And you are correct about them both faking their financial data, or refusing to let any entity outside of Communist China look at it.
Posted on 10/18/2025 7:28:29 PM PDT by Truthsearcher
HONG KONG – Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund GIC has sued Nio in a US court, accusing the Chinese electric vehicle(EV) maker and executives of violating securities laws by inflating revenues.
The lawsuit, filed in August in the Southern District of New York, named the company, its chief executive officer, Mr Li Bin, and former chief financial officer Feng Wei as defendants.
Nio’s Singapore-listed shares plunged on the news on Oct 16, falling as much as 13.8 per cent to US$6. The stock clawed back some ground to trade 8.1 per cent down at US$6.40 as at 2.48pm.
GIC alleged that the defendants made “materially false and/or misleading statements” about Nio’s ties to an affiliated company called Nio Battery Asset – or Weineng in Chinese – and failed to disclose key facts about its business and finances.
According to the complaint, those misstatements artificially inflated the value of Nio’s securities, causing GIC to suffer “significant losses”.
(Excerpt) Read more at straitstimes.com ...
,,, and steal everyone else's IP.
“...in a US court...”
Why is a Singapore company suing a Chicom company in the US?
Because NIO is list on the NYSE, and is therefore subject to
US SEC regulations and penalties.
And you are correct about them both faking their financial data, or refusing to let any entity outside of Communist China look at it.
No that’s a different scam. That one is where they build the shell of a car, then report to the GOVT they sold it over seas, and then get the govt subsidy, which is more money than the shell cost them.
This one is where they came up with a scheme where they sold the car cheap to the consumer, that doesn’t include a battery (which is usually 1/3 the cost of the car), and then rents a battery to the buyer. Then then turn around and “sell” the battery to a fake company they created, and account the revenue for the “sale” into their books. So a theoretical EV priced at $30,000, $10,000 of which is say the battery. They sell it for $20,000, along with a leasing agreement on the battery of say $1000 a year for 10 years, then turn around and sell the battery and the leasing contraact to a 3rd company. So on the books they can list they had $30,000 in revenue to the investors, but actually all they have is a $20,000 and a leasing contract that will pay $10,000 over ten years. The higher revenue leading investors to over value their company.
Interesting.
It reminds me of the weird construction, where there are houses all over China that are one story houses, but they started construction on a second floor but never finished it.
Apparently, the government enticed (or entices) people to build second stories onto the house, but all they have to do to get the reward (or however they monetarily encourage them) is to start it.
The result is houses that have some construction, a stairwell, some studs or walls put up, but no roof is put on it. And people are just fine with that.
Odd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.