Hindenburg Letter to Ideanomics Board, Executive Team, and Auditors

1. To the Board of Directors, Executives and Auditors of Ideanomics,
My name is Nathan Anderson, CFA, CAIA, and founder of Hindenburg Research, LLC. We are a forensic
research firm that focuses on identifying and exposing fraud in public and private markets.
Over the last month, our firm has undertaken extensive due diligence on Ideanomics and have prepared several
questions for the company’s board, executive team, and auditors.
By way of background, here are several examples illustrating our track-record in fraud research:
1. We were whistleblowers on Platinum Partners, a $1.4 billion hedge fund whose top 5 executives were
subsequently charged criminally with fraud, along with 3 others. Most pled guilty or lost at trial. Others
are still navigating through the court process.
2. We were whistleblowers on RD Legal, which was subsequently charged with securities fraud by the
SEC and lost at trial.
3. We wrote articles on Opko Health, Pershing Gold, PolarityTe, and Riot Blockchain, public companies
whose key holders/executives were subsequently charged by the SEC with securities fraud.
4. We were whistleblowers on Statim Holdings, which was subsequently charged with securities fraud by
the SEC.
5. We were whistleblowers on West Mountain Capital, which was subsequently charged with securities
fraud by the SEC.
We are reaching out now because (a) we wanted to give you a chance to respond to our questions and (b) we
wanted a crystal-clear record that each of these issues were brought to the attention of the board, executive
team and auditors. We believe Ideanomics stakeholders, partners and shareholders deserve the answers.
Questions for Members of the Board of Directors and Executive Team
1. As members of the board, your primary responsibility is oversight. To that end, which of you have
visited the company’s purported China operations and when?
2. Which of you speak and/or read Mandarin and are able to thoroughly assess and interpret the
company’s representations, documents, and counterparties that are based in China that primarily do
business in Mandarin?
3. Since 2015, Ideanomics has had 6 CEOs, 6 CFOs, four different company names, and has had 10
board members leave. Did you view this as a warning sign? What steps did you take to investigate the
reasons behind the revolving door of senior executives and board members prior to assuming your
current roles?
4. In CEO Alf Poor’s June 30, 2020 comments at the One2One Virtual investor conference (beginning
at 1hr, 6min), he stated that Chairman Bruno Wu “has been an incredible driving force” for “deal
origination” and is “much more active than your average chairman.” Poor also referred to Wu as “co-
CEO” and said he “is involved in the business 18 hours a day, every day.”
How much of Ideanomics’ business is conducted by Chairman Wu and what, if any, representations
about deals put in place by Chairman Wu have other company directors and executives thoroughly and
independently examined?

2. Hindenburg Research | New York, NY | www.hindenburgresearch.com |info@hindenburgresearch.com
5. On March 20, 2020, the company issued a press release claiming the 1 million square foot MEG electric
vehicle sales center in Qingdao will be renovated, rebranded and will open on May 1, 2020.
On May 26, 2020, the company issued a press release claiming the “MEG EV Center in Qingdao
Opens for Operations”, that it “officially launched” and that “MEG's Qingdao subsidiary has a large-
scale presence onsite”. The press release had a photo with a “MEG” logo shown in the facility.
On June 25, 2020, we raised questions about whether the company doctored photos in the May 26th
press release and in another press release about the purported Qingdao “MEG” electric vehicle sales
facility. [1,2]
Specifically, we showed that photos dated May 2020 in company press releases were actually from 2015
and that the MEG logo had been photoshopped onto the old photos in a manner suggesting that
Ideanomics operated the facility when it in fact did not.
To date, we have received no comment from the company on these photographs.
Has the Board examined the company’s press releases related to the opening of Ideanomics’ purported
MEG center in China? Were the accompanying photographs for these press releases altered to include
a “MEG” logo where it did not otherwise exist?
6. We also released videos that showed MEG appeared to have no presence at the Qingdao facility,
despite company claims to the contrary. The videos were dated June 25th.[1,2] We then released another
date-stamped video on June 28th showing once again that MEG appeared to have zero physical
presence at the facility. In response, the company released a tweet on its official Twitter account the
following day (June 29th) showing a picture of a what appeared to be a singular paper sign, hung on a
wall somewhere, stating:
“We took over the property in 2020 so videos and photos taken in 2018 & 2019 or old Google
Maps footage obviously don't reflect our presence there.”
The implication was clear. The company was suggesting that our photos and videos were inauthentic
and outdated, despite these assertions being clearly false. How do you respond?
7. On June 25th, Ideanomics issued a press release claiming it had entered a deal with an affiliate of China
Tower, an RMB 240 Billion market cap member of the Fortune Future 50 and Forbes Top 100 Digital
Company lists. That same day, we issued a series of tweets raising questions about whether Ideanomics’
key purported partnerships were genuine.
We spoke and then met with China Tower Corp., asking whether the partnership existed. They
emphatically denied the existence of the partnership to us on multiple occasions. Subsequent to our
meeting, on July 1st, China Tower Corp. issued a public statement denouncing any involvement or
affiliation with Ideanomics or China Tower Holdings, and threatened legal action against Ideanomics.
On July 2, 2020, Ideanomics put out a press release stating that the company made an “error” in its
previous June 25, 2020 press release, when it referred to its partner Zhongsen Tower as an affiliate of
China Tower Holdings.

3. Hindenburg Research | New York, NY | www.hindenburgresearch.com |info@hindenburgresearch.com
Putting aside, for the moment, the absurd implausibility of erroneously believing one had an affiliation
with one of the largest companies in the world, what kind of due diligence has the Board conducted
on the company’s various other Chinese partnerships and business ventures to ensure other deals are
not similarly being described “in error” to shareholders?
8. Two weeks ago, Ideanomics announced a deal with DIDI City CP in a press release that suggested an
affiliation with the well-known ridesharing company Didi Chuxing:
“Ideanomics is pleased to announce that its subsidiary Mobile Energy Global (MEG) has
secured an order from Didi City CP, a licensed city operator of Didi Chuxing (DiDi). Didi is
the world's leading mobile transportation/ride-share platform, similar to Uber, and
serves over 550 million users across Asia, Latin America, and Australia.”
The press release made no mention of the official entity name of Didi City CP.
Following questions we raised about the legitimacy of the company’s partnerships, Ideanomics posted
a WeChat screenshot of a conversation in the new “short selling activity” section of your investor
relations website. The WeChat conversation was to serve as “proof” of the relationship with Didi.
The WeChat exchange was with an individual named Zou Rui 邹瑞, who claimed “the relevant
declaration letter and proof are currently in Didi’s legal review process”, suggesting once again an
affiliation with Didi itself.
If you truly have a relationship with the company, surely ample proof already exists. Why does it take
a week to get proof that the company is already working with Didi?
9. Our litigation and corporate records research found that Zou Rui 邹瑞 has been named as defendant
in multiple lawsuits in the past several months both personally and through his business entities. This
has resulted in at least four enforcement orders on Zou Rui and/or his companies.
As one example, Zou Rui is the largest holder (40% stake) in Suzhou Yichejia Car Rental Co., Ltd 苏
州亿车加汽车租赁有限公司 (“Suzhou Yichejia”), which was named in more than 20 lawsuits in
2020, many of which are still ongoing. On May 14, 2020, an enforcement order valued at RMB 1.5
million was issued by the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court 苏州市中级人民法院 against Zou Rui,
Suzhou Yichejia and another principal of the company.
Zou Rui has now been placed on China’s “dishonest judgement debtors” list for individuals who are
nationally identified as failing to pay judgments and/or loans. He is also currently prohibited from high
spending items (such as travelling by air) because he has not settled enforcement orders.
Were you aware that the counterparty to your supposed deal with Didi had these glaring financial and
legal issues?
Were you aware of who Zou Rui even was until the documents were posted days ago or until we
brought it up just now?

4. Hindenburg Research | New York, NY | www.hindenburgresearch.com |info@hindenburgresearch.com
Do you think this is the type of partner that Didi, a large well-respected organization, would rely on as
an intermediary for a deal with your company?
10. We didn’t, which is why we reached out to Didi directly. We have been in communication with the
business development team at Didi and have discussed our concerns relating to the supposed
relationship. We expect they will soon clarify that no such relationship exists.
Is this another “error”? What is your response?
11. In the company’s June 26 2020 press release, it described “the issuance of PRC tax invoices” and
labeled two attached photographs as “tax invoices”. These clearly aren’t tax invoices, but rather bank
transfer records/bank statements. Why did the company mislabel these documents as if to suggest they
were official tax invoices?
12. In the same press release, the attached bank transfers show 1.2 million coming from 天津众诚佳业
汽车贸易有限公司 (Tianjin Zhongchengjiaye Automobile Trading Co., Ltd.) and then 2.9 million
going to 天津源诚国际贸易有限公司 (Tianjin Yuancheng International Trading Co., Ltd.).
Per Chinese corporate records, these 2 entities share the same registered phone number and email
address and formerly shared an address on the same floor of the same building. [1,2] They are clearly
related parties.
Can you elaborate on this transaction, and why money was being paid to/received from related parties
in what appears to be a circular transaction?
13. Furthermore, we were unable to find websites for either of the entities above. They appear to exist
largely on paper. We visited the registered addresses for both entities, and documented the visits with
extensive photographic evidence. Neither of the businesses were located at their registered addresses.
Can you explain this and can you provide the updated addresses of these entities? How did the
company meet these entities and form the claimed business relationship with them in the first place?
14. In a press release dated June 17, 2020 the company mentions an order from Jiudao Group. In a
subsequent press release dated June 29, 2020 the company mentions delivery of “25 Dongfeng Heavy
Truck units”.
We visited Jiudao Group and took detailed photographic evidence. We found the “Group” is actually
just an office inside another factory named "江苏蔚翔新能源汽车有限公司”. There was no visible
signage on site for Jiudao Group itself.
We spoke with a standing committee member. We have 2 recorded conversations with the committee
member; one before the supposed delivery was completed and one after it was completed. He told us,
both times, he has no knowledge of this deal, MEG or Ideanomics in both instances. The committee
member told us that he oversees all deals at the factory.
Can you explain this? Was this too an “error”?

5. Hindenburg Research | New York, NY | www.hindenburgresearch.com |info@hindenburgresearch.com
15. In a press release dated June 22, 2020, the company mentions a deal for 200 EVs worth $3.2 million
USD with 浙江秦欧控股集团有限公司 (Zhejiang Qinou Holding Group Co Ltd) - a company that
is only 4 months old. When we called the telephone number listed on their website a woman picked
up. When we asked if we had reached Zhejiang CEMI, she hung up immediately. We called again and
she hung up again. The third time we called, we couldn’t get through.
Can you explain this strange behavior? What is the address and phone number for this purported buyer
of 200 EVs from the company? How did you identify a 4-month-old entity as a potential business
partner in the first place?
16. On June 26th, Ideanomics’ official corporate Twitter account tweeted a text message exchange with an
employee at the Qingdao auto facility that our on-site investigator had spoken with. The text message
exchange described an investigator visit that happened “4 to 5 days ago” with “a man” asking about a
partnership with Seven Stars under false pretenses. The official Ideanomics Twitter message then
stated:
“What's that you say @HindenburgRes You lied to Mr. Chen about who you were??? WOW,
no way!!
So, for all those real investors that need to understand how evil these shorts like Nathan
Anderson are, here is the conversation”
CEO Alf Poor publicly tweeted a picture of the same text exchange, stating “it's interesting an
imposter would ask about the Chairman's company and not Ideanomics or MEG” then
hashtagged the words “scumbags” and “liars” in the post, in reference to our firm.
Following these outbursts, the company issued a press release later that day that flatly contradicted the
supposed text message exchange and CEO comments from earlier. The press release stated that the
investigator did ask about both MEG and Ideanomics. Per the press release:
“When Hindenburg asked Mr. Chen about if he knew about Ideanomics or MEG...”
The company then posted an ‘official’ stamped description of the supposed conversation. The
description further contradicted the previous press release, tweets, and screenshotted conversation.
Suddenly, the employee had no longer been approached by “a man” as described in the earlier versions.
Now he had been “approached by two men” on June 23rd. In that version, the “two men” did not ask
about Ideanomics or MEG anymore, as stated in the press release. Once again, “the two men asked
Mr. Chen if Fu Da has collaborated with Sun Seven Stars.”
While we find the shape-shifting nature of this purported conversation to be fascinating, none of the
various versions issued by Ideanomics are true.
As we stated publicly, our conversation with the Qingdao employee happened the day prior, on June
25th, not 4-5 days ago. Our investigator was alone, asked direct questions (not posing as a customer)
and asked about both MEG and Ideanomics. We know this because we have the conversation
recorded.

6. Hindenburg Research | New York, NY | www.hindenburgresearch.com |info@hindenburgresearch.com
We conveyed these facts to the company, yet the false and misleading communications
mischaracterizing our investigator’s conversation remain posted to both your CEO and corporate
Twitter accounts.
How do you respond?
17. On June 25th, CEO Alf Poor publicly referred to us as “bottomfeeders” and “thugs and bullies”. The
next day, Mr. Poor stated that our research was part of a “shameful shakedown by scumbags fleecing
investors with absolutely no remorse or conscience.”
On June 26th, Mr. Poor circulated a change.org petition calling us a “fraud” and encouraging his
followers to “take a stand against short sale thuggery.” The defamatory petition now has over 7,000
signatures.
Does the board approve or stand by these comments by the company’s CEO? Does the board, in
retrospect, think it was a wise decision to make such statements?
Questions to Ideanomics Auditors, BF Borgers
Hello Ben Borgers and Eric Lien,
You may recognize us from our research on Predictive Technology Group, a former client of BF Borgers that
we alleged had engaged in sham acquisitions and false representations relating to its COVID-19 testing
capabilities.
That company’s shares have subsequently been halted by the SEC, delisted onto the grey sheets, lost 95% of
their value and the company is believed to be under active current investigation by the SEC.
We have several questions relating to your work on Ideanomics:
1. Given that the bulk of the Ideanomics’ purported ongoing operations are now in China, have you
performed site visits to any of the company’s overseas operations?
2. Are you relying largely on management’s representations of its operations in China?
3. Have you independently confirmed the company’s assets or customer and partner relationships by
reaching out to any of the company’s purported counterparties directly? If so, which?
4. In the first half of 2019, Ideanomics booked $40.7 million in revenue from a deal with a Singaporean
company called GT Dollar Pte. Ltd.
Instead of being paid in cash, Ideanomics was paid in GTB cryptocurrency. Ideanomics’ quarterly SEC
filings cite that there was one exchange trading GTB cryptocurrency called AsiaEDX. [Pg. 13 and Pg.
37]
When Idex reported $60.1 million in assets from its GTB holdings as of September 30th, 2019, were
any inputs used aside from the exchange price on AsiaEDX? [Pg. 18]

7. Hindenburg Research | New York, NY | www.hindenburgresearch.com |info@hindenburgresearch.com
5. We found that the Google Play app for the AsiaEDX exchange was listed by GT Dollar, the same
issuer of the GTB coins. This obviously suggests that AsiaEDX was affiliated with GT Dollar.
AsiaEDX also lists GT Capital as an investor to the exchange, making them clear related parties.
Ideanomics’ filings made it clear that GT Dollar was a related party to the company, [Pg. F-36] but it
made no mention of the exchange also being a related party. Were you aware that the exchange was a
related party to both Ideanomics and GT Dollar, and that therefore any pricing based on exchange
values should have been subject to additional scrutiny?
6. In a May 21st press release, GTB announced that the “current market value of GTB is $70 billion”
and that it had “3 million active users more than (sic) 50 countries around the world” Aside from that
press release, there appeared to be almost no evidence of the GTB coin’s footprint.
We reviewed GTBs ledger, which is found on the Ethereum network. We found that GTB is valued
at $0 and currently only has around 34 holders, strongly refuting the notion that it had anywhere close
to 3 million users. This information is easily available to the public.
What checks did you make to ensure that Ideanomics’ holdings in an extremely illiquid “altcoin” were
fairly valued at $60.1 million dollars for more than 6 months? [Pg. 18 and Pg. 16]
7. The company has regularly reported the “gross” revenues from activities such as energy trading, with
the result being the reporting of exceptionally large revenue numbers with almost no commensurate
gross profit. In 2018, for example, the company reported $377 million in revenue, 99.7% of which was
comprised of commodities trading. [Pg. 1] The company reported only $3.1 million in gross profit in
the same period. [Pg. 3]
Are you aware that the above accounting trick for reporting large “gross” commodity trading revenue
without reporting the “net” revenue was the precise technique infamously employed by Enron?
Are you aware that most companies report the “net” revenue associated with such trading activities in
order to give a fair picture of genuine revenue?
Given that you were the auditor that signed off on the above revenue numbers, what factors led to
your decision to not require reporting of “net” revenue, instead choosing to use the vastly inflated
“gross” revenue values?
We continue to gather additional information on the company’s overseas operations and we anticipate we will
have more questions over the coming weeks. We thank the board, the executive team, and auditors for
reviewing our concerns. We eagerly await your response.
Sincerely,
Nathan Anderson, CFA, CAIA
Founder, Hindenburg Research, LLC