On the evening of October 16th, Zhejiang Haihong Nankek Hua Tie Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as “Hainan Hua Tie”) issued a public announcement stating that the company had received a “Notice of Filing” from the China Securities Regulatory Commission on that day, for suspected illegal disclosure of information, initiating an investigation.
The announcement stated that currently, the company’s various production and operation activities are proceeding normally and orderly. They will actively cooperate with the investigation work of the China Securities Regulatory Commission and strictly fulfill their obligation of information disclosure.
According to reports from mainland media such as Sina Finance, this filing directly points to a contract for computing power services worth 3.69 billion yuan that the company “Hainan Hua Tie” had “called off” at the end of September.
On March 4th of this year, Hainan Hua Tie announced that its subsidiary had signed a 5-year, total amount of 3.69 billion yuan “Computing Power Service Agreement” with “Hangzhou X Company”. This positive news caused the company’s stock price to soar from 4.76 yuan before the announcement to a high of 13.25 yuan, nearly tripling in value.
However, on September 30th, Hainan Hua Tie suddenly announced the termination of the agreement, citing “significant changes in the market environment and supply-demand situation” and the fact that “no purchase orders have been received since the agreement was signed”. Suspiciously, Hainan Hua Tie never disclosed which company they were cooperating with. For a period of six months, there were no purchase orders, no down payment, and no penalties for cancellation.
The abrupt cancellation of the contract caused a stir in the market. After the end of the National Day holiday, Hainan Hua Tie’s stock price hit the limit down for two consecutive trading days, evaporating over 20% of its market value. Investors flooded interactive platforms with questions about the authenticity of the 3.69 billion yuan computing contract, the identity of the mysterious “Hangzhou X Company”, and why the company actively canceled the cooperation without paying penalties.
It is reported that Hainan Hua Tie has 224,000 shareholders. The sudden cancellation of orders caught investors off guard. As of the close of trading on October 10th, more than two million shares were locked at the limit down.
Formerly known as Hua Tie Emergency, Hainan Hua Tie mainly engaged in construction equipment leasing and was acquired by the Hainan Provincial State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission in May 2024, venturing into the computing power business. Regular reports show that since embarking on the computing power business, by the end of March 2025, the company had signed cumulative computing service contracts totaling 6.67 billion yuan, with over 900 million yuan in completed asset deliveries. By the end of June 2025, the company had delivered computing assets exceeding 1.4 billion yuan, showing a transformation speed far exceeding industry norms.
It is worth noting that although Hainan Hua Tie had delivered assets worth over 1 billion yuan from signed computing orders, the revenue reflected in its financial reports from this business was not substantial.
Data shows that in 2024, Hainan Hua Tie’s revenue from computing equipment services was only 12.0052 million yuan. In the 2025 interim report, the company’s revenue structure did not specify revenue from computing equipment services, raising doubts about the authenticity of its transformation.
In August 2021, Hu Dong, the chairman of the US stock mining giant Zhejiang Yibang Communications Technology Co., Ltd., publicly reported allegations of serious financial fraud and violations of disclosure regulations by Hainan Hua Tie.
The report alleged that Hainan Hua Tie’s subsidiary, Xinjiang Hua Tie, understated costs by 31.7169 million yuan in 2018, and the actual controller of the company, Hu Danfeng, and his spouse were suspected of transferring assets of the listed company to personal accounts.
However, the public report ultimately went unresolved. Whether this supervision can thoroughly investigate the matter remains to be seen.