It should be possible to recover it under certain circumstances, but the Baoneng incident itself is controversial and the situation is not clear.

Bank of Shanghai and Baoneng Group’s 26.5 billion loans were reported in real names.

According to relevant reports, on the evening of January 10, 2020, Xu Guoliang, owner of Shanghai Shenxin Football Club and Hengyuan Legal Person, reported Shanghai through his company’s public account with his real name Bank Vice President Huang Tao colluded with Shenzhen Baoneng

Group to set up a scheme to embezzle nearly more than 20 billion in high-quality assets of Bailian Central and Xuhui Binjiang projects owned by Hengyuan, and illegally robbed state-owned assets Bank loans of 26.5 billion yuan.

The next morning, the Bank of Shanghai issued a statement saying: Xu Guoliang was spreading rumors and slander. His company, Shanghai Hengyuan Company

had been sued by the Bank of Shanghai and other creditors for defaulting on huge debts. By the time the court arrived, its equity had been frozen in turn, and it was deeply in debt crisis and seriously breached its trust.

An insider of Baoneng revealed to reporters that when the Bank of Shanghai found Baoneng, Hengyuan's loan was almost overdue and was about to become a non-performing loan. The amount It is huge and may trigger systemic risks for Shanghai Bank

.

Controversial incidents and mutual shirk of responsibility between the two parties are essentially the huge risks hidden behind real estate developers' 10 times leverage to seek huge profits

Generally speaking, under normal circumstances, banks cannot force the loan to be withdrawn in advance. However, under certain circumstances

the bank has the right to call back the loan early. For example, the bank discovers that the lender has concealed important information when applying for a loan, finds that the collateral is false, or the loan applicant's business has undergone major changes.