Supply chain finance and bill financing products are increasingly marketed by non-licensed entities that amount to covert lending. These arrangements often involve circular transaction structures involving order flows and bill endorsements, but no physical movement of goods.
How a financing deal turns into a criminal case
When repayment is overdue, the funders tend to escalate the matter through criminal complaints, reframing a civil dispute as a criminal one. The borrowing company, once a seeker of liquidity, finds itself a criminal defendant, with its business ground to a halt. One case handled by the author illustrates the risks involved.
To obtain funding, company B adopted a “chain sales plus bill settlement” structure devised by funder company Z. This arrangement formed a closed loop transaction in which funds moved from company Z through an intermediary buyer (company A) to company B, while bills were endorsed from company B to company Z. Crucially, no physical goods were ever exchanged between the parties throughout the financing process, and the acceptances issued by company B were merely deferred payment undertakings due at maturity.
Initially, company B repaid on schedule, but when its funding chain broke, bills totalling more than RMB3 million (USD442,700) went unpaid. Rather than initiating civil proceedings based on the financing arrangement, company Z lodged a direct criminal complaint against company B’s principal for bill fraud. The principal was convicted at both first instance and on appeal, until a high court ordered a retrial.
Related: Helmsman names Yan Yan Lin CEO plans expansion
Criminal exposure in corporate funding deals has three hallmarks: complex structures with several parties and contracts that mask their real purpose; funders without a financial licence evading oversight through nominal trading, agency or service arrangements; and contract terms containing hidden default penalties and sole interpretation rights weighted against the borrower. If a borrower falls into arrears, the funder may leverage criminal allegations.
Defence strategies for businesses
Financing enterprises should build three defence lines addressing the pre-financing, interim and post-financing periods, respectively. The first line of defence is pre-financing risk controls. When weighing funding options, companies should place legal and regulatory checks ahead of cost analysis. This involves vetting the counterparty’s credentials through the National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System, financial regulators’ official websites and court judgment databases to verify its financial licensing and litigation track record.
Companies should also conduct a look-through structural analysis, requesting full transaction flowcharts and contract chains to spot anomalous patterns including paper-only order/bill circulation, circular trading and round-tripping. If no actual goods are delivered, funds flow back in a loop, or price differentials are effectively interest, the proposal must be rejected. Operating a negative list that places unlicensed lenders and structurally evasive counterparties on an internal blacklist is also a necessary step.
The second line of defence involves full documentation during transaction execution. For active financing arrangements, enterprises should continually preserve compliance evidence to avoid being caught unprepared in later disputes. This includes ensuring that any bill-based settlement is backed by real goods or services, and keeping purchase contracts, delivery and logistics documents, acceptance records and VAT invoices so that both stock and paperwork reconcile. Executing a clear loan contract that sets out principal, interest, maturity and default terms, rather than hiding interest in price spreads or “service” and “advisory” fees, is essential. For major financings, engaging legal advisers experienced in both financial and criminal compliance to vet the documentation and provide a written opinion can support internal approvals and later demonstrate the absence of criminal intent.
Related: Ferrell Still Dreams of Sexiest Man Title
The third line of defence is an emergency response and legal recourse plan. Once a borrowing company falls into arrears and the funder threatens or initiates a criminal report, the company should quickly implement an emergency plan by gathering all materials showing the transaction structure was designed by the counterparty – including emails, chat logs and contract drafts – to prove the counterparty knew there was no underlying trade and did not act under a “misapprehension.” Organising records of past performance, details of the company’s and management’s assets, and evidence of how the funds were actually used to demonstrate there was no intent to misappropriate and that late payment was driven by business stress rather than fraud is also critical.
Companies should embed criminal law compliance into everyday risk management. This means regular risk reviews of financing channels and counterparties by legal teams or external counsel, training business staff to spot criminal red flags, and introducing layered approval for financing contracts. Against the considerably heavy price of cleaning up after the event, early compliance is the most cost-effective form of risk insurance.
Criminal law is meant to serve as the final safeguard in social order, not a go-to weapon in business disputes. By putting compliance defences in place upfront, businesses can convert legal risk into a protective barrier and secure more predictable growth in an uncertain environment.
WilmerHale recently faced a massive data breach lawsuit, highlighting the risks of digital exposure for firms handling sensitive client information.
