The execution of 22.76 million was resumed, and the ofo deposit “has to be owed”

According to Tianyan Check, on January 9, Dongxia Datong (Beijing) Management Consulting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Dongxia Datong), the operating body of ofo’s small yellow car, added a new piece of information on the resumption of execution, with an execution target of more than 22.76 million yuan. For sales contract disputes, the enforcement court is the People’s Court of Pudong New Area, Shanghai.

According to the data, Dongxia Datong was executed for the first time due to the dispute on March 26, 2021, and was suspended on June 25 of the same year, until it was resumed on January 9 this year.

At present, Dongxia Datong (Beijing) Management Consulting Co., Ltd. has been executed for a total amount of more than 28.17 million.

In addition, the company also has a number of dishonesty executors, consumption restriction orders and final case information, with a total outstanding amount of over 674 million yuan.

According to Observer.com, Dai Wei, the founder of ofo, has made it clear that the deposit for the little yellow car has not been touched.

According to conservative estimates by industry insiders, there are currently at least 16 million people whose deposits have not been refunded, which is the same as the unfulfilled amount of 674 million yuan, almost unchanged. Therefore, even if the court resumes enforcement, there is a high probability that the deposits of previous ofo users will continue to be owed.

It is worth mentioning that among ofo’s creditors, Alibaba is the biggest “injustice”.

On December 1, 2022, Dongxia Datong and its founder Dai Wei received a complaint and summons from the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court.

According to the announcement, Zhejiang Tmall Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tmall”), a subsidiary of Alibaba, required ofo to repay the loan principal and interest totaling 538 million yuan, and Tmall’s chattel mortgage and pledged computer software to its affiliated subsidiaries Copyright enjoys the priority of repayment, requiring it to repay debts through sales, auctions, etc.

However, like other creditors, people in the industry generally believe that Alibaba’s lawsuit against the ofo operating company at this time is nothing more than reaffirming its priority status and using it for the division of internal responsibilities of the company, which has no real meaning.

This article is an exclusive manuscript of Observer.com and may not be reproduced without authorization.