Shocking Reversal in the Liangqu Technology Embezzlement Case! Xu Jingteng Reveals Loan Agreement: I Am the Largest Creditor

A well-known quantitative trading company in Taiwan, Quantrend Technology, is embroiled in escalating internal disputes. Following founder Tai-Yuan Chen’s public response refuting that he was merely clarifying accounts, he counter-accused his co-founder, Jing-Teng Hsu, of embezzling over NT$100 million in company funds. On December 4th, Jing-Teng Hsu, through a lawyer’s letter, firmly denied these “false accusations,” providing several loan agreements to prove that his cumulative loans to the company have exceeded NT$100 million, emphasizing that he is Quantrend’s largest creditor, not an embezzler.

From Golden Triangle to Mutual Accusations: The Breakdown of Quantrend

(Screenshot source: BlockTempo)

Quantrend co-founder Jing-Teng Hsu comes from a business development background, skilled at acquiring clients, capital, and organizational management. He initially teamed up with “entrepreneurial prodigy” Tai-Yuan Chen, who excelled in quantitative trading technology and had deep expertise in crypto assets. Together, they recruited tech expert Chih-Yang Tai to establish Quantrend, forming the “golden triangle” behind Quantrend’s rapid rise to fame. Now, however, the three have split, publicly battling and accusing each other of draining company assets, shocking mutual friends in Taiwan’s fintech circle.

Quantrend was once a star in Taiwan’s quantitative trading scene, renowned for its high-frequency trading strategies and stable returns in the cryptocurrency market. The company was founded several years ago, just as the crypto market was becoming institutionalized. Their business model combined traditional quantitative finance with blockchain technology, attracting a large number of high-net-worth clients and professional investors. The three founders had complementary backgrounds—Jing-Teng Hsu managed fundraising and client relations, Tai-Yuan Chen handled trading strategies and tech development, and Chih-Yang Tai oversaw system architecture and risk control—this division of labor was seen as the ideal startup team configuration.

However, their complementarity also planted seeds of conflict. When the company operated smoothly, clear division of labor was an advantage. But when facing financial pressure or strategic disagreements, boundaries of responsibility became flashpoints. Judging by both parties’ accusations, the core dispute centers on the flow of funds and decision-making authority. Tai-Yuan Chen accuses Jing-Teng Hsu of “draining over NT$100 million,” while Hsu counters that he “loaned over NT$100 million to the company”—the same flow of funds, but interpreted in completely opposite ways.

Jing-Teng Hsu’s Counterattack: Over NT$100 Million in Loans to Save Company, Smeared Instead

BlockTempo obtained a lawyer’s statement from former Quantrend GM Jing-Teng Hsu, which strictly denies any illegal handling of company funds, crypto assets, or offshore accounts before his tenure. He claims all financial transactions he handled were fully documented with company approvals, accounting vouchers, and bank records, all available for verification. Hsu strongly denies Tai-Yuan Chen’s external accusations of “draining over NT$100 million in assets” and “large sums of money missing.”

The key counterattack is that Hsu claims, when company operating funds were tight, he personally loaned money to Quantrend to support its operations, with cumulative loans exceeding NT$100 million. These loan agreements and bank transfer records are all documented and traceable. Hsu provided several loan contracts, stating that these loans are factual and that he is Quantrend’s largest creditor.

Hsu laments that he personally supported the company through financial hardship, only to be falsely accused of embezzlement, forcing him to clarify to the public and reserve all legal rights against the false allegations. This “donating and then being accused of embezzlement” scenario is highly dramatic—if Hsu’s claims are true, it’s a textbook case of good deeds going unrewarded. However, Tai-Yuan Chen’s side apparently interprets these “loans” differently, questioning their nature, use, or repayment conditions.

Key Points of Jing-Teng Hsu’s Statement

Denies Embezzlement: All transactions handled had internal company approval and accounting records.

Counters False Accusations: Claims of “draining over NT$100 million” and “funds missing” are false.

Provides Loan Evidence: Presented multiple loan agreements supporting the loan claims.

Creditor Status: Emphasizes he is the largest creditor of Quantrend, not an embezzler.

Reserves Legal Rights: Will take legal action against false accusations.

This detailed rebuttal and evidence show Hsu’s team takes this legal and PR battle very seriously. However, the existence of loan agreements does not automatically rule out embezzlement, as the key issues are: were these loans at fair market interest rates? Were the loans used for legitimate company operations? Were the terms fair to other shareholders? These details will become the focus of judicial investigation.

Tai-Yuan Chen Investigated: 80,000 USDT Transfer Becomes a Focal Point

Tai-Yuan Chen has already been investigated for transferring 80,000 USDT stablecoins from the company to his personal wallet. This concrete accusation provides a clear starting point for the investigation. 80,000 USDT is about US$80,000, or roughly NT$2.5 million—not as large as the “NT$100 million embezzlement” claim, but with clear blockchain transaction records, it offers the prosecution an easy breakthrough.

Blockchain transparency is a double-edged sword in such cases. On one hand, all transactions are permanently recorded and immutable, providing hard evidence for investigators. On the other hand, a simple transaction record does not indicate legal or illegal intent—the founder may have legitimate reasons to transfer company assets to a personal wallet, such as for specific trades or temporary custody. Tai-Yuan Chen’s defense may focus on this angle.

Both sides are now enmeshed in criminal and civil litigation, calling on the community and media to stick to facts and avoid spreading unsubstantiated rumors. This shows the case has already sparked widespread discussion in the fintech and crypto communities, with many rumors likely circulating. For those involved, the battle of public opinion is as important as the legal fight, since in Taiwan’s relatively small fintech circle, reputational damage may be harder to recover from than legal liability.

Legally, Tai-Yuan Chen has entered the criminal investigation phase, while Jing-Teng Hsu is only accused and not yet under formal investigation. This asymmetry could affect the parties’ negotiating leverage and willingness to settle. If Tai-Yuan Chen is ultimately indicted or convicted, Hsu’s creditor claims may be favored in civil proceedings; conversely, if Chen successfully defends himself, he may step up his counterattack on Hsu.

30 Employees Suddenly Laid Off, Operations Come to an Abrupt Halt

More than 30 Quantrend employees were laid off due to ongoing accusations among top management. Reportedly, some employees are dissatisfied with the severance terms, openly stating they were shocked by the abrupt halt in operations, and hope to negotiate further compensation and salary details. This detail highlights the significant impact the founders’ dispute has on ordinary employees.

For these 30+ employees, they are the most innocent victims of this upper management power struggle. Many may have joined Quantrend attracted by its brand and growth prospects; sudden unemployment not only means loss of income but could also affect their career development. In Taiwan’s fintech circle, Quantrend’s story has become a negative case, and former employees may now need to expend extra effort explaining their irrelevance to the dispute when job hunting.

The severance dispute is worth noting. According to Taiwan’s labor laws, companies must pay severance based on seniority and average salary when operations end. If some employees are dissatisfied with the terms, it may indicate the company failed to fully meet legal obligations, or that employees believe they deserve additional compensation. Such labor disputes could escalate into class action lawsuits, further complicating Quantrend’s legal troubles.

The abrupt halt in operations likely stems directly from the breakdown of trust among founders. In quantitative trading, if founders cannot agree on fund usage, risk control, and strategic direction, continuing operations exposes the company to significant legal and financial risks. Rather than muddling through, an immediate shutdown may be one of the few decisions the three founders can agree on.

Judicial Investigation Will Reveal Who Is Responsible for Quantrend’s Alleged Asset Stripping

Currently, both Tai-Yuan Chen and Jing-Teng Hsu claim to have preserved relevant evidence and transaction records. The truth still awaits judicial clarification. How the Quantrend asset-stripping controversy ends will depend on whether investigators can clarify these key issues:

First, were the company’s fund flows legal and compliant? This requires a full review of all Quantrend’s bank accounts, crypto wallets, and offshore accounts to confirm whether every major transaction’s flow and purpose complied with company bylaws and shareholder resolutions. Blockchain transparency will play a role here, as all on-chain transfers can be traced and analyzed.

Second, are the loan agreements provided by Jing-Teng Hsu genuine and valid? Were these agreements approved by the board or shareholders? Are the loan interest rates reasonable? Are the loan purposes clear? If these loans truly exist and are legal, Hsu’s status as a creditor holds. If these agreements are flawed or unauthorized, they could become evidence against Hsu.

Third, was Tai-Yuan Chen’s transfer of 80,000 USDT to his personal wallet properly authorized? As founder and possibly a company officer, under what circumstances could Chen move company assets? Was the transfer commercially necessary? The answers will determine whether he is guilty of embezzlement or breach of trust.

Both sides have called for fact-based reporting from the community and media. While reasonable, in the absence of complete information and with contradictory accounts, determining the facts is extremely difficult. Ultimately, only through judicial investigation—reviewing full financial records, interviewing relevant witnesses, and authenticating agreements—can the truth behind Quantrend’s alleged asset stripping be restored.