This is a part-time job and has nothing to do with your company.
If units are loose, grab a few more.
In the past two days, it has become the first non-securities qualified accounting firm to undertake the annual review of listed companies. Tangtang Accounting Firm has attracted the attention of the entire Internet. In 2018, its annual operating income was 853.2 yuan and it had only 12 employees (including 3 certified public accountants).
Through corporate investigation, we found that this accounting firm still has litigation information, and found that even if the annual income is less than 1 million (thousand) yuan, there is still a sad story. The firm once worked hard to help a company that was about to be listed on the New Third Board, and the two parties agreed that the entire accounting fee would be 16,000 yuan. After paying the franchise fee of 50,000 yuan, the accounting firm entered the industry and spent a lot of effort to sort out the accounts, but the audit failed. Therefore, the accounting firm sued Party A's client and demanded payment of the remaining service fees. , but Party A is not easy to mess with. At the same time, he countersued, not only failing to pay the remaining service fees, but also demanding a refund of the 50,000 yuan paid. As a result, in the first instance, Tangtang Accounting Firm sadly lost the case, and the court ruled:
1. Dissolve Shenzhen Tangtang Accounting Firm (countersuit defendant) and Shenzhen Tianhaoyang Environmental Protection Co., Ltd. ( "Business Agreement of Shenzhen Tianhaoyang Environmental Protection Co., Ltd." signed by the counterclaim plaintiff);
2. The plaintiff (counterclaim defendant) Shenzhen Tangtang Accounting Firm shall report to the defendant within three days from the effective date of this judgment. (Counterclaim plaintiff) Shenzhen Tianhaoyang Environmental Protection Co., Ltd. returned the service fee of 50,000 yuan;
3. Dismissed the other claims of both parties.
The case acceptance fee is 65,438 0,280 yuan (prepaid by Tangtang Firm), and the counterclaim acceptance fee is 2,525 yuan (prepaid by Tianhaoyang Company), and is paid by Shenzhen Tangtang Accounting Firm. Shenzhen Tianhaoyang Environmental Protection Co., Ltd. paid 2,020 yuan...
When the accounting firm saw it, it felt that the accounts had been messed up, and it was painful. After working so hard, there is hard work without credit. Initially, it hoped to get some money back from the lawsuit. As a result, not only could I not get any money, but I was even worse off. It lost its wives, it lost its soldiers.
The uncle could endure the aunt’s misery, appealed, and upheld the original verdict; filed for a retrial, but rejected the retrial application, and was finally executed by the court. This is a sad story.
In addition, judging from the content of the court judgment, Wu Yutang, the head of the firm, has the identity of both the head of the firm and a partner of China Securities Tiantong Firm. Wu Yutang represents two accounting firms and The defendant Tianhaoyang Company signed the "Full Account Business Agreement" and the "Audit Business Agreement".
This means that it helps customers provide accounting (consulting) services on the one hand, and auditing services on the other. If an audit report is indeed issued, it will also conflict with the current professional ethics regulations for certified public accountants.
Attachment: Judgment Documents Online Judgment
First-instance Civil Judgment on the Service Contract Dispute between Shenzhen Tangtang Accounting Firm and Shenzhen Tianhaoyang Environmental Protection Co., Ltd.
Guangdong Province Shenzhen Baoan District People's Court
Civil Judgment
(2016) Guangdong 0306 Minchu No. 26918
Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant): Shenzhen Tangtang Accounting Firm Office, business location: 12E, Building 3, Jinyi Huating, at the junction of Jintian Road and Fumin Road, Futian District, Shenzhen City, organization code: 770332722.
Responsible person: Wu Yutang.
Agent: Wu, a lawyer at Guangdong Century Chinese Law Firm.
Defendant (counterclaim plaintiff): Shenzhen Tianhaoyang Environmental Protection Co., Ltd., located on the first floor of Area C, Building A, Puhua Science and Technology Park, Tongheng Community Industrial Park Road, Dalang Office, Longhua New District, Shenzhen, organization code 279282593.
Legal representative: Xie Chu.
Agent: Li, a lawyer at Guangdong Chenggong Law Firm.
Agent: Hu Xudong, lawyer at Guangdong Chenggong Law Firm.
The plaintiff Shenzhen Tangtang Accounting Firm (hereinafter referred to as Tangtang Firm) and the defendant Shenzhen Tianhaoyang Environmental Protection Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Tianhaoyang Company) had a service contract dispute. After this court accepts the case, it will apply simplified procedures in accordance with the law and hold a public hearing. During the trial, the defendant Tianhaoyang Company filed a counterclaim, which was consolidated by this court in accordance with the law. Wu Yutang, the legal representative of the firm, Wu, the agent appointed by Tianhaoyang Company, and Li, the agent appointed by Tianhaoyang Company, attended the court to participate in the litigation. The case is now closed.
The plaintiff (defendant in the counterclaim), Tang Tang Firm, claimed that on October 30, 2011, the original defendant and the defendant signed a business agreement, agreeing that the defendant entrusted the plaintiff to help improve financial standards to meet the requirements of the New OTC Market. Audit requirements. After the business agreement was signed, the plaintiff appointed staff to form a special financial advisory group to assist the defendant in completing the period from 2013 to 2066. However, the defendant seriously violated the business agreement and only paid the first financial standard fee of 50,000 yuan, while the rest has not yet been paid. In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff, we request an order in accordance with the law: 1. The defendant pays a financial consulting fee of RMB 110,000; 2. The defendant pays interest on delayed payment (calculated based on the loan interest rate of the People's Bank of China for the same period, from the payment date stipulated in the contract to the above amount). As of the date of completion of repayment, as of October 30, 2065, it is RMB 3,000, 438 06); 3. The litigation costs of this case shall be borne by the defendant.
The defendant (counterclaim plaintiff) Tianhaoyang Company argued and counterclaimed that in 2015, the defendant prepared an application for listing on the New Third Board and signed a litigation-related contract with the plaintiff on October 30, 20165438 to regulate The finance meets the NEEQ review requirements. After the contract was signed, the plaintiff Tang Tang Firm began to send personnel to the site to work, but the plaintiff was too late to complete the financial standard affairs as required and was unable to pass the audit core of Beijing Yongtuo Accounting Firm entrusted by the defendant. Later, the plaintiff proposed that if the defendant entrusted Beijing China Securities Tiantong Accounting Firm (hereinafter referred to as China Securities Tiantong Accounting Firm) to conduct an audit, the plaintiff could ensure that the entire accounting work passed the audit core, and China Securities Tiantong Accounting Firm could also issue a compliance certificate Audit report required for listing on the New Third Board.
Wu Yutang, the legal representative of the plaintiff, is also a partner of the Shenzhen Branch of CSI Tiantong Law Firm. In this case, the defendant signed a business agreement with CSI Tiantong and paid a fee of 50,000 yuan to CSI Tiantong. After the contract was signed, both the accounting business and the audit business were progressing slowly. On March 25, 2016, Wu Yutang signed a supplementary agreement with the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff and China Securities Tiantong Law Firm as Party B, changing the payment terms of the litigation contract and business agreement signed by the defendant and China Securities Tiantong Law Firm. The supplementary agreement stipulates that after the core audit is completed, the defendant shall pay 65,438,065,438,000,000 yuan to the plaintiff. At the same time, Party B promises to complete the core audit work before the end of May. If the audit business is not completed, Party B shall refund the advance payment of RMB 50,000.
However, the plaintiff and CSI Tiantong Law Firm failed to complete the entrusted matters as agreed, and the defendant entrusted other companies to complete the above work. The plaintiff constituted a fundamental breach of contract and the contract should be terminated. At the same time, the plaintiff’s breach of contract caused huge losses to the defendant. Therefore, the counterclaim requested a decree: 1. The original defendant was dissolved from Shenzhen Tianhaoyang signed on October 30, 20165438. 2. The plaintiff returns to the defendant the financial standard fee of 50,000 yuan paid; 3. The plaintiff should compensate the defendant 200,000 yuan; 4. The counterclaim costs in this case shall be borne by the plaintiff.
After trial, it was found that the plaintiff (counterclaim defendant) Tangtang Firm and the defendant (counterclaim plaintiff) Tianhaoyang Company signed the "Shenzhen Tianhaoyang Environmental Protection Co., Ltd." on October 30, 2065. Business Engagement Letter" (hereinafter referred to as the "Full Account Engagement Letter"), stipulated that Tangtang Firm will assist Tianhaoyang Company in improving its financial system to meet the audit requirements of the New OTC Market. Article 4 of the contract stipulates that Tangtang Firm should complete the work agreed in the agreement in a timely manner, including providing financial standards that meet the audit requirements of the New OTC Market. Article 5 of this contract stipulates that Tianhaoyang Company shall pay a total of 6.543806 million yuan in financial consulting fees to Tangtang Firm, and the payment method is 654.380.
On the day the business agreement is signed, the first financial standard fee of 50,000 yuan shall be paid; 2. The second financial supervision fee of 50,000 yuan shall be paid within 20 days from the signing of the business agreement; 3. Within 5 days after the completion of this financial standardization work, Pay the remaining financial standardization fee of 60,000 yuan. On the day the contract was signed, Tianhaoyang Company paid Tangtang Office 50,000 yuan.
The plaintiff (counterclaim defendant) Wu Yutang, director of Tangtang Firm, is also a partner of the Shenzhen branch of CSI Tiantong Firm. On behalf of the Shenzhen Branch of CSI Tiantong Law Firm, he signed a "Business Agreement" (hereinafter referred to as the "Audit Agreement Letter") with the defendant (the counterclaim plaintiff), stipulating that Tianhaoyang Company entrusted the Shenzhen Branch of CSI Tiantong Law Firm to act in accordance with the The New OTC Market Operation Practice conducts audit and verification on matters related to Tianhaoyang Company. On March 25, 2016, Wu Yutang (Party B) signed a supplementary agreement with Tianhaoyang Company (Party A). The business agreement signed by Tianhaoyang Company and CITIC Tiantong Company Shenzhen Branch, after friendly negotiation between the two parties, added the agreed payment schedule and several agreements: 1. Payment schedule. The table shows that the entire account business will be paid 110,000 when the core is completed; 2. Party A guarantees to pay according to the above payment schedule; 3. Party B guarantees to complete the core audit work before the end of May.
It was also found that in the WeChat chat records of the "Tianhaoyang New Third Board Work Group", Tianhaoyang company staff asked Wu Yutang many times about the audit report. 2065 438 06. 8. 30 Wu Yutang said he could not convince the auditors and apologized.
The above facts include the "Business Agreement of Shenzhen Tianhaoyang Environmental Protection Co., Ltd." provided by the plaintiff (defendant in counterclaim), Minsheng Bank receipts, and the supplementary agreement and business agreement provided by the defendant (plaintiff in counterclaim) , Wu Yutang’s business card, WeChat chat records, statements of the plaintiff and defendant and other evidence to confirm.
We believe that in this case, there is a service contract relationship between the plaintiff Tangtang Firm and the defendant Tianhaoyang Company, which is legal and valid and should be protected by law. After the two parties signed the contract, Tianhaoyang Company paid a down payment of 50,000 yuan as agreed, and the Tangtang office also sent personnel to complete the accounting business. 2065438 On March 25, 2006, Wu Yutang, executive partner of Tangtang Law Firm, signed a supplementary agreement with Tianhaoyang Company. Although the agreement is said to be a supplementary agreement to the "Audit Business Engagement Letter" signed between Tianhaoyang Company and China Securities Tiantong Law Firm Shenzhen Branch, the content of the agreement not only includes the agreement on the payment progress of the audit business, but also includes the entire accounting business Payment schedule agreement. Wu Yutang is both the head of Tangtang Firm and a partner of China Securities Tiantong Firm. Wu Yutang signed the "Full Account Business Agreement" and "Audit Business Agreement" with the defendant Tianhaoyang Company on behalf of the two accounting firms respectively. protocol". Therefore, the agreement on the payment progress of the entire account business in the supplementary agreement can be regarded as a new agreement reached by Wu Yutang on behalf of Tangtang Firm and Tianhaoyang Company. The "Supplementary Agreement" clearly stipulates that Tianhaoyang Company shall pay 65,438,065,438,000,000 yuan to Tangtang Law Firm after completing the audit core. However, according to the facts that have been found, Tangtang Law Firm failed to comply with the full audit requirements. Complete the financial standard affairs that comply with the New OTC Board audit requirements as agreed on the accounting business. Therefore, this court does not support the plaintiff’s request for the defendant Tianhaoyang Company to pay financial consulting fees of 1,654,380,000 yuan and interest.
As for the counterclaim, this court believes that although the counterclaim defendant Tangtang Firm organized personnel to carry out the accounting work after signing the accounting contract, it failed to complete the "financial standards in compliance with the New OTC Board audit requirements" as stipulated in the contract. "As a result, Tianhaoyang Company was unable to sign a full accounting business contract. When Wu Yutang, the head of Tangtang Firm, said that it could not pass the audit, Tianhaoyang Company entrusted other accounting firms to complete relevant matters. Therefore, Tangtang Firm's behavior constituted a fundamental breach of contract, and Tianhaoyang Company had the right to terminate the contract. And asked Tangtang Office to return the deposit of 50,000 yuan. Regarding Tianhaoyang Company's claim for compensation of 200,000 yuan in damages from the defendant, this court held that the 6.54385 million yuan paid by Tianhaoyang to entrust others to complete the entire accounting firm was an inevitable expenditure for improving its financial rules and regulations, and should not be regarded as an expense. It is conditional on whether Tangtang Firm can complete all accounting affairs.
Since this court has ruled that Tangtang Firm should return 50,000 yuan, this part of the expenses should not be recognized as losses caused by the termination of the contract. As for Tianhaoyang Company’s claim that losses were caused by the delay in recording the full payment, this court does not support it because it did not provide corresponding evidence to substantiate it.
In summary, in accordance with Articles 94 and 97 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 51 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and the Civil Procedure Law of the Supreme People's Court. According to the provisions of Article 2 of "Provisions on Litigation Evidence", the judgment is as follows:
1. Terminate the contract signed between Shenzhen Tangtang Accounting Firm (counterclaim defendant) and Shenzhen Tianhaoyang Environmental Protection Co., Ltd. (counterclaim plaintiff) "Business Agreement of Shenzhen Tianhaoyang Environmental Protection Co., Ltd.";
2. The plaintiff (defendant in the counterclaim) Shenzhen Tangtang Accounting Firm shall file a complaint with the defendant (plaintiff in the counterclaim) Shenzhen within three days from the effective date of this judgment. City Tianhaoyang Environmental Protection Co., Ltd. returned the service fee of 50,000 yuan;
3. Dismissed the other claims of both parties.
The case acceptance fee is 65,438 0,280 yuan (prepaid by Tangtang Firm), and the counterclaim acceptance fee is 2,525 yuan (prepaid by Tianhaoyang Company), and is paid by Shenzhen Tangtang Accounting Firm. Shenzhen Tianhaoyang Environmental Protection Co., Ltd. shall bear 2,020 yuan...
If the defendant fails to perform its monetary payment obligations within the period specified in this judgment, it shall be liable in accordance with Article 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. According to the provisions of Article 253, double the interest on the debt during the period of delayed performance shall be paid.
If you are dissatisfied with this judgment, you can submit an appeal to this court within fifteen days from the date of delivery of the judgment, and submit copies according to the number of opposing parties, and appeal to the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province.