of bank charges, a total amount of HK$149,506,141.98 was received by NUR Clean.  The details of these remittance sums are as follows:

29.  In addition to the payment of HK$149,506,141.98 received directly by NUR Clean as set out in paragraph 28 above, between 18 October 2016 and 20 October 2016, NUR Clean also received three payments totalling RMB75,000,000 through its wholly-owned subsidiary 遐興（上海）投資管理有限公司 from a 北京京濱投资管理有限公司 (on behalf of Wealthy Union)  in purported settlement of the NUR Clean Commercial Invoice.  Details of the three payments are as follows:

30.  In the premises, NUR Clean had received a total of HK$149,506,141.98 and RMB 75,000,000 from Wealthy Union in purported settlement of the NUR Clean Commercial Invoice in respect of the 2015 Sale Transaction.

B4.  Fictitiousness of the 2015 Transactions

31.  By reason of the matters set out in paragraphs 32 to 51 below, the 2015 Transactions are fictitious.

B4.1  Huge Power is not a genuine counterparty

32.  By reason of the following, Huge Power is an entity controlled by the Company or persons closely connected to the Company or its subsidiaries:-

(a)  Huge Power was incorporated in Macau on 28 July 2015, less than one month before NUR Clean and Huge Power purportedly entered into the Supply Contract on 25 August 2015.

(b)  The instruction to incorporate Huge Power and to address the invoice for incorporating Huge Power to First Concept (instead of to Huge Power)  was given to the company secretary of Huge Power, Keng Ou Secretarial Service Limited, in June 2015 by one Chan Chon Hong Gary (“Gary Chan”).  Gary Chan was the Finance Manager of First Concept, who was accustomed to act in accordance with the directions or the instructions of LI HUI and LI TAO.

(c)  The Petitioner found the original passports of the two registered directors and shareholders of Huge Power, namely Wang Na (“Wang Na”)  and Lan Mu (“Lan Mu”), on the desk of Feng Tao during a search operation on 14 June 2016 at the Company’s Office (the “Search Operation”).  Feng Tao was a director and deputy general manager of First Concept who was accustomed to act in accordance with the directions or the instructions of LI HUI and LI TAO.

(d)  The Petitioner also found the business registration and tax declaration documents of Huge Power as well as some contractual documents between Huge Power and other third parties at the Company’s Office during the Search Operation.

(e)  According to Wang Na, she was instructed by Feng Tao to set up Huge Power.  She did not know what kind of business Huge Power was engaged in.  She had not seen the Supply Contract or any other contractual documents entered into between Huge Power and other third parties; and she gave her original passport to Feng Tao for opening securities accounts for Huge Power.

33.  In the premises, Huge Power is an entity controlled by the Company or persons closely connected to the Company or its subsidiaries and is not a genuine counterparty to the 2015 Supply Transaction.

B4.2  Wealthy Union is not a genuine counterparty

34.  By reason of the following, Wealthy Union is an entity controlled by the Company or persons closely connected to the Company or its subsidiaries:-

(a)  Wealthy Union was incorporated in Singapore on 28 August 2015, which was 3 days after NUR Clean and Wealthy Union had purportedly entered into the Sales Contract on 25 August 2015.  It was struck off by the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority in Singapore on 5 April 2018.

(b)  The instruction to incorporate Wealthy Union and to address the invoice for incorporating Wealthy Union to First Concept (instead of to Wealthy Union)  was given by Gary Chan to the company secretary of Wealthy Union, CS Corporate & Advisory Services Pte Limited, on 21 July 2015.

(c)  At all material times, the sole shareholder and one of the two directors of Wealthy Union was one Chu Wenyao (“Chu Wenyao”).  The other director of Wealthy Union was one Wang Fang from the company secretary of Wealthy Union, i.e. CS Corporate & Advisory Services Pte Limited.  Chu Wenyao and Feng Tao, director and deputy general manager of First Concept, shared the same contact number (86-135-1082-5210).

(d)  The Petitioner found some processed bank remittance forms on Gary Chan’s desk at the Company’s Office during the Search Operation showing that the bank remittance forms for the sum of HK$124 million were submitted to the OCBC Bank in Singapore by Gary Chan on behalf of Wealthy Union between 16 and 23 March 2015 in purported settlement of the 2015 Sale Transaction.

(e)  The Petitioner also found pre-signed bank remittance forms of Wealthy Union containing Chu Wenyao’s signature in the drawers of Gary Chan’s desk at the Company’s Office during the Search Operation.

(f)  The email account of Wealthy Union (wealthyunion@gmail.com)  was created via a fixed IP address (210.3.86.106)  at the Company’s Office on 11 March 2016.

35.  In the premises, Wealthy Union was an entity controlled by the Company or persons closely connected to the Company or its subsidiaries and was not a genuine counterparty to the 2015 Sale Transaction.

B4.3  The NUR Bills of Lading are not genuine

B4.3.1 Independent enquiry with the shipper

36.  According to the NUR Bills of Lading, the shipper was PMI Trading Limited (“PMI”).

37.  However, according to the information provided by PMI to the Petitioner, PMI did not order the shipment of fuel oil stated on the NUR Bills of Lading.  Instead, PMI had ordered a different shipment of fuel oil, particulars of which were stated in a different set of bills of lading (“PMI Bills of Lading”).

38.  There are substantial discrepancies between the 2 sets of Bills of Lading.  The differences between the NUR Bills of Lading and the PMI Bills of Lading are set out below:

39.  PMI confirmed with the Petitioner that none of NUR, NUR Clean, Wealthy Union and Huge Power was an actual customer of PMI.

B4.3.2 Independent enquiry with the carrier

40.  On the face of NUR B/L 2 and NUR B/L3, the fuel oil was transported on a vessel called “M. T. ALIAKMON”.

41.  Upon the enquiry of the Petitioner, Pleiades Shipping Agents S.A. (“Pleiades”), the manager and owner of “M. T. ALIAKMON”, confirmed that it did not ship the fuel oil as stated on NUR B/L 2 and NUR B/L 3.

42.  Pleiades provided the Petitioner with two bills of lading showing the shipments that “M. T. ALIAKMON” actually carried (“Pleiades Bills of Lading”).  The Pleiades Bills of Lading match with the PMI Bills of Lading (but not the NUR Bills of Lading)  in terms of the quantity of the goods and destination of shipment.

B4.3.3 Independent enquiry with the shipping agent

43.  On the face of NUR B/L 1, the shipping agent was Transmarine Navigation Corporation (“TNC”).

44.  Upon the enquiry of the Petitioner, TNC confirmed that:

(a)  Notwithstanding that NUR B/L 1 purported to contain a signature from TNC, it was not a document prepared by TNC.

(b)  NUR B/L 1 is not found in TNC’s files after a thorough review.

(c)  TNC did not have any communications with the Company, Wealthy Union, or Huge Power for the vessel’s loading and did not have any bill of lading copies related to these companies.

45.  TNC provided the Petitioner with the Tanker Bill of Lading which they had actually prepared upon PMI’s instructions (“Transmarine Bill of Lading”).  The contents of the Transmarine Bill of Lading match with that of the PMI Bills of Lading.

46.  According to TNC, the actual shipment was delivered to Zhoushan, China and Tanjung Pelepas, Malaysia.

(a)  TNC received from PMI a copy of a Letter of Indemnity (“LOI”)  on 5 October 2015 at 10:30 am in order that the vessel may discharge part of the cargo in China and part of the cargo in Malaysia.

(b)  In the LOI, the receivers listed for Zhoushan, China were Shenzhen Brightoil Group Co., Ltd (“Shenzhen Brightoil”)  and the receivers for Tanjung Pelepas, Malaysia were SK Energy International Pte Ltd (“SK Energy”).

B4.3.4 Independent enquiry with the receiving party of the fuel oil

47.  Shenzhen Brightoil confirmed with the Petitioner that:

(a)  Between 7 and 8 October 2015, Shenzhen Brightoil received delivery of 56,861.732 metric tons of RMK 500 fuel oil from “SONANGOL KALANDULA” at Zhoushan China.

(b)  The cargo was purchased by Brightoil Petroleum (S’pore)  Pte Ltd (“Brightoil S’pore”)  from PMI on Delivered at Place (DAP, Incoterms 2010)  one safe port/berth Zhoushan China for delivery in the period from 5 to 9 October 2015.  Shenzhen Brightoil was authorised by Brightoil S’pore to receive and store the cargo at Zhoushan on behalf of Brightoil S’pore.

(c)  The fuel oil was used by Brightoil S’pore to supply to its customers’ vessels in and around Zhoushan to be used as marine bunker in the course of its business as a marine bunker supplier.

(d)  the Company, NUR Clean, Huge Power and Wealthy Union were not the customers of Shenzhen Brightoil.

48.  SK Energy confirmed with the Petitioner that:

(a)  On 21 October 2015, SK Energy received a delivery of 87,524.557 metric tons of RMK 500 fuel oil from “M. T. SONGANGOL KALANDULA” at Tanjung Pelepas, Malaysia.

(b)  The cargo was purchased by SK Energy from PMI which issued a sales confirmation to SK Energy on 1 October 2015.

(c)  The fuel oil was not sold to SK Energy’s customer and was stored by SK Energy at its Jubilee Star’s storage facility for blending purposes.

(d)  the Company, NUR Clean, Huge Power and Wealthy Union were not the customers of SK Energy.

49.  In the premises, the NUR Bills of Lading are not genuine bills of lading.

B4.4  Round-robin fund flows pertaining to the 2015 Transactions

B4.4.1 Purchase Money

50.  By reason of the matters set out below, the money that NUR Clean purported to have paid to Huge Power for the 2015 Supply Transaction (the “Purchase Money”)  was eventually returned to the Company or companies/persons closely connected to the Company or its subsidiaries.

(a)  Between 30 October 2015 and 14 December 2015, NUR Clean paid approximately HK$302 million to Huge Power in purported settlement of the 2015 Supply Transaction. Paragraph 22 above is repeated.

(b)  From around 4 November 2015 to 16 December 2015, approximately HK$271 million out of the said HK$302 million Purchase Money was remitted by Huge Power to Sincere Logistics Limited (“Sincere Logistics”).

(c)  From around 6 November 2015 to 23 December 2015, Sincere Logistics remitted approximately HK$268 million to First Concept.

(d)  From around 18 November 2015 to 11 December 2015, First Concept repatriated approximately HK$237 million to the Company.

(e)  A fund-flow diagram illustrating the aforesaid payments pertaining to the 2015 Supply Transaction together with breakdown tables of the individual fund transfer referred to in paragraphs 50(a)  to (d)  above are attached as Annex I to this Schedule.

(f)  By reason of the matters set out below, Sincere Logistics is a company related to the Company or the Group or persons closely connected to the Company or the Group:-

(1)  The Petitioner found the banking and corporate documents of Sincere Logistics, including its internet banking token, internet banking password, cheque books, cheque deposit advice and shareholding transfer documents, at the residence of FENG during a search operation on 14 October 2016.

(2)  At all material times one Business Secretarial Consultants Limited (“Business Secretarial”)  was a company that provided company secretarial and other corporate services to China Wish Limited (“China Wish”), China Wish Group Limited (“China Wish Group”), Sincere Logistics, Sino King Trading (HK)  Co Limited (“Sino King”)  and Upper Target Limited (“Upper Target”).

(3)  Laura Tian (田媛媛)  (“Laura”)  was the contact person who gave instructions to Business Secretarial in respect of Sincere Logistics. The Sincere Logistics’ Annual Return dated 4 October 2015 included Business Secretarial as the company secretary.  Laura was an assistant (助理)  to the General Manager’s Office (總經辦)  from 1 January 2014 to 31 May 2015 and a department assistant (部門助理)  to the Project Planning Department (項目规划部)  from 29 July 2015 of the Beijing Subsidiary. LI HUI was appointed as the General Manager of the Beijing Subsidiary on 20 December 2013.

(4)  Service charges of Business Secretarial, insofar as Sincere Logistics was concerned, were settled by cheques issued by First Concept signed by LI HUI and Feng Tao.

(5)  Sincere Logistics was controlled by LI TAO through Feng Tao and Gary Chan.

(i)  Notwithstanding that Wang Na was a director and shareholder of Sincere Logistics, she was a nominee under the control of Feng Tao or LI TAO at all material times.  Wang Na was the authorised signatory of Sincere Logistics’ bank account. She signed on documents and pre-signed bank cheques in respect of Sincere Logistics at the request of Feng Tao or LI TAO.

(ii)  Gary Chan was in control of the bank account of Sincere Logistics at the request of LI TAO.

(6)  Seven tranches of the said transfers from Sincere Logistics and First Concept were effected online via a fixed IP address (210.3.86.106)  at the Company’s Office.

(g)  In the premises, there was no genuine business relationship between NUR Clean, Huge Power, Sincere Logistics and the Company as they were related parties and the aforesaid payments pertaining to the 2015 Supply Transaction were round-robin and served no genuine commercial purpose.

B4.4.2 Sales Money

51.  By reason of the matters set out below, the money NUR Clean purported to have received from Wealthy Union in settlement of the 2015 Sales Transaction (the “Sales Money”)  were eventually returned to Wealthy Union.

(a)  From 18 March 2016 to 16 June 2016, Wealthy Union paid approximately HK$150 million to NUR Clean in purported settlement of the 2015 Sale Transaction.  Paragraph 28 above is repeated.

(b)  The Sales Money were ultimately returned to Wealthy Union by NUR Clean directly or indirectly via companies connected to the Company or its subsidiaries including Huge Power, China Wish and Upper Target:-

(1)  A total of 7 payments in the aggregate amount of approximately HK$145 million were made by NUR Clean to Huge Power from around 21 March 2016 to 6 June 2016 (“2016 Prepayments”).

(2)  The 2016 Prepayments were purportedly made pursuant to the Sales Confirmation Nos. HP 201511-01TT-NC, HP 201511-02TT-NC, and HP 201511-03TT-NC between NUR Clean and Huge Power dated 1 November 2015, 10 November 2015 and 10 November 2015 respectively (together “November 2015 Sales Confirmations”)  whereby NUR Clean purportedly agreed to buy 40,000, 40,000 and 21,000 metric tons (+/- 5%)  high sulfur fuel oil at USD 226, USD 251 and USD 220 per metric ton respectively from Huge Power (“Purported November 2015 Transactions”).

(3)  In fact, the Purported November 2015 Transactions were fictitious in that there was no high sulfur fuel oil delivered to NUR Clean by Huge Power at all.

(i)  During the Search Operation, the Petitioner seized three documents entitled “CARGO RECEIPT” all dated 13 January 2016 (“Purported Cargo Receipts”)  purportedly issued by NUR Clean to Huge Power to confirm the receipt of high sulfur fuel oil for the Purported November 2015 Transactions.

(ii)  During the Search Operation, the Petitioner also seized three bills of lading in which “M.T. BRIGHTOIL LION” was named as the motor vessel (B/L Nos. E4832, E4835 and E4830)  (“Brightoil B/Ls”).  The quantities of high sulfur fuel oil as stated in the Brightoil B/Ls match the quantities as stated in the Purported Cargo Receipts.

(iii)  Brightoil Shipping Singapore Pte Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Brightoil Petroleum (Holdings)  Ltd (“Brightoil Petroleum”), was the manager of the motor vessel “BRIGHTOIL LION”.

(iv)  Brightoil Petroleum confirmed with the Petitioner by way of letters dated 26 August 2016 and 7 November 2016 that the shipments of high sulfur fuel oil mentioned in the Brightoil B/Ls were in the nature of relocation of cargo for the own purposes of Brightoil Petroleum (S’pore)  Pte Ltd. (“Brightoil S’Pore”)  (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Brightoil Petroleum that carried on business in the trading of crude and petroleum products, as well as the supply of marine bunker fuel to ocean going vessels), in particular, to support Brightoil S’pore’s business of oil trading and supply of bunker fuel to ocean going vessels in China.  Brightoil Petroleum further confirmed that the Company, NUR Clean and Huge Power were not the customers of Brightoil S’Pore.

(v)  In the premises, the Purported Cargo Receipts and the Brightoil B/Ls are not genuine documents in support of the receipt of high sulfur fuel oil by NUR Clean from Huge Power under the Purported November 2015 Transactions.

(4)  The 2016 Prepayments were purportedly made pursuant to a supplemental agreement dated 8 January 2016 entered into between NUR Clean and Huge Power (“Purported January 2016 Agreement”).  According to the Purported January 2016 Agreement:

(i)  Huge Power was agreeable to NUR Clean’s request to “return the goods” (i.e. the high sulfur fuel oil mentioned in the November 2015 Sales Confirmations)  (Preamble).

(ii)  Notwithstanding the purported agreement that the said high sulfur fuel oil was to be returned to Huge Power by NUR Clean, Huge Power would issue invoices to NUR Clean in accordance with the original November 2015 Sales Confirmations (Clause 1), and NUR Clean would issue cargo delivery receipts in accordance with normal procedure (Clause 2).

(iii)  Huge Power shall actively locate a new customer for the high sulfur fuel oil (Clause 3).

(iv)  NUR Clean was required to pay Huge Power an amount of not less than HK$145 million on or before 30 June 2016 allegedly for the purpose of maintaining Huge Power’s ability to promptly meet its payment obligations for goods (Clause 4).

(v)  Huge Power would return the payments made by NUR Clean in full without interest within 10 days after Huge Power has received payment from its new customer, and in any event not later than 31 December 2016 (Clause 5).

(5)  Subsequent to the Purported January 2016 Agreement, Huge Power issued a number of reminder letters from February 2016 to June 2016 (“Purported Reminder Letters”)  purportedly chasing NUR Clean to fulfil the obligation to pay HK$145 million by 30 June 2016 under Clause 4 of the Purported January 2016 Agreement.

(6)  The Purported January 2016 Agreement and the Purported Reminder Letters are not documents in support of a genuine commercial transaction but merely instruments to disguise the nature of the 2016 Prepayments:

(i)  Huge Power is not a genuine counterparty to NUR Clean by reason of the matters set out in paragraph 32 above.

(ii)  No high sulfur fuel oil was in fact delivered by Huge Power to NUR Clean by reason of the matters set out in paragraph 51(b)(3)  above.

(iii)  In any event, it made no commercial sense at all for NUR Clean to agree with Huge Power (by the Purported January 2016 Agreement)  to pay it  an amount of not less than HK$145 million, which represented a substantial part of the original contractual sums specified in the November 2015 Sales Confirmations, within a short period of time or effectively advancing an interest-free loan to Huge Power purportedly pending the location of a new customer by Huge Power, or until 31 December 2016, notwithstanding the purported return of the goods.

(7)  The 2016 Prepayments were eventually transferred by Huge Power to Wealthy Union directly and indirectly via China Wish and Upper Target.  They were never repaid to NUR Clean, whether pursuant to the Purported January 2016 Agreement or otherwise.

(c)  Further, out of the HK$150 million paid by Wealthy Union to NUR Clean set out in paragraph 51(a)  above, HK$15 million was sourced from Sino King.

(d)  A fund-flow diagram illustrating the aforesaid payments pertaining to the 2015 Sale Transaction together with breakdown tables of the individual fund transfer referred to in paragraphs 51(a)  to (c)  above are attached as Annex II to this Schedule.

(e)  The companies involved in the fund flows of the Sales Money are related to the Company or the Group or persons closely connected to the Company or the Group.  In particular:

(1)  China Wish:

(i)  LI TAO was a shareholder and director of China Wish from around 15 July 2013 to 26 November 2014 and from 3 September 2013 to 25 November 2014 respectively.  He was succeeded by Liu Zidong (shareholder from 26 November 2014 to 18 December 2014 and director from 25 November 2014 to 30 April 2015, and a mere driver of the Beijing Subsidiary), and later by Li Lei (director since 30 April 2015). At all material times LI TAO remained the controlling mind of China Wish.

(ii)  The instructions given to Business Secretarial for the change of shareholding and directorship in China Wish from LI TAO to Liu Zidong were given by Laura who was an assistant of LI HUI i.e. the General Manager of the Beijing Subsidiary at the time. Laura also instructed Business Secretarial to prepare a set of documents for future use including: (i)  a letter of resignation as director to be signed by Liu Zidong; (ii)  documents for transferring the entire shareholding of China Wish (with the identity of the new shareholder left blank); and (iii)  documents for changing the director of China Wish (with the identity of the new director left blank).

(iii)  The instructions given to Business Secretarial for the change of shareholding in China Wish from Liu Zidong to China Wish Group, and change of directorship of China Wish from Liu Zidong to Li Lei, were also given by Laura.

(iv)  China Wish Group was incorporated by Business Secretarial upon the instructions of Laura. LI TAO was the sole director and sole shareholder of China Wish Group between 6 November 2014 and 29 November 2014.  Under the instructions of Laura, the sole shareholder and sole director of China Wish Group was changed from LI TAO to Liu Zidong on 29 November 2014 and subsequently from Liu Zidong to Li Lei on 1 May 2015.

(v)  Service charges of Business Secretarial, insofar as China Wish and China Wish Group are concerned, were settled by cheque issued by First Concept signed by LI HUI and Feng Tao.

(vi)  LI TAO was an authorised signatory of China Wish’s bank account.

(vii)  LI TAO was an authorised dealer of China Wish’s securities account at Yue Xiu Securities Company Limited (“Yue Xiu Securities”).

(2)  Upper Target:

(i)  Upper Target was incorporated by Business Secretarial upon the instructions given by Laura.

(ii)  LI TAO was the sole shareholder and sole director of Upper Target between 21 November 2014 and 20 May 2015.

(iii)  LI TAO was an authorised signatory of Upper Target’s bank account.

(iv)  LI TAO was an authorised dealer of Upper Target’s securities account at Yue Xiu Securities.

(v)  Two of the transfers from Upper Target to Wealthy Union in the aggregate sum of HK$20 million were effected online via a fixed IP address (210.3.86.106)  at the Company’s Office.

(vi)  On 20 May 2015, the shareholding of Upper Target was transferred to Liu Zidong, who was appointed its director.  The relevant instructions for effecting the said transfer and appointment were given by Laura to Business Secretarial.

(vii)  Service charges of Business Secretarial, insofar as Upper Target was concerned, were settled by cheque issued by First Concept signed by LI HUI and Feng Tao.

(3)  Sino King:

(i)  At all material times, Gary Chan was the sole shareholder and director of Sino King and an authorised signatory of Sino King’s bank account.

(ii)  Service charges of Business Secretarial provided to Sino King were settled by cheques issued by First Concept signed by LI HUI and Feng Tao.

(4)  Huge Power: By reason of the matters set out in paragraph 32 above, Huge Power is connected with the Company or the Group.  Further, Huge Power was incorporated by Gary Chan at the instruction of LI TAO.

(5)  LI TAO: By reason of the matters set out in paragraphs 17, 50(f)(5), 51(e)(1)  to (4), he is a person connected with the Company or the Group.

(f)  In the premises, there was no genuine business relationship between NUR Clean, Wealthy Union, Huge Power, China Wish, Upper Target and Sino King as they were related parties and the payments pertaining to the 2015 Sale Transaction were round-robin and served no genuine commercial purpose.

B4.5 Conclusion on the fictitiousness of the 2015 Transactions

52.  By reason of the matters set out in Sections B4.1 to B4.4 above, the 2015 Transactions are fictitious.

B5.  The Statements in the 2015 Annual Results and the 2015 Annual Report

53.  On 30 March 2016, a meeting of the board of directors of the Company (“Board”)  was held at the Company’s Office (“30.3.16 Board Meeting”).

54.  Apart from LI HUI, all the directors (including FENG, TIAN and LO)  and the company secretary (i.e. LAM)  of the Company attended the 30.3.16 Board Meeting.

55.  At the 30.3.16 Board Meeting:

(a)  The audited financial statements of the Group for the year ended 31 December 2015 (“2015 Audited Financial Statements”)  and the draft announcement relating to the annual results of the Group for the year ended 31 December 2015 (the “2015 Annual Results Announcement” and “2015 Annual Results” respectively)  were tabled for consideration and approval.

(b)  It was resolved at the meeting, amongst other things, that the 2015 Audited Financial Statements be approved for presentation to the members of the Company at the Annual General Meeting 2016 and that any one of the executive directors or the company secretary of the Company be authorised to arrange publication of the 2015 Annual Results Announcement on the websites of the HKSE and the Company.

56.  On 30 March 2016 and 28 April 2016, the 2015 Annual Results Announcement and the annual report of the Group for the year ended 31 December 2015 (“2015 Annual Report”)  were published respectively.  The 2015 Audited Financial Statements were incorporated in the 2015 Annual Report for publication.

57.  The 2015 Annual Results and the 2015 Annual Report contain, inter alia, the following statements (together the “Statements”):

(a)  The Group has “expanded its resources trading business in the second half of 2015, which now includes resources such as coking coal, aluminium rod and fuel oil”.

(b)  The Group recorded a total revenue of HK$382,789,000 in 2015.

(c)  HK$337,729,000 of the total revenue in 2015 was derived from “resources trading”.

(d)  HK$304,971,000 of the total revenue in 2015 was derived from a customer located in Singapore.

(e)  In the section on “Information about major customers”, it was stated that:

“Revenue from operations of approximately HK$304,971,000 (2014: HK$104,428,000, HK$78,603,000, HK$51,883,000 and HK$41,550,000)  was derived from one customer (2014: four customers)  in the resources trading segment which individually contributed 10% or more to the Group’s revenue for the year ended 31 December 2015.” (“Imputed 2015 Revenue”)  (emphasis added)

(f)  In the section on “TRADE RECEIVABLES”, it was stated that:

“As at 31 December 2015, one (31 December 2014: three)  customers [sic.] attributable to the Group’s total trade receivables were 94% (31 December 2014: 95%).” (emphasis added)

(g)  In the section on “FINANCIAL REVIEW”, it was stated that:

“Trade receivables amounted to approximately HK$325,322,000, representing an increase of approximately 901.33% when compared to HK$32,489,000 as at 31 December 2014. This dramatical increase was mainly due to significant trading transactions in resources commodities occurred [sic.] in the fourth quarter of 2015.”  (emphasis added)

58.  By reason of the matters set out in Section B4 above, the Statements are false or misleading in the following respects:

(a)  The Imputed 2015 Revenue is revenue purportedly derived from the 2015 Transactions, which were fictitious by reason of the matters set out in Section B5 above.

(b)  The “one customer” referred to in the Statements was Wealthy Union, which was an entity controlled by the Company or persons closely connected to the Company or its subsidiaries. Paragraph 34 above is repeated.

(c)  The Group did not in fact expand its resources trading business in the second half of 2015 or conduct significant trading transactions in resources commodities in the fourth quarter of 2015.

(d)  In the premises, the Statements are false or misleading and do not reflect the true state of affairs of the Company.

B6.  Duties owed by the 1^st to 6^th Respondents to the Company

59.  At all material times, each of LI HUI, FENG, TIAN, LO and LI TAO owed the following duties to the Company:

(a)  A duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the Company, including a duty to disclose all relevant material information to the Company and the shareholders.

(b)  A duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence in the performance of their duties as directors, and in the case of LI TAO, as the shadow director, of the Company.

(c)  A duty not to place himself in a position where his interests (including of those entities associated with him)  or the interests of any third party, might conflict with those of the Company without making full and frank disclosure to, and obtaining informed consent from, the Company.

(d)  A duty to exercise independent judgment in the performance of their duties as directors of the Company.

60.  Further, in order to act as the directors of the Company, each of LI HUI, FENG, TIAN and LO had signed a formal declaration, respectively undertaking to the HKSE that they would, in the exercise of their powers and duties as directors of the Company, comply and procure the Company to comply with, the Listing Rules from time to time in force.

61.  At the material times, the Listing Rules provide, amongst other things, that:

(a)  Rule 2.13(2):

“2.13 … any announcement or corporate communication required pursuant to the Exchange Listing Rules must be prepared having regard to the following general principles: …

(2)  the information contained in the document must be accurate and complete in all material respects and not be misleading or deceptive.”

   (b)   Rule 3.08:

“3.08 The board of directors of an issuer is collectively responsible for its management and operations. The Exchange expects the directors, both collectively and individually, to fulfil fiduciary duties and duties of skill, care and diligence to a standard at least commensurate with the standard established by Hong Kong law. This means that every director must, in the performance of his duties as a director:—

(a)  act honestly and in good faith in the interests of the company as a whole;

(b)  act for proper purpose;

(c)  be answerable to the issuer for the application or misapplication of its assets;

(d)  avoid actual and potential conflicts of interest and duty;

(e)  disclose fully and fairly his interests in contracts with the issuer; and

(f)  apply such degree of skill, care and diligence as may reasonably be expected of a person of his knowledge and experience and holding his office within the issuer. …”

   (c)   Rule 13.04:

“13.04 An issuer’s directors are collectively and individually responsible for ensuring the issuer’s full compliance with the Listing Rules.”

(d)  Rule 13.47:

“13.47 An issuer’s annual report must comply with the provisions set out in Appendix 16 in relation to annual reports. The issuer’s summary financial report must comply with the provisions set out in the Companies (Summary Financial Reports)  Regulation.”

(e)  Paragraph 2 of Appendix 16:

“Each set of financial statements presented in an annual report, listing document or circular shall provide a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the listed issuer and of the results of its operations and its cashflows.”

B7.  Liability of the 3^rd  Respondent under section 214(1)  and (2)  of the SFO

62.  By reason of the matters aforesaid, the business or affairs of the Company have been conducted in a manner as set out in paragraph 4 above and the 3^rd Respondent is responsible for the business or affairs of the Company having been so conducted.

63.  TIAN had recklessly committed NUR Clean, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, to enter into the fictitious 2015 Transactions.

(a)  According to the Company’s 2015 Annual Report:

(1)  TIAN studied in Japan.  He obtained a master degree as well as a doctorate degree in Economics in Japan.

(2)  TIAN had worked in a real estate company in Japan for almost four years and had years of experience in business administration at local enterprises.

(3)  TIAN was also a member of China Democratic National Construction Association and a committee member of the 13^th Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference of Dongcheng District, Beijing.

(b)  TIAN was a director of NUR Clean,  and he and LI HUI were the authorised signatories of the bank account of NUR Clean.  However, he was not involved in any of NUR Clean’s business and acted only as a rubber stamp for matters that required his input/approval.

(c)  While the Supply Contract was specifically addressed for his attention, TIAN said he did not receive, and was not aware of having received, the same.  TIAN was instructed by LI HUI not to participate in any of NUR Clean’s business (including the 2015 Transactions), as he was not based in Hong Kong for an extended period, and LI HUI explained to him that each director had different a different scope of work.  Nevertheless, TIAN, as a director of NUR Clean, failed to discharge his duties or to ascertain and ensure the proper conduct of the company’s business.

(d)  As one of the authorised signatories of the bank account of NUR Clean, TIAN approved (by way of pre-signed telegraphic transfer application forms)  the payments in the aggregate amount of approximately HK$302 million by NUR Clean to Huge Power in purported settlement of the 2015 Supply Transaction.  Paragraph 22 above is repeated.

(e)  Although TIAN was a director of NUR Clean, he provided LI HUI and related parties with pre-signed telegraphic transfer application forms without making prior enquiries as to the purpose of the fund transfers, and he had no knowledge of the 2015 Transactions.  He wholly failed to discharge his duties as a director of NUR Clean.

(f)  In the circumstances, at the time NUR Clean entered into the 2015 Transactions, TIAN acted recklessly by failing to take proper and reasonable steps to ensure that the transactions were proper and genuine, or that it was in the interest or best interest of the Company or NUR Clean for NUR Clean to enter into such translations.  He was also reckless in providing to LI HUI and related parties pre-signed telegraphic transfer application forms to authorise the use of the company’s funds without any specific reasons or circumstances, and failed to exercise reasonable care to properly ensure that the payments are made for proper and genuine transactions.  In this regard, paragraphs 59 and 63(a)  to (d)  above are repeated and the following matters are further relied upon:

(1)  As an executive director of the Company, TIAN had a duty to properly manage the Company’s affairs.  Given his previous experience in business administration, he was expected to discharge his duties to the standard of an experienced director of listed corporations with substantial experience in such a field.

(2)  TIAN was not only a director of the Company; he was also a director of NUR Clean, which is the very subsidiary involved in the 2015 Transactions.

(3)  It was TIAN’s duty to take proper and reasonable care (including taking proper steps of due diligence and making reasonable inquiry)  to ensure that the counterparties to the 2015 Transactions were proper and genuine parties, that the 2015 Transactions were genuine and proper, and that it was in the interest or best interest of NUR Clean to enter into such transactions.

(4)  Notably, TIAN was aware that he was appointed as a director of NUR Clean to prevent other directors from misappropriating funds.  However, despite not being involved in the business of NUR Clean and the 2015 Transactions, he provided LI HUI and related parties with pre-signed telegraphic transfer application forms, which eventually led to payment of HK$302 million from NUR Clean to Huge Power in purported settlement of the 2015 Supply Transaction.  Paragraph 20 and 63(c)  above are repeated.

(5)  TIAN had fallen short of the standard expected of a reasonably competent director by having no understanding of the nature of the business of NUR Clean and the nature of the payments to Huge Power.  This is particularly egregious when the 2015 Transactions constituted approximately 80% of the Group’s revenue for the year ended 31 December 2015 and over HK$300 million was transferred with his approval to Huge Power within a short period of time without him knowing the purpose of the fund transfers.

(6)  If TIAN had properly discharged his duty as a reasonably prudent director of the Company, he ought to have inquired into the background of the 2015 Transactions and the purpose of the fund transfers.

(7)  It should also have been apparent to TIAN, if he had taken reasonable care to acquire a proper understanding of the 2015 Transactions, that to commit NUR Clean to the 2015 Transactions made little commercial sense.

(g)  TIAN committed NUR Clean to the 2015 Transactions without convening a Board meeting to discuss the same in the circumstance where a substantial amount of over HK$300 million was involved in the 2015 Transactions.

64.  In the circumstances, TIAN recklessly caused false or misleading statements or representations to be published.

(a)  TIAN caused the Statements to be published by:

(1)  approving the publication of the Statements at the 30.3.16 Board Meeting;

(2)  omitting to provide material information regarding the true state of affairs of the 2015 Transactions to the Board for consideration; or

(3)  allowing or not preventing the Statements from being published.

(b)  The Statements are false or misleading by reason of the matters set out in paragraph 58 above.

(c)  TIAN was reckless as to whether the Statements were false or misleading and presented the true state of affairs of the Company.  Paragraph 63 above is repeated.

65.  In the premises, by reason of the acts or omission of TIAN, the business or affairs of the Company have been conducted in a manner:

(a)  oppressive to its members or any part of its members within the meaning of section 214(1)(a)  of the SFO;

(b)  involving defalcation, fraud, misfeasance or other misconduct towards the Company or its members or any part of its members within the meaning of section 214(1)(b)  of the SFO;

(c)  resulting in its members or any part of its members not having been given all the information with respect to its business or affairs that they might reasonably expect within the meaning of section 214(1)(c)  of the SFO; and

(d)  unfairly prejudicial to its members or any part of its members within the meaning of section 214(1)(d)  of the SFO.

C.  Agreed Mitigating factors

66.  The 3^rd Respondent has been cooperative in relation to these proceedings with the Petitioner and accepts liability.

67.  The 3^rd Respondent has adopted a reasonable course of action in agreeing to conclude these proceedings by way of the Carecraft Procedure which would save the time and costs of the Petitioner and the Court.

68.  The 3^rd Respondent has not made any personal gains from the misconduct stipulated above.

D.  Proposed Orders

69.  On the basis of the facts not in dispute as set out in Section B above and the agreed mitigating factors set out in Section C above, the Petitioner and the 3^rd Respondent agree that it would be appropriate for a disqualification order to be made against him under section 214(2)(d)  of the Ordinance that, for a period of 6 years, he shall not, without the leave of the Court:-

(1)  be, or continue to be, a director, liquidator, or receiver or manager of the property or business, of any listed or unlisted corporation in Hong Kong; or

(2)  in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned, or take part, in the management of any listed or unlisted corporation in Hong Kong.

70.  In case the Court disposes of these proceedings summarily pursuant to this Statement, the Petitioner and the 3^rd Respondent have reached an agreement in respect of the costs of these proceedings.  The 3^rd Respondent agrees to pay the Petitioner agreed costs of HK$30,000 within fourteen days from the date of the order to be made, in full and final settlement of all costs to be borne by the 3^rd Respondent in these proceedings.

Dated this 27^th day of November, 2025.

ANNEX I

Fund-flow diagram and breakdown tables of the fund flows pertaining to the 2015 Supply Transaction

Breakdown Table of the Funds Transferred in Fund Flow 1A

Breakdown Table of the Funds Transferred in Fund Flow 1B

Breakdown Table of the Funds Transferred in Fund Flow 1C

Breakdown Table of the Funds Transferred in Fund Flow 1D

Breakdown Table of the Funds Transferred in Fund Flow 1E

ANNEX II

Fund-flow diagram and breakdown tables of the fund flows pertaining to the 2015 Sale Transaction[42]

Breakdown Table of the Funds Transferred in Fund Flow 2A

Breakdown Table of the Funds Transferred in Fund Flow 2B(i)

Breakdown Table of the Funds Transferred in Fund Flow 2B(ii)

Breakdown Table of the Funds Transferred in Fund Flow 2C(i)

Breakdown Table of the Funds Transferred in Fund Flow 2C(ii)

Breakdown Table of the Funds Transferred in Fund Flow 2C(iii)

Breakdown Table of the Funds Transferred in Fund Flow 2D

Breakdown Table of the Funds Transferred in Fund Flow 2E(i)

Breakdown Table of the Funds Transferred in Fund Flow 2E(ii)

Breakdown Table of the Funds Transferred in Fund Flow 2E(iii)