KUBR

Market Misconduct Tribunal finds ex-chairman and executives inflated accounts; HK$482m disgorgement

Greencool Technology Holdings Limited · Listed refrigerant and energy-saving technology group

Revenue inflationForged documentsGovernance failure

The case in brief

Visible before detection

    Checks that could have surfaced it, on hindsight

    1

    Third-party confirmation

    Third-party confirmation would show that subsidiary assets and customers did not exist as reported.

    Can mislead when: Counterparties can collude or ignore requests. A non-response is logged as a gap, never as a pass.

    2

    Governance signals

    Governance signals would show a single person holding the chairman, CEO and controlling shareholder roles.

    Can mislead when: Private companies file late, so these signals are lagging. Kubr uses them to support other flags, not to prove anything alone.

    3

    Document authenticity / direct pull

    A direct pull of subsidiary records would show accounts differing from those filed.

    Can mislead when: The company can refuse consent, and a refusal is itself a flag. Some banks and co-op banks are not on AA yet.

    4

    Counterparty existence

    Counterparty checks on the subsidiary projects would show that the projects were not real.

    Can mislead when: Real companies can be used as pass-throughs. Existence does not prove a real trade, so C6 and C7 still apply.

    Where Kubr services would have helped

    Valuation context

    Offered in India
    • C4 Counterparty checks on the subsidiary projects would show that the projects were not real.
    • C11 Governance signals would show a single person holding the chairman, CEO and controlling shareholder roles.

    Verified Snapshot

    Offered in India
    • C4 Counterparty checks on the subsidiary projects would show that the projects were not real.
    • C11 Governance signals would show a single person holding the chairman, CEO and controlling shareholder roles.

    Financial diligence

    Offered in India
    • C4 Counterparty checks on the subsidiary projects would show that the projects were not real.
    • C5 A direct pull of subsidiary records would show accounts differing from those filed.

    IC note

    Offered in India
    • C5 A direct pull of subsidiary records would show accounts differing from those filed.
    • C11 Governance signals would show a single person holding the chairman, CEO and controlling shareholder roles.

    Mapped from the checks each service runs. A hindsight reading of public records, not a promise that the failure would have been found.

    A summary of public documents. It reports what the sources say. It is not Kubr's finding and not a statement of guilt.