SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                              Washington, DC 20549

                                   FORM 10-QSB


   [X] QUARTLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
                                   ACT OF 1934

                  FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2003

                         COMMISSION FILE NUMBER: 017833

                              GREENLAND CORPORATION
             (Exact Name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                             <C>
NEVADA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                               87-0439051
(State of other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)  (I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)
</TABLE>

                               17075 Via Del Campo
                               San Diego, CA 92127
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

                                  (858) 451-6120
                           (Issuer's telephone number)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required
to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the  preceding  12  months  (or  for such shorter period that the registrant was
required  to  file  such  reports),  and  (2)  has  been  subject to such filing
requirements  for  the  past  90  days.
[X]  YES   NO

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant's classes of
common  stock,  as  of  the  latest  practicable  date.

                      CLASS A COMMON STOCK $0.001 PAR VALUE
              164,401,875 SHARES OUTSTANDING AS OF August 19, 2003

                       DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
                                      None

Traditional  Small  Business  Disclosure  Format  (check  one):  YES   NO

<PAGE>
                              Greenland Corporation
               (A Subsidiary of Imaging Technologies Corporation)
                              Report on Form 10-QSB
                           Quarter Ended JUNE 30, 2003

                                Table of Contents

Part  I.    Financial  Information

Item  1.    Financial  Statements  (unaudited)

            Consolidated  balance  sheets  as  of  June  30,  2003  (unaudited)

            Consolidated  statements  of operations for the three months ended
            June 30, 2003  and  2002

            Consolidated  statements  of  operations  for the six months ended
            June 30, 2003  and  2002

            Consolidated  statements  of  cash  flows for the six months ended
            June 30, 2003  and  2002

            Notes  to  consolidated  financial  statements

Item 2.     Management's discussion and analysis of financial condition and
            results  of  operations

Part  II.   Other  Information

Item  1.    Legal  Matters

Item  6.    Exhibits  and  Reports  on  Form  8-K

            Signatures

<PAGE>
                              GREENLAND CORPORATION
               (A Subsidiary of Imaging Technologies Corporation)
                           CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                                     <C>
ASSETS

(in thousands, except share amounts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  JUNE 30, 2003
                                                                              (unaudited)
Current assets
     Cash  and cash equivalents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $          1,043
     Account Receivable, Net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               365
     Receivables from related companies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               394
     Prepaid expenses and other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                87
                                                                        -----------------
          Total current assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             1,889

Property and equipment, net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                64
Intangible assets, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               890
Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               152
Investment - PEO contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               237
                                                                        -----------------

                                                                        $          3,232
                                                                        =================
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' DEFICIENCY
Current liabilities
     Accounts payable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $          1,015
     PEO payroll taxes and other payroll deductions. . . . . . . . . .             2,331
     Payables to related companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                79
     Notes payable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               661
     Notes payable, related parties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               250
     Current maturities of obligations under capital lease . . . . . .                65
     Accrued payroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               752
     Accrued interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               127
     Other accrued expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               853
                                                                        -----------------
        Total current liabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             6,133

Obligations under capital lease less current maturities. . . . . . . .                28
                                                                        -----------------
                                                                                   6,161
Stockholders' net capital deficiency
   Convertible Preferred Class A stock, $.001 par value;
     10,000 shares authorized, no shares issued or outstanding . . . .                 -
    Common stock, $0.001 par value, 500,000,000 shares
      authorized, 141,089,377
      issued and outstanding,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               601
   Common stock warrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                14
   Subscribed shares and receivables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            (1,901)
   Paid-in capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            31,504
     Accumulated deficit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           (33,147)
                                                                        -----------------
          Total shareholders' net capital deficiency . . . . . . . . .            (2,929)

                                                                        $          3,232
                                                                        =================

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements
</TABLE>

<PAGE>
                              GREENLAND CORPORATION
               (A Subsidiary of Imaging Technologies Corporation)

                      CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
                                   (UNAUDITED)

                           FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                                     <C>            <C>
Thousands except per share amounts
                                                                                2003         2002
                                                                        -------------  -----------
Revenues
   Product sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $          -   $     (102)
   PEO Services (gross billings of  $9,286 and
      $10,688, less worksite  employee payroll
      cost of $9,083 and  $10,288) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           203            -
                                                                        -------------  -----------

          Gross profit (loss). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           203         (102)

General and administrative expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           890          681
Cost of PEO services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             -            -
                                                                        -------------  -----------
          Total operating costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           890          681
                                                                        -------------  -----------

          Operating loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          (687)        (783)

Other income (expenses):
   Loss on sale of assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             -           (3)
   Gain on investment disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             -          150
    Impairment on goodwill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             -            -
Gain (loss) on settlement of debts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             3         (348)
    Warrant costs - equity investor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             -            -
   Interest expense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           (18)         (35)
   Other income (expense). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            45            -
                                                                        -------------  -----------
         Total other income (expense). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            30         (236)
                                                                        -------------  -----------

Loss before income tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          (657)      (1,019)

Provision for Income tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             -            -
                                                                        -------------  -----------
           Net Loss. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          (657)      (1,019)

Basic and diluted net loss per share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        (0.004)       (0.18)
                                                                        =============  ===========

Basic and diluted weighted average number
       of common stock outstanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   138,632,881    5,590,922
                                                                        =============  ===========

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements
</TABLE>

<PAGE>
                              GREENLAND CORPORATION
               (A Subsidiary of Imaging Technologies Corporation)

                      CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
                                   (UNAUDITED)

                            FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                                     <C>            <C>
Thousands except per share amounts
                                                                                2003         2002
                                                                        -------------  -----------
Revenues
   Product sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $          -   $     (203)
   PEO Services (gross billings of  $9,286 and
      $10,688, less worksite  employee payroll
      cost of $9,083 and  $10,288) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           400            -
                                                                        -------------  -----------

          Gross profit (loss). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           400         (203)

General and administrative expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         1,189        1,395
Cost of PEO services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           174            -
                                                                        -------------  -----------
          Total operating costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         1,363        1,395
                                                                        -------------  -----------

          Operating loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          (963)      (1,598)

Other income (expenses):
   Loss on sale of assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             -           (3)
   Gain on investment disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             -          150
    Impairment on goodwill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             -       (1,565)
Gain (loss) on settlement of debts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             3         (359)
    Warrant costs - equity investor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             -            -
   Interest expense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           (39)         (72)
   Other income (expense). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            87            -
                                                                        -------------  -----------
         Total other income (expense). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            51       (1,849)
                                                                        -------------  -----------

Loss before income tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          (912)      (3,447)

Provision for Income tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             -            -
                                                                        -------------  -----------
           Net Loss. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          (912)      (3,447)

Basic and diluted net loss per share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        (0.007)       (0.71)
                                                                        =============  ===========

Basic and diluted weighted average number
       of common stock outstanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   129,057,755    4,871,066
                                                                        =============  ===========

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements
</TABLE>

<PAGE>
                              GREENLAND CORPORATION
               (A Subsidiary of Imaging Technologies Corporation)

                      CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
                                   (UNAUDITED)
             FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIODS ENDED JUNE 30, 2003 AND 2002

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                                     <C>                   <C>
(in thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                 2003                   2002
                                                                        --------------------  ---------------------

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
  Net loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $              (912)  $             (3,447)
  Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by (used in)
      operating activities:
        Depreciation and amortization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                   75                    249
        Allowance for doubtful account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                    -                    258
        Loss (gain) on sale of assets & disposal of investments. . . .                    -                   (147)
        Impairment of goodwill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                    -                  1,565
        Net loss on settlement of debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                    -                    359
        Stock issued for services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                    -                    585
        Option issued for services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                   29                      -
        Stock issued for salaries & reimbursement. . . . . . . . . . .                   98                    156
     (Increase) / decrease in current assets:
          Accounts receivable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                 (759)                     6
          Interest receivable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                  (87)                     -
          Prepaid Expense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                    -                     40
          Other assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                   35                      4
     Increase in current liabilities:
          Account payable and accrued expense. . . . . . . . . . . . .                2,711                    306
                                                                        --------------------  ---------------------
             Total Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                2,102                  3,381
                                                                        --------------------  ---------------------
   Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities . . . . . . . .                1,190                    (66)


CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
  Principal payments on capital leases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                  (68)                   (68)
  Principal payments on line of credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                  (59)                   (20)
  Principal payment on note payable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                 (116)                     -
  Proceeds from the exercise of warrants & options . . . . . . . . . .                    -                      -
  Proceeds from note payable-related party . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                   92                    148
                                                                        --------------------  ---------------------
  Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities. . . . . . . . .                 (151)                    60

NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS . . . . . . . . . .                1,039                     (6)

CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS , BEGINNING BALANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . .                    4                      7
                                                                        --------------------  ---------------------

CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS , ENDING BALANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $             1,043   $                  1
                                                                        --------------------  ---------------------

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
  Cash paid for interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $             1,304   $                 17
                                                                        --------------------  ---------------------
  Cash paid for income tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $                 -   $                  -
                                                                        --------------------  ---------------------

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements
</TABLE>

<PAGE>
                              GREENLAND CORPORATION
               (A Subsidiary of Imaging Technologies Corporation)
              NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

NOTE  1.     BASIS  OF  PRESENTATION

The  accompanying  unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements
have  been  prepared  in  accordance  with  the  rules  and  regulations  of the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  for the presentation of interim financial
information,  but  do  not include all the information and footnotes required by
generally  accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements. The
audited  consolidated  financial statements for the two years ended December 31,
2002  was filed on April 7, 2003 with the Securities and Exchange Commission and
is  hereby referenced.  In the opinion of management, all adjustments considered
necessary  for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the
six  months  period  ended  June  30, 2003 are not necessarily indicative of the
results  that  may  be  expected  for  the  year  ended  December  31,  2003.

NOTE  2.     GOING  CONCERN  UNCERTAINTY

As  shown in the accompanying consolidated financial statements, the Company has
suffered  recurring losses from operations, has a net working capital deficiency
of  approximately  $4.2  million and an accumulated deficit of $33 million as of
June  30,  2003.  These factors, among others, raise substantial doubt about the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The Company's need for working
capital  is a key issue for management and necessary for the Company to meet its
goals  and  objectives. The Company continues to meet its obligations and pursue
additional  capitalization  opportunities.  There is no assurance, however, that
the  Company  will  be  successful  in  meeting  its goals and objectives in the
future.

In view of the matters described in the preceding paragraph, recoverability of a
major  portion  of  the recorded asset amounts shown in the accompanying balance
sheet  is  dependent  upon continued operations of the Company, which in turn is
dependent  upon  the  Company's  ability  to  raise  additional  capital, obtain
financing,  and to succeed in its future operations. The financial statements do
not include any adjustments relating to the recoverability and classification of
recorded  asset  amounts or amounts and classification of liabilities that might
be  necessary  should  the  Company  be  unable  to continue as a going concern.

NOTE  3.     RECENT  PRONOUNCEMENTS

In  December  2002,  the  FASB  issued  SFAS No. 148 "Accounting for Stock Based
Compensation-Transition  and  Disclosure".  SFAS  No.  148  amends SFAS No. 123,
"Accounting  for  Stock  Based  Compensation", to provide alternative methods of
transition  for  a voluntary change to the fair value based method of accounting
for  stock-based  employee compensation.  In addition, this Statement amends the
disclosure  requirements  of  Statement  123 to require prominent disclosures in
both  annual and interim financial statements about the method of accounting for
stock-based employee compensation and the effect of the method used, on reported
results.  The Statement is effective for the Companies' interim reporting period
ending  January  31,  2003.  The  adoption  of SFAS 148 does not have a material
effect  on  the  earnings  or  financial  position  of  the  Company.

On  April  30, 2003, the FASB issued FASB Statement No. 149 (FAS 149), Amendment
of  Statement  133  on  Derivative  Instruments  and Hedging Activities. FAS 149
amends  and  clarifies  the  accounting  guidance  on (1) derivative instruments
(including  certain  derivative instruments embedded in other contracts) and (2)
hedging  activities  that  fall  within the scope of FASB Statement No. 133 (FAS
133), Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. FAS 149 also
amends  certain  other  existing  pronouncements,  which  will  result  in  more
consistent reporting of contracts that are derivatives in their entirety or that
contain  embedded  derivatives  that  warrant  separate  accounting.  FAS 149 is
effective  (1)  for contracts entered into or modified after June 30, 2003, with
certain  exceptions, and (2) for hedging relationships designated after June 30,
2003.  The  guidance is to be applied prospectively. The Company does not expect
the adoption of SFAS No. 149 to have a material impact on its financial position
or  results  of  operations  or  cash  flows.

On  May  15,  2003,  the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued FASB
Statement  No.  150 (FAS 150), Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with
Characteristics  of  both Liabilities and Equity. FAS 150 changes the accounting
for  certain  financial  instruments  that,  under  previous  guidance, could be
classified  as  equity or "mezzanine" equity, by now requiring those instruments
to  be  classified  as  liabilities  (or  assets  in  some circumstances) in the
statement  of financial position. Further, FAS 150 requires disclosure regarding
the  terms  of those instruments and settlement alternatives. FAS 150 affects an
entity's  classification  of  the  following  freestanding  instruments:  a)
Mandatorily  redeemable  instruments  b)  Financial instruments to repurchase an
entity's  own  equity instruments c) Financial instruments embodying obligations
that  the  issuer must or could choose to settle by issuing a variable number of
its  shares  or  other  equity  instruments based solely on (i) a fixed monetary
amount known at inception or (ii) something other than changes in its own equity
instruments  d)  FAS  150  does  not  apply  to features embedded in a financial
instrument  that is not a derivative in its entirety. The guidance in FAS 150 is
generally effective for all financial instruments entered into or modified after
May  31,  2003, and is otherwise effective at the beginning of the first interim
period  beginning  after  June  15,  2003.  For  private  companies, mandatorily
redeemable  financial  instruments  are subject to the provisions of FAS 150 for
the fiscal period beginning after December 15, 2003. The Company does not expect
the adoption of SFAS No. 150 to have a material impact on its financial position
or  results  of  operations  or  cash  flows.

NOTE  4.     REVENUE  RECOGNITION  -  PEO  SEGMENT

The Company recognizes its revenues associated with its PEO business pursuant to
EITF  99-19  "Reporting  Revenue  Gross  as a Principal versus Net as an Agent."
Previously, the Company reported its worksite employees as a component of direct
costs.  After discussions with the Securities and Exchange Commission staff, the
Company  has  changed  its  presentation of revenues from the gross method to an
approach  that presents its revenues net of worksite employee payroll costs (net
method)  primarily  because  the  Company  is  not generally responsible for the
output  and  quality  of  work  performed  by  the  worksite  employees.

     In  determining  the pricing of the markup component of the gross billings,
the  Company  takes  into  consideration  its  estimates  of  the costs directly
associated  with  its  worksite employees, including payroll taxes, benefits and
workers'  compensation  costs,  plus  an  acceptable  gross  profit margin. As a
result,  the  Company's  operating  results  are  significantly  impacted by the
Company's  ability  to  accurately estimate, control and manage its direct costs
relative  to  the  revenues  derived  from the markup component of the Company's
gross  billings.

     To  conform  to  the net method, the Company reclassified worksite employee
payroll  costs  of  $10.2  million for the six month period ended June 30, 2003,
from  direct  costs  to  revenues.  This reclassification had no effect on gross
profit,  operating  income  (loss),  or  net  income  (loss).

     Consistent  with its revenue recognition policy, the Company's direct costs
do  not include the payroll cost of its worksite employees. The Company's direct
costs  associated  with  its  revenue generating activities are comprised of all
other  costs  related to its worksite employees, such as the employer portion of
payroll-related  taxes, employee benefit plan premiums and workers' compensation
insurance  premiums.

NOTE  5.     PROPERTY  AND  EQUIPMENT

Net  property  and  equipment  at  June  30,  2003  was  as  follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                         <C>
(In thousands)
Computers and equipment. . . . . . . . . .  $ 321
Furniture & fixtures . . . . . . . . . . .    122
Demonstration equipment. . . . . . . . . .    127
Leasehold improvements . . . . . . . . . .    -0-
                                            ------
                                              570
Accumulated depreciation & amortization
   (Including accumulated amortization of
   $204,249 on leased assets). . . . . . .   (506)
                                            ------
                                            $  64
</TABLE>

Depreciation  expenses,  including amortization of capital lease assets, for the
six  months  ended  June  30,  2003 and 2002 were $13 thousand and $80 thousand,
respectively.

NOTE  6.     INTANGIBLES

On  March  18, 2003, the Company entered into a purchase agreement with ExpertHR
Oklahoma,  Inc.  to  acquire  all  the  issued and outstanding stock of ExpertHR
Oklahoma  effective  April 1, 2003.  The number of shares of Preferred Stock and
the  face  value  of  each  share  shall  reflect the purchase price paid by the
Company,  which  shall be an amount equal to one and one-half times gross profit
of  ExpertHR  Oklahoma  Inc.'s  operations  for the quarter ending June 30, 2003
multiplied  by  four as stated in an audit report to be performed (the "Purchase
Price").  From  this purchase, the Company received covenants not to compete for
five  years  valued  at $920,613.  The amortization expense for the period ended
June  30,  2003  was  $30,687.

NOTE  7.     NOTES  PAYABLE  TO  RELATED  PARTIES

Notes  payable  to  related  parties  at  June  30,  2003  were  as  follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                                     <C>
                                                                         (in thousands)
Note payable to a stockholder of the Company.
Interest at 8%. Principal due at various dates through September 2003.
Interest expense as of June 30, 2003 is $6,025.. . . . . . . . . . . .  $           109
Notes payable to a stockholder and officer of the Company.
Interest at 8%. Principal due at various dates through April 2003.
Interest expense as of June 30, 2003 is $4,585.. . . . . . . . . . . .              116
Other notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               25
                                                                        ---------------
                                                                        $           250
</TABLE>

NOTE  8.     NOTES  PAYABLE

Notes  payable  at  June  30,  2003  were  as  follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                                     <C>
                                                                         (in thousands)
Note payable to an unrelated party, with interest at 10%. Due through
the payment of commissions earned through March 9, 2001. . . . . . . .  $           320
Note payable to an unrelated party, with interest at 4.5%. Due through
the principal and interest payment  March 15, 2004.. . . . . . . . . .              150
Note payable related to acquisition of client services contracts from
A third party, payable  through May 2005.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              191
                                                                        ---------------
                                                                        $           661
</TABLE>

NOTE  9.     STOCKHOLDERS'  EQUITY

Convertible  Preferred  Stock

The  Company  is  authorized  to  issue  10,000  shares  of  Class A convertible
preferred  stock  with  a face value of ten thousand Dollars ($10,000) and a par
value  of  $.001  per share. The Company is authorized to issue 10,000 shares of
Class B convertible preferred stock with a face value and with a par value to be
determined  at  the  discretion  of  the  Board of directors. The Company has no
convertible  preferred  stock  outstanding  through  June  30,  2003.

Common  Stock  Issued  During  the  Period

The  Company  issued  115.1  million  shares to Imaging Technologies Corporation
(ITEC) pursuant to a share purchase agreement for a convertible promissory note,
payable  in  two  years,  in  the  amount  of  $2.25  million.

The Company issued 3.9 million shares to related parties to retire notes payable
in  the  amount  of  $27  thousand.

The  Company issued 10.3 million and 1.8 million shares for services for the six
months  ended  June  30, 2003 and 2002, respectively. The Company has recognized
expenses  for  such  services in the amount of $98 thousand and $649 thousand in
2003  and  2002,  respectively.

The  Company  issued  880  thousand shares of common stock for salaries totaling
$156  thousand  in  the  period  ended  June  30,  2002.

NOTE  10.     BASIC  AND  DILUTED  NET  LOSS  PER  SHARE

Basic  and  diluted  net loss per share for the six month periods ended June 30,
2003  and  2002  were  determined  by  dividing  net loss for the periods by the
weighted  average  number  of both basic and diluted shares of common stock. The
basic and diluted net income (loss) per share has been restated to retroactively
effect a reverse stock split of 50:1. The weighted average number of shares used
to  compute  basic  and  diluted  loss per share is the same since the effect of
dilutive  securities  is  anti-dilutive.

NOTE  11.     SUPPLEMENTAL  DISCLOSURE  OF  CASH  FLOWS

The  Company  prepares its statements of cash flows using the indirect method as
defined  under  the  Financial  Accounting  Standard  No.  95.

The  cash  flow  statements  do  not  include  following  non-cash investing and
financing  activities:

The  Company  paid  for services in the amount of $98 thousand and $649 thousand
for  the  six  months ended June 30, 2003 and 2002, respectively, by issuing its
common  stock.

The  Company  paid for salaries in the amount of $156 thousand for the six month
period  ended  June  30, 2002 by issuing common stock. No such transactions were
made  in  the  six  month  period  ended  June  30,  2003.

The  Company  repaid notes payable to related parties of $27 thousand in the six
month  period  ended  June  30,  2003,  by the issuance of common stock. No such
payments  were  made  in  the  prior  year  period.

The  Company  issued  115.1  million  shares to Imaging Technologies Corporation
(ITEC) pursuant to a share purchase agreement for a convertible promissory note,
payable  in  two  years,  in  the  amount  of  $2.25  million.

The  Company  issued  non-qualified options to stockholder and a creditor of the
company to purchase 4.0 million shares and recorded $29 thousand as loan payment
for  the  six  months  ended  June  30,  2003.

NOTE  12.     SEGMENTS  AND  MAJOR  CUSTOMERS

The  Company  has  two  reportable  segments  consisting  of  (1)  the  sale and
distribution of automatic check cashing machines (ABM) and (2) PEO services. The
accounting  policies  of  the  segments  are  the same as those described in the
summary  of  significant  accounting policies. The Company evaluates performance
based  on  sales, gross profit margins and operating profit before income taxes.

The  following  is information for the Company's reportable segments for the six
month  ended  June  30,  2003:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                          <C>       <C>        <C>           <C>
                                             ABM       PEO
(in thousands). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Segment   Segment    Unallocated   Total
                                             --------  ---------  ------------  --------

Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $      -  $    400   $          -  $   400
Depreciation and amortization . . . . . . .         -         -             75       75
Operating expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . .         -    (1,363)             -   (1,363)
Interest, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         -         -             39       39
Loss from continuing operations before tax.         -      (912)             -     (912)

Identifiable assets . . . . . . . . . . . .         -     2,162          1,070    3,232
Capital expenditures. . . . . . . . . . . .         -         -              -        -
</TABLE>

The  following  is information for the Company's reportable segments for the six
month  ended  June  30,  2002.  The  data  relate to the automated check cashing
business  only as the Company did not enter the PEO business until January 2003.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                           <C>       <C>           <C>            <C>
                                              Sales     Processing
In thousands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Segment   Segment       Unallocated    Total
                                              --------  ------------  -------------  --------

Revenue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $      -  $         -   $          -   $     -
Gross margin, before selling, general and
     administrative expense. . . . . . . . .         -         (203)             -      (203)
Depreciation and amortization. . . . . . . .         -          203             47       250
Interest expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         -            -             72        72
Other, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         -            -         (2,813)   (2,813)
Loss from continuing operations before taxes         -         (203)        (2,885)   (3,088)

Identifiable assets. . . . . . . . . . . . .       146          818            485     1,449
Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . .         -            -              -         -
</TABLE>

The  above negative gross margins include fixed overhead costs for expenses such
as  supervision,  labor,  amortization  and  depreciation,  communications,  and
facilities, as well as the direct costs to manufacture and service the automated
banking  machines.

NOTE  13.     LEGAL  PROCEEDINGS

The  Company,  along  with Seren Systems ("Seren"), its then current and primary
software developer and supplier for its own ABM terminals, was in the process of
completing  development  of  the  check  cashing service interface to the Mosaic
Software  host  system  being  implemented  to  support a large network of V.com
terminals.  In September 2000, Seren unilaterally halted testing and effectively
shut-down  any  further  check  cashing  development  for the V.com project. The
parties participating in this project may have been financially damaged, related
to  the  delay in performance by the Company and Seren. None of the parties have
brought  suit  against  the  Company  and/or  Seren  at  this  time. There is no
assurance,  however,  that  such  suit(s)  will  not  be  brought in the future.

On May 23, 2001 the Company filed a Complaint in San Diego County naming Michael
Armani  as  the  defendant.  The Complaint alleges breach of contract by Michael
Armani  in  connection  with two separate stock purchase agreements. The Company
seeks  damages  in the amount of $474,595. On August 7, 2001 the Company filed a
request  for  Entry  of Default against Mr. Armani in the amount of $474,595 and
the  court  granted  entry of default. Subsequently Mr. Armani filed a motion to
set  aside  the  entry of default and on October 26, 2001 the court granted said
motion  and  the  entry  of  default  was  set aside. The Company and Mr. Armani
participated  in  mediation  and as a result entered into a settlement agreement
whereby  Mr.  Armani agreed to make certain cash payments to the Company and the
parties  entered into mutual release of all claims.  Mr. Armani defaulted in his
obligation to make the first cash payment and consequently, the Company obtained
a  judgment  against  Mr.  Armani  for  $100,000.  The Company is continuing its
efforts  to  collect  on  the  judgment.

On  May  23, 2001 Arthur Kazarian, Trustee for the General Wood Investment Trust
(the  "Landlord")  filed  a  Complaint  in  San  Diego  County  naming Greenland
Corporation as a defendant. The Complaint alleges breach of contract pursuant to
the  terms  of  the lease agreement between the Company and the Landlord for the
real  property  located  at  1935  Avenida  Del  Oro,  Oceanside, California and
previously occupied by the Company. The Complaint seeks damages in the amount of
approximately  $500,000.  Although  the  Company remains liable for the payments
remaining  for  the  term of the lease, the Landlord has a duty to mitigate said
damages.  The  Company  recorded  a lease termination liability of $275 thousand
during  the  year ended December 31, 2001. The Company entered into a settlement
agreement  with  Arthur  Kazarian, Trustee for the General Wood Investment Trust
(the  "Landlord")  where by the Company agreed to pay the sum of $220,000 to the
Landlord  in  installments  payments  of $20,000 in May 2002, $50,000 in October
2002 and the remaining balance in December 2002. In the event Greenland defaults
in  any  or  all  scheduled  payments,  the Landlord is entitled to a stipulated
judgment  of  approximately  $275,000.  The  Company  was  unable  to  make  the
scheduled  payments and as a result, on July 8, 2002, the Landlord has entered a
judgment  lien  against  the  Company  in  the  amount  of  $279,654.

The  Company  entered  into  an agreement with Intellicorp, Inc. ("Intellicorp")
whereby  Intellicorp  agreed  to  invest $3,000,000 in exchange for seats on the
board  of  directors and restricted shares of common stock of the Company. After
making  the  initial  payment of $500,000, Intellicorp defaulted on the balance.
The  Company  is  seeking  a recovery of the unpaid $2,500,000.  The defendant's
ability  to  pay  is unknown. The Company had issued 46,153,848 shares of common
stock  for the investment. The shares were returned back to the Company and were
cancelled.  A  default  judgment  was  entered  against  defendant  IntelliCorp,
IntelliGroup, and Isaac Chang. On May 16, 2003 the Court held a prove-up hearing
for proof of damages. On July 17, 2003, the court entered Judgment By Default By
Court  and  awarded  the  Company  damages against IntelliCorp, IntelliGroup and
Isaac  Chang  in  the  amount  of  $3,900,000  including $1,000,000 in  punitive
damages.  Defendants  time  to appeal said damage award expires on September 17,
2003.  In  the event defendants appeal the damage award the Company will respond
to  the  appeal,  if  no  appeal  if filed, the Company will commence collection
actions.  There  is  no  assurance  that  the  Company will be successful in its
collection  efforts.

On  July  5, 2001 Max Farrow, a formal officer of the Company, filed a Complaint
in  San  Diego  County  naming  Greenland  Corporation,  Thomas  J.  Beener,
Intelli-Group, Inc., Intelli-Group LLC and Intelli-Corp, Inc. as defendants. The
Complaint alleges breach of contract in connection with Mr. Farrow's resignation
as  an  officer and director of the Company in January 2001. The Company and Mr.
Thomas  Beener,  entered into a settlement agreement with Max Farrow whereby Mr.
Farrow  agreed  to  release  Mr.  Beener  from  all claims, obligations etc., in
exchange  for  the  issuance  of  8  million  restricted  shares  of  Greenland
Corporation  common  stock.  The good faith settlement was approved by the court
and  the  agreed  upon  consideration  was  delivered to Mr. Farrow. The Company
entered  into  a settlement with Farrow whereby the Company agreed to a judgment
of  $125,000.  However,  the  judgment  will  not be enforced until such time as
efforts  to collect against IntelliCorp et al, have been exhausted. In the event
funds are collected from IntelliCorp. Mr. Farrow will receive the first $125,000
plus  50%  of  the  next $200,000 collected. The Company will retain all amounts
collected  thereafter.

Fund Recovery, a temporary staffing services filed a complaint against Greenland
Corporation  alleging breach of contract.  A summary judgment motion is pending.
The  Company  recorded  the liability amount of $14 thousand in the consolidated
financial  statements.

John  Ellis  has  filed a demand for arbitration in San Diego County against the
Company  seeking  damages  of  approximately  $70,000  for  an alleged breach of
contract  action.  Mr.  Ellis appeared to have abandoned this action. John Ellis
also  filed an action in San Diego County against the Company seeking damages of
approximately  $60,000 for an alleged breach of contract action . In response to
the  action  filed  in  San  Diego  County,  the Company filed a motion to quash
service  and  to compel arbitrationThe court granted the request of the Company
and directed Mr. Ellis to pursue his claims in arbitration. The Company believes
it  has valid defenses to the allegations. The amount at issue was recorded as a
liability  in  the  consolidated  financial  statements.

NKS  Enterprises, Inc. commenced a legal action against the Company in San Diego
Superior  Court  in  Vista  California  seeking  damages  in connection with the
purchase  and operation of a MaxCash ABM. The case was settled in December 2002.
The  maximum  amount  to  be paid under the settlement is $100,000. In exchange,
Greenland will receive the MaxCash ABM sold to NKS Enterprises.  The Company was
unable to comply with terms of settlement and NKS has entered a judgment against
the  Company  for  $100,000.  This  amount  was  recorded  as a liability in the
consolidated  financial  statements.

On  July  30,  2003,  the  Company  commenced  a  legal  action against CardPlus
International,  Inc.,  in Superior Court in San Diego California seeking damages
in  connection  with  the  sale  of  five MaxCash ABM's and the licensing of the
Company's  CCBO  back  office  processing  software.  The  Company is requesting
$500,000  in  damages.

The Company's officers and directors are aware of no other threatened or pending
litigation,  which  would  have  a material, adverse effect on the Company. From
time  to  time  the  Company  is  a  defendant (actual or threatened) in certain
lawsuits  encountered  in the ordinary course of its business, the resolution of
which,  in  the opinion of management, should not have a material adverse effect
on  the  Company's  financial  position  results  of  operations, or cash flows.


NOTE  14.     SUBSEQUENT  EVENTS

Subsequent  to  June  30, 2003, 21,312,500 shares of Greenland common stock were
issued  through  exercise  of  options  and  warrants.

NOTE  15.     ITEC  ACQUISITION  AGREEMENT

On  January  14,  2003,  Greenland  Corporation  ("Greenland"  or the "Company")
completed  its  sale  of  19,183,390  shares  of  Greenland  common stock, which
represent  sixty  percent  (60%)  of  the  issued  and outstanding shares of the
Company,.  to  Imaging Technologies Corporation ("ITEC"), Accordingly, there has
been  a  change  of  control.

Additionally,  the  Company  sold  warrants  to  purchase  95,319,510  shares of
Greenland  common  stock  to  ITEC,  which  will  represent an additional thirty
percent  (30%)  of  the  issued  and  outstanding  shares  of  the  Company.

The sale price for the shares and the exercise of the warrants was $2,250,000 in
the  form  of a promissory note convertible into shares of common stock of ITEC,
the  number of which will be determined by a formula applied to the market price
of  the  shares  at  the  time  that  the  promissory  note  is  converted.

The  warrants  have  been  exercised. 115.1 million Greenland common shares were
issued to ITEC and delivered pursuant to the terms of the Closing Agreement. The
conditions  of  the  exercise of warrants pursuant to the Closing Agreement have
been  met.  Accordingly,  ITEC  holds  voting  rights to 115.1 million shares of
Greenland  common  stock,  representing  83%  of the total outstanding Greenland
common  shares  at  May  16,  2003.

Also  on  January  14,  2003,  four  new  directors  were  elected  to  serve on
Greenland's  Board  of  Directors  as  nominees  of ITEC. As of the date of this
report,  ITEC  holds  four  seats  of seven. Greenland's Chief Executive Officer
remains  in his position.  ITEC's CEO serves as Chairman of Greenland's Board of
Directors.

ITEM  2.     MANAGEMENT'S  DISCUSSION  AND  ANALYSIS  OR  PLAN  OF  OPERATION

This  Quarterly Report contains forward-looking statements that involve risk and
uncertainties.  Forward-looking  statements  include,  without  limitation,  any
statement  that  may  predict,  indicate or imply future results, performance or
achievements  and  may  contain  the  words  "believe,"  "expect," "anticipate,"
"estimate," "project," "will be," "will continue" or words or phrases of similar
meaning.  Forward-looking  statements involve risks and uncertainties, which may
cause  actual  results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements.
Such  risks  and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, risks associated
with  completing  product development; commercial use of check-cashing machines;
product  repairs;  consumer  acceptance;  need  for  additional  financing;
manufacturing  risks; dependence on suppliers; dependence on distributors; rapid
technological  changes; dependence on key personnel; compliance with state laws;
risks  of  technical  problems  or  product  defects;  dependence on proprietary
technology  and  other factors detailed in our reports filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission.

INTRODUCTION

     The following discussion pertains to our operations and financial condition
as  of  June  30,  2003,  and  should  be read in conjunction with our financial
statements and notes thereto, and other financial information included elsewhere
in  this  report.

     Our  current  strategy  is:  (1)  to  expand  our  PEO  business;  (2)  to
commercialize  our  MAXcash  ABM  products  and  technology.

     To  successfully  execute our current strategy, we will need to improve our
working  capital  position.  The  report  of  the Company's independent auditors
accompanying  our December 31, 2002 financial statements includes an explanatory
paragraph  indicating there is a substantial doubt about our ability to continue
as  a  going  concern, due primarily to the decreases in our working capital and
net  worth.  We  plan  to  overcome the circumstances that impact our ability to
remain a going concern through a combination of achieving profitability, raising
additional  and  financing,  and  renegotiating  existing  obligations.

     There  can  be  no assurance, however, that we will be able to complete any
additional financings on favorable terms or at all, or that any such financings,
if  completed, will be adequate to meet our capital requirements. Any additional
equity  or  convertible  debt financings could result in substantial dilution to
our  shareholders.  If  adequate  funds are not available, we may be required to
delay,  reduce or eliminate some or all of our planned activities, including any
potential  mergers  or  acquisitions.  Our  inability  to  fund  our  capital
requirements  would  have  a  material  adverse  effect  on  the  Company.

Professional  Employer  Organization

     We  provide,  through  our  wholly-owned ExpertHR subsidiary, comprehensive
personnel  management  services. We provide a broad range of services, including
benefits  and payroll administration, health and workers' compensation insurance
programs,  personnel  records  management,  and employer liability management to
small  and  medium-sized  businesses.

     Administrative  Functions.  We  perform  a  wide  variety of processing and
record  keeping  tasks,  mostly related to payroll administration and government
compliance.  Specific examples include payroll processing, payroll tax deposits,
quarterly  payroll tax reporting, employee file maintenance, unemployment claims
processing  and  workers'  compensation  claims  reporting.

     Benefit  Plans  Administration.  We  sponsor  benefit plans including group
health  coverage.  We are responsible for the costs and premiums associated with
these  plans,  act as plan sponsor and administrator of the plans, negotiate the
terms  and  costs of the plans, maintain the plans in accordance with applicable
federal  and  state  regulations,  and serve as liaison for the delivery of such
benefits  to  worksite  employees.

     Personnel  Management.  We  provide  a  variety  of  personnel  management
services,  which provide our client companies access to resources normally found
in  the  human  resources  departments of larger companies. Our client companies
will  have  access  to  a  personnel  guide,  which  will set forth a systematic
approach  to  administering  personnel  policies  and  practices.

     Employer Liability Management. Under our Client Services Agreement ("CSA"),
we  assume  many  employment-related  responsibilities  associated  with
administrative  functions and benefit plans administration. Upon request, we can
also  provide  our  clients  guidance  on avoiding liability for discrimination,
sexual  harassment,  and civil rights violations. We employ counsel specializing
in  employment  law.

     Client Service Agreement. All clients enter into our CSA, which establishes
our  service  fee.  The  CSA  is  subject to periodic adjustments to account for
changes  in the composition of the client's workforce and statutory changes that
affect  our  costs.  The  CSA  also establishes the division of responsibilities
between  our Company and the client as co-employers. Pursuant to the CSA, we are
responsible  for  personnel  administration  and  are  liable  for  certain
employment-related  government  regulation. In addition, we assume liability for
payment  of  salaries, wages (including payroll taxes), and employee benefits of
worksite  employees.  The  client  retains  the  employees' services and remains
liable  for  the  purposes  of  certain  government  regulations.

     The  PEO  business  is  growing  rapidly,  but  profit  margins  are small.
Consequently, profitability depends on (1) economies of scale leading to greater
operating  efficiencies;  and  (2)  value-added  services  such  as  training,
education,  Internet  support,  and other services that may be used by employers
and  employees.

     The  income  model  for  this  business includes fees charged per employee.
While  gross  profit is low, revenues are generally substantial. To this end, we
have  pursued  acquisitions  of small PEO firms. Each acquisition is expected to
include  retention  of  some  existing  management  and staff in order to assure
continuity  of  operations.

     In  April 2003, we entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement along with ITEC,
to  acquire  an  Oklahoma-based  PEO  company,  which  we  have  organized  as
ExpertHR-OK, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Greenland. The Oklahoma facilities and
personnel  provide  a substantial amount of the administration duties associated
with  our  PEO  business,  including  the  implementation  of  system  software.

     Also in March 2003, we entered into a Agreement and Assignment of Rights to
acquire  all  right title and interest in and to the rights and benefits arising
under  or out of personal staffing agreements with the existing clients of Staff
Pro  Leasing,  Inc  and  Staff  Pro  Leasing  2,  both  Michigan  corporations

     In  February 2003, we entered into an Agreement and Assignment of Rights to
acquire all right, title, and interest in and to the rights and benefits arising
under  or  out of PEO service agreements with certain existing clients of Accord
Human  Resources,  Inc,  an  Oklahoma  corporation

     The  PEO  business  is  highly  competitive,  with  approximately 900 firms
operating in the U.S. There are several firms that operate on a nationwide basis
with  revenues and resources far greater than ours. Some large PEO companies are
owned by insurance carriers; and some are public companies whose shares trade on
Nasdaq,  including  Administaff,  Inc.,  Team  Staff,  Inc.,  Barrett  Business
Services,  and  Staff  Leasing,  Inc.

Government  Regulation

We  are  subject  to  regulation  in  several jurisdictions in which we operate,
including  jurisdictions  that  regulate  check  cashing fees and payday advance
fees.  We are subject to federal and state regulations relating to the reporting
and  recording  of certain currency transactions. There can be no assurance that
additional  state or federal statutes or regulations will not be enacted at some
future  date  which  could  inhibit  the  ability of us to expand, significantly
decrease  the  service  charges  for  check  cashing  and/or  other services, or
prohibit  or  more  stringently  regulate  the sale of certain goods which could
cause  a  significant  adverse  effect  on  our  future  prospects.  States have
different  licensing  requirements.  Some  states  require  that  the owner of a
check-cashing  machine  obtain  the license; others require that the provider of
the  cash in the machine ("vault cash") obtain a license or the possessor of the
machine  obtain  the  license  or that we, jointly with the owner, possessor, or
vault  cash provider obtain a license. Certain states require that the entity to
be  licensed maintain certain levels of liquid assets for each location at which
a  machine  is  placed.

Under  the  bank  Secrecy Act regulations of the U.S. Department of the Treasury
(the  "Treasury  Department"),  transactions  involving  currency  in  an amount
greater than $10,000 or the purchase of monetary instruments for cash in amounts
from  $3,000  to  $10,000  must  be  recorded.  In  general,  every  financial
institution, including Greenland, must report each deposit, withdrawal, exchange
of  currency  or  other  payment  or  transfer,  whether  by,  through or to the
financial institution, that involves currency in an amount greater than $10,000.
In  addition,  multiple  currency  transactions  must  be  treated  as  single
transactions  if  the  financial institution has knowledge that the transactions
are  by,  or  on  behalf  of any person and result in either cash in or cash out
totaling  more  than  $10,000  during  any  one  business  day.

There  can  be  no assurance that additional local, state or federal legislation
will  not  be  enacted or that existing laws and regulations will not be amended
which  could  have  a  material  adverse  effect on our operations and financial
condition.  (Also  see  "Risks  and  Uncertainties.")

Client  Services  Agreement

     All clients enter into ExpertHR's Client Service Agreement ("CSA"). The CSA
generally provides for an on-going relationship, subject to termination by us or
the  client  upon  written  notice.

     The  CSA  establishes  our  comprehensive  service fee, which is subject to
periodic  adjustments  to account for changes in the composition of the client's
workforce  and statutory changes that affect our costs. The CSA also establishes
the  division  of  responsibilities  between  us and our client as co-employers.
Pursuant  to  the  CSA,  we are responsible for personnel administration and are
liable  for  certain  employment-related  government regulation. In addition, we
assume  liability for payment of salaries and wages (including payroll taxes) of
our  worksite  employees  and  responsibility for providing employee benefits to
such  persons,  regardless of whether our client company makes timely payment of
the  associated  service  fee.  Our  client  retains the employees' services and
remains  liable  for  the purposes of certain government regulations, compliance
which requires control of the worksite or daily supervisory responsibility or is
otherwise  beyond  our  ability to assume. A third group of responsibilities and
liabilities  are  shared by us and our client where such joint responsibility is
appropriate.

     We  are  responsible  for:  payment  of wages and related tax reporting and
remittance  (state  and  federal  withholding,  FICA, FUTA, state unemployment);
workers'  compensation  compliance,  procurement,  management  and  reporting;
compliance  with  COBRA,  IRCA,  HIPAA  and  ERISA  (for  employee benefit plans
sponsored by ExpertHR only), as well as monitoring changes in other governmental
regulations governing the employer/employee relationship and updating the client
when  necessary;  and  employee  benefits  administration.

     Our clients are responsible for: payment, through ExpertHR, of commissions,
bonuses,  paid leaves of absence and severance payments; payment and related tax
reporting and remittance of non-qualified deferred compensation and equity-based
compensation; assignment to, and ownership of, all intellectual property rights;
compliance  with  Section-414(o)  of the Internal Revenue Code regarding benefit
discrimination;  compliance  with  OSHA regulations, EPA regulations, FLSA, WARN
and  state  and  local  equivalents  and  compliance with government contracting
provisions;  compliance with NLRA, including all organizing efforts and expenses
related  to a collective bargaining agreement and related benefits; professional
licensing  requirements,  fidelity bonding and professional liability insurance;
and  products  produced  and/or  services  provided.

     We  are  jointly  responsible,  with  our  clients,  for: implementation of
policies  and  practices  relating  to  the  employee/employer relationship; and
compliance with all federal, state and local employment laws, including, but not
limited  to  Title  VII  of  the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ADEA, Title I of ADA,
FMLA,  the Consumer Credit Protection Act, and immigration laws and regulations.

     Because  we  are a co-employer with our client companies for some purposes,
it is possible that we could incur liability for violations of such laws even if
it  is  not  responsible  for the conduct giving rise to such liability. The CSA
addresses  this  issue  by  providing  that  the  client  will  indemnify us for
liability incurred to the extent the liability is attributable to conduct by the
client.  Notwithstanding  this  contractual  right  to  indemnification,  it  is
possible  that  we could be unable to collect on a claim for indemnification and
may  therefore  be  ultimately  responsible  for  satisfying  the  liability  in
question.

     Clients  are  required  to  remit their comprehensive service fees no later
than  one day prior to the applicable payroll date by wire transfer or automated
clearinghouse  transaction.  Although are ultimately liable, as the employer for
payroll  purposes, to pay employees for work previously performed, we retain the
ability  to  terminate  the  CSA and associated worksite employees or to require
prepayment,  letters  of  credit,  or  other  collateral upon deterioration in a
client's  financial  condition  or  upon  non-payment  by  a  client.

Check  Cashing

We  have developed proprietary software that is capable of providing support for
delivery  to  consumers of a range of on-line financial services including check
cashing,  ATM,  money  orders  and  phone  card  dispensing  services.  We  have
developed,  manufactured  and  has  delivered  limited  numbers  of freestanding
kiosks,  under  the  trademarked  brand name MAXcash ABM. The unit is similar in
appearance  to an ATM machine. We acquired our base technology in May 1998, when
Check  Central  was  incorporated  into  Greenland as a wholly-owned subsidiary.

We  have  invested capital, time, and effort in the development and evolution of
our  back-office,  risk management and transaction support software systems. Due
to  shortages  of working capital and litigation with a key supplier, we altered
our  plans for ongoing development, production, and marketing of the MAXcash ABM
system.  However,  we  believe  that  there is further opportunity to market the
MAXcash  ABM  kiosk  through  PEO  customers  of our ExpertHR subsidiary; and to
clients  of  other  PEO  companies  in  order to provide check cashing and other
automated  banking  services  to  employees.

In  the  past,  our  strategy  has been oriented around two revenue streams: (1)
sales  of  the  MAXcash  ABM and  (2) fees earned in connection with the various
banking services provided on each of the machines in operation. However, without
sufficient numbers of machines in the field, this revenue stream has not produce
material  results.

While  we  are  optimistic that we can successfully produce and sell MAXcash ABM
kiosks  to PEO clients (ours and others), there can be no assurance that we will
achieve  our  goals  in  this  regard.

     The  markets  for  our  check  cashing  products  and  services  are highly
competitive.  Our  ability  to  compete  in  our  markets depends on a number of
factors,  including  selling  prices, product performance, product distribution,
marketing  ability,  and  customer  support. A key element of our strategy is to
provide  competitively  priced,  quality  products  and  services.

RESULTS  OF  OPERATIONS

Revenue

     We  had  total  revenues  of  $9.3  million and $10.6 million, from our PEO
business,  for the three and six months ended June 30, 2003 respectively. We had
no  revenues in the prior year period. The Company's sales operations related to
check  cashing  was  temporarily suspended primarily due to a legal dispute with
its  software  provider  and  the  associated  financial  risks  to  the Company
represented  by  the  dispute.  Management  is currently working to re-establish
these operations, especially as they relate to value-added products and services
to  the  Company's  PEO  clientele.

Cost  of  Sales

     The  Company  incurred  total costs of PEO services of $9 million and $10.2
million  for  the  three and six month period ended June 30, 2003. Cost of goods
sold  in  the  prior year periods, associated with check cashing operations, was
$102  thousand and $203 thousand, which were associated with the since-suspended
operations  related  to  transaction  processing.

Operating  Expenses

Selling, general and administrative expenses for the three months ended June 30,
2003  and 2002 were $1 million and $681 thousand, respectively. Selling, general
and administrative expenses for the six months ended June 30, 2003 and 2002 were
$1.2  million  and  $1.4  million,  respectively.

Other  Expense

Net other income was $30 thousand and $(236) thousand for the three month period
ended  June  30,  2003 and 2002. Net other income was $51 thousand and net other
expenses  were  $(1.8)  million for six month ended June 30, 2003 and 2002.  The
difference is due primarily to a charge for impairment of goodwill in the period
ended  June  30,  2002.

Net  Loss

     The  net  loss  for  the three months ended June 30, 2003 was $657 thousand
compared  to  a  net  loss of $1 million for comparative period in 2002. The net
loss  for the six months ended June 30, 2003 was $912 thousand compared to a net
loss  of $3.4 million for comparative period in 2002 a decrease of $2.5 million,
or  74%.  Losses  were  reduced  due  primarily  to  reduced  costs and expenses
associated  with  suspension  of  our  check  cashing  operations.

LIQUIDITY  AND  CAPITAL  RESOURCES

     Historically,  we  have financed our operations through cash generated from
the sale of equity securities and debt financing.     At June 30, 2003, we had a
working  capital deficit of $4.2 million compared with a working capital deficit
of  $3.2  million  at  December  31, 2002. The increase in working capital of $1
million  ,  or  33%  resulted  primarily  from  an increase in notes payable and
increased  accounts  payable  and  accrued  expenses.

     Stockholders' deficit increased for the six months ended June 30, 2003 from
the  previous  fiscal  year by $189 thousand, due primarily to our $912 thousand
net  loss.

     The  Company's  officers  and directors are aware of no other threatened or
pending  litigation,  not  otherwise  discussed  in Item 1, Legal Matters, which
would  have  a  material,  adverse  effect on the Company. From time to time the
Company is a defendant (actual or threatened) in certain lawsuits encountered in
the  ordinary course of its business, the resolution of which, in the opinion of
management, should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position  results  of  operations,  or  cash  flows.

The  Company's  auditors  have  expressed  their uncertainty as to the Company's
ability  to  continue  as  a  going  concern.  They  cite  recurring losses from
operations,  the  Company's  working  capital  deficiency,  and  limited  cash
resources.

     In  order to address this uncertainty, the Company has taken steps to raise
additional  funds  to  finance  its  operations  and to continue to grow its PEO
business.

RISKS  AND  UNCERTAINTIES

LIMITED  OPERATING  HISTORY:

     We began our check cashing operations in 1998 and has been inactive for the
past  two  years.  Additionally,  we  entered  the PEO business in January 2003.
Accordingly,  we have a limited operating history and our business and prospects
must  be considered in light of the risks and uncertainties to which early stage
companies  in  rapidly  evolving  industries such as automated check cashing and
professional  employment services are exposed. We cannot provide assurances that
its  business  strategy  will be successful or that we will successfully address
these  risks  and  the  risks  described  herein.

IF  WE  ARE  UNABLE  TO SECURE FUTURE CAPITAL, WE WILL BE UNABLE TO CONTINUE OUR
OPERATIONS.

     Our  business  has  not  been  profitable  in  the  past  and it may not be
profitable in the future. We may incur losses on a quarterly or annual basis for
a number of reasons, some within and others outside our control. (See "Potential
Fluctuation  in  Our  Quarterly  Performance.")  The growth of our business will
require  the  commitment  of  substantial  capital  resources.  If funds are not
available  from  operations,  we  will  need  additional funds. We may seek such
additional  funding  through  public  and  private  financing, including debt or
equity  financing.  Adequate funds for these purposes, whether through financial
markets  or  from other sources, may not be available when we need them. Even if
funds are available, the terms under which the funds are available to us may not
be  acceptable  to  us.  Insufficient  funds  may require us to delay, reduce or
eliminate  some  or  all  of  our  planned  activities.

     To  successfully  execute our current strategy, we will need to improve our
working  capital  position.  The report of our independent auditors accompanying
our  December  31,  2002  financial statements includes an explanatory paragraph
indicating  there is a substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue
as  a  going  concern, due primarily to the decreases in our working capital and
net  worth.  We  plan  to  overcome the circumstances that impact our ability to
remain a going concern through a combination of increased revenues and decreased
costs,  with  interim  cash flow deficiencies being addressed through additional
equity  financing.

POTENTIAL  FLUCTUATION  IN  QUARTERLY  PERFORMANCE:

     Quarterly  operating  results  can  fluctuate  significantly depending on a
number  of factors, any one of which could have a material adverse effect on our
results  of  operations.  The  factors  include:  the timing of product/services
announcements  and  subsequent  introductions of new or enhanced products and/or
services by us and by our competitors, the availability and cost of inventories,
the market acceptance of products and services, changes in our prices and in our
competitors' prices, the timing of expenditures for staffing and related support
costs,  the  extent  and  success  of  advertising,  research  and  development
expenditures,  and  changes  in  general  economic  conditions.

     We  may  experience  significant  quarterly  fluctuations  in  revenues and
operating  expenses  as we introduce new products and services; especially as we
enter  the  PEO  business.  Furthermore,  quarterly  results are not necessarily
indicative  of  future  performance  for  any  particular  period.

RISK  OF  TECHNICAL  PROBLEMS  OR  PRODUCT  DEFECTS:

     There  can  be  no  assurances  that, despite testing and quality assurance
efforts that may be performed by us and/or our manufacturers and subcontractors,
that  technical problems or product defects will not be found. These problems or
product  defects  could  result  in  the  loss or delay in market acceptance and
sales,  diversion  of  development  resources,  injury to our reputation, and/or
increased  service  and  support  costs,  any  one  of which could have material
adverse effects on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

GOVERNMENT  REGULATION:

     We  are subject to regulation in several jurisdictions in which we operate,
including  jurisdictions  that  regulate  check  cashing fees and payday advance
fees.  We could also become subject to federal and state regulations relating to
the  reporting  and  recording of certain currency transactions. There can be no
assurance  that  additional state or federal statutes or regulations will not be
enacted  at  some  future  date  which  could  inhibit  our  ability  to expand,
significantly  decrease  the  service charges for check cashing, payday advances
and/or  other  services,  or  prohibit  or more stringently regulate the sale of
certain  goods  and  services, which could cause a significant adverse effect on
our  future  prospects.

SINCE OUR COMPETITORS HAVE GREATER FINANCIAL AND MARKETING RESOURCES THAN WE DO,
WE  MAY  EXPERIENCE  A  REDUCTION  IN  MARKET  SHARE  AND  REVENUES.

     The  markets  for  our  products  and  services  are highly competitive and
rapidly  changing.  Some  of  our  current  and  prospective  competitors  have
significantly  greater  financial,  technical,  manufacturing  and  marketing
resources  than we do. Our ability to compete in our markets depends on a number
of  factors,  some within and others outside our control. These factors include:
the frequency and success of product and services introductions by us and by our
competitors,  the  selling  prices  of  our  products  and  services  and of our
competitors'  products  and services, the performance of our products and of our
competitors'  products,  product  distribution by us and by our competitors, our
marketing  ability and the marketing ability of our competitors, and the quality
of  customer  support  offered  by  us  and  by  our  competitors.

     The  PEO  industry is highly fragmented. While many of our competitors have
limited  operations,  there  are  several  PEO  companies equal or substantially
greater  in size than ours. We also encounter competition from "fee-for-service"
companies  such  as  payroll  processing  firms,  insurance companies, and human
resources consultants. The large PEO companies have substantially more resources
than  us  and  provide  a  broader  range  of  resources  than  we  do.

IF  WE  ACQUIRE  COMPLEMENTARY  BUSINESSES,  WE  MAY  NOT BE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY
INTEGRATE  THEM  INTO  OUR  CURRENT OPERATIONS, WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR
OVERALL  FINANCIAL  PERFORMANCE.

     In  order  to  grow our business, we may acquire businesses that we believe
are  complementary.  To  successfully  implement this strategy, we must identify
suitable  acquisition  candidates, acquire these candidates on acceptable terms,
integrate  their  operations  and  technology  successfully  with  ours,  retain
existing  customers  and  maintain the goodwill of the acquired business. We may
fail  in  our  efforts  to  implement  one  or more of these tasks. Moreover, in
pursuing  acquisition opportunities, we may compete for acquisition targets with
other companies with similar growth strategies. Some of these competitors may be
larger  and  have  greater financial and other resources than we do. Competition
for  these  acquisition  targets likely could also result in increased prices of
acquisition  targets  and  a  diminished  pool  of  companies  available  for
acquisition.  Our overall financial performance will be materially and adversely
affected  if  we  are  unable  to  manage  internal  or acquisition-based growth
effectively.  Acquisitions  involve  a  number  of risks, including: integrating
acquired  products  and  technologies in a timely manner, integrating businesses
and  employees  with our business, managing geographically-dispersed operations,
reductions  in  our  reported operating results from acquisition-related charges
and  amortization of goodwill, potential increases in stock compensation expense
and  increased  compensation  expense  resulting from newly-hired employees, the
diversion  of  management  attention,  the  assumption  of  unknown liabilities,
potential  disputes  with  the  sellers  of  one  or more acquired entities, our
inability to maintain customers or goodwill of an acquired business, the need to
divest  unwanted  assets  or  products,  and  the possible failure to retain key
acquired  personnel.

     Client satisfaction or performance problems with an acquired business could
also have a material adverse effect on our reputation, and any acquired business
could  significantly  under  perform  relative to our expectations. We cannot be
certain  that  we  will  be  able  to integrate acquired businesses, products or
technologies successfully or in a timely manner in accordance with our strategic
objectives,  which could have a material adverse effect on our overall financial
performance.

     In  addition, if we issue equity securities as consideration for any future
acquisitions, existing stockholders will experience ownership dilution and these
equity  securities  may have rights, preferences or privileges superior to those
of  our  common  stock.

DEVELOPING  MARKETS  AND  APPLICATIONS:

     The  markets for our products and services are relatively new and are still
developing.  We  believe that there has been growing market acceptance for check
cashing  services.  We  cannot  be  certain,  however,  that  these markets will
continue  to  grow. Other technologies are constantly evolving and improving. We
cannot  be  certain that products and services based on these other technologies
will  not  have  a  material  adverse  effect on the demand for our products and
services.

DEPENDENCE  UPON  SUPPLIERS:

     We  depend  on  acquiring  products and software from outside suppliers. We
rely  heavily  on these suppliers for upgrades and support. We cannot be certain
that  all of our suppliers will continue to make their products and technologies
available  to  us,  or  that these suppliers will not provide their products and
technologies  to  other  companies  simultaneously.

COMPONENT  AVAILABILITY  AND  COST;  DEPENDENCE  ON  SINGLE  SOURCES:

     We  presently outsource the production of some of our manufactured products
through  a  number of vendors. These vendors assemble products, using components
we  purchase from other sources or from their own inventory. The terms of supply
contracts  are  negotiated  separately  in  each  instance. Although we have not
experienced  any difficulty in the past in engaging contractors or in purchasing
components,  present  vendors may not have sufficient capacity to meet projected
market  demand  for  our  products and alternative production sources may not be
available  without  undue  disruption.

     While  most components are available locally from multiple vendors, certain
components used in our products are only available from single sources. Although
alternative  suppliers  are  readily  available  for  many  components, for some
components the process of qualifying replacement suppliers, replacing tooling or
ordering  and  receiving  replacement  components  could take several months and
cause  substantial  disruption  to  operations.  Any  significant  increase  in
component  prices  or  decrease  in component availability could have a material
adverse  effect  on  our  business  and  overall  financial  performance.

DEPENDENCE  ON  KEY  PERSONNEL:

     Our  success  is dependent, in part, upon our ability to attract and retain
qualified management and technical personnel. Competition for these personnel is
intense, and we will be adversely affected if it is unable to attract additional
key  employees  or  if it loses one or more key employees. We may not be able to
retain  our  key  personnel.

POSSIBILITY  OF  CHALLENGE  TO  PRODUCTS  OR  INTELLECTUAL  PROPERTY  RIGHTS:

     We  intend  to  protect  our  technology  by  filing  copyright  and patent
applications  for  the patentable technologies that we consider important to the
development of our business. We also intend to rely upon trade secrets, know-how
and  continuing  technological  innovations  to develop and maintain competitive
advantage.

     We  have  filed a copyright application with the U. S. Patent and Trademark
Office  with  respect  to our server technology. We may file patent applications
with  respect to our kiosk system and any other technology we have developed for
use  with  the  MAXcash  ABM.  There  can  be  no assurance that any U.S. Patent
application,  if  and  when  filed,  will  be  granted  or,  if  obtained,  will
sufficiently  protect  our  proprietary  rights.

     Even  if the patents we apply for are granted, they do not confer on us the
right  to manufacture and market products if such products infringe patents held
by  others.  We  have  not  undertaken  or  conducted  any  comprehensive patent
infringement  searches  or  studies.  If  any  such  third parties hold any such
conflicting  rights,  we  may be required in the future to stop making, using or
selling  its  products  or  to obtain licenses from and pay royalties to others,
which  could  have  a  significant  and  material adverse effect on the Company.
Further,  in  such  event,  there  can  be no assurance that we would be able to
obtain  or  maintain  any  such  licenses  on  acceptable  terms  or  at  all.

     Additionally,  competitors  may  assert  that  we  infringe on their patent
rights.  If  we fail to establish that we have not violated the asserted rights,
we  could  be  prohibited  from  marketing  the  products  that  incorporate the
technology  and  we could be liable for damages. We could also incur substantial
costs  to  redesign our products or to defend any legal action taken against us.

RELIANCE  ON  INDIRECT  DISTRIBUTION:

     Sales  of  the MAXcash ABM are principally made through distributors, which
may  carry  competing  product  lines.  These  distributors  could  reduce  or
discontinue  sales  of our products, which could materially and adversely affect
our  future success. These independent distributors may not devote the resources
necessary  to  provide effective sales and marketing support of our products. In
addition,  distributors  are  not required to carry any inventory of MAXcash ABM
systems.  These  distributors  are  substantially  dependent on general economic
conditions  and  other unique factors affecting our markets. We believe that our
growth  and success, in the near-term, will depend in part upon our distribution
channels.  Our  business  could  be  materially  and  adversely  affected if our
distributors  fail  to  provide  sales  of  our  products.

INCREASES  IN  HEALTH  INSURANCE  PREMIUMS,  UNEMPLOYMENT  TAXES,  AND  WORKERS'
COMPENSATION  RATES  WILL  HAVE  A  SIGNIFICANT  EFFECT  ON OUR FUTURE FINANCIAL
PERFORMANCE.

     Health  insurance  premiums,  state  unemployment  taxes,  and  workers'
compensation  rates  are,  in  part,  determined  by  our claims experience, and
comprise  a  significant  portion of our direct costs. We employ risk management
procedures  in an attempt to control claims incidence and structure our benefits
contracts  to  provide  as  much  cost stability as possible. However, should we
experience  a  large increase in claims activity, the unemployment taxes, health
insurance  premiums,  or  workers'  compensation  insurance  rates  we pay could
increase. Our ability to incorporate such increases into service fees to clients
is  generally  constrained  by  contractual  agreements  with  our  clients.
Consequently,  we  could  experience  a  delay  before  such  increases could be
reflected  in the service fees we charge. As a result, such increases could have
a  material  adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

WE CARRY SUBSTANTIAL LIABILITY FOR WORKSITE EMPLOYEE PAYROLL AND BENEFITS COSTS.

     Under  our  client  service agreements, we become a co-employer of worksite
employees  and we assume the obligations to pay the salaries, wages, and related
benefits  costs  and  payroll  taxes  of such worksite employees. We assume such
obligations  as  a  principal, not merely as an agent of the client company. Our
obligations include responsibility for (a) payment of the salaries and wages for
work  performed  by worksite employees, regardless of whether the client company
makes  timely  payment  to  us  of the associated service fee; and (2) providing
benefits  to worksite employees even if the costs incurred by us to provide such
benefits  exceed  the  fees paid by the client company. If a client company does
not  pay  us,  or if the costs of benefits provided to worksite employees exceed
the  fees paid by a client company, our ultimate liability for worksite employee
payroll and benefits costs could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial  condition  or  results  of  operations.

AS A MAJOR EMPLOYER, OUR OPERATIONS ARE AFFECTED BY NUMEROUS FEDERAL, STATE, AND
LOCAL  LAWS  RELATED  TO  LABOR,  TAX,  AND  EMPLOYMENT  MATTERS.

     By entering into a co-employer relationship with employees assigned to work
at  client company locations, we assume certain obligations and responsibilities
or  an  employer  under  these  laws.  However,  many of these laws (such as the
Employee  Retirement  Income  Security  Act  ("ERISA")  and  federal  and  state
employment  tax  laws)  do  not  specifically  address  the  obligations  and
responsibilities  of  non-traditional employers such as PEOs; and the definition
of  "employer" under these laws is not uniform. Additionally, some of the states
in  which  we  operate  have  not addressed the PEO relationship for purposes of
compliance  with  applicable  state  laws  governing  the  employer/employee
relationship. If these other federal or state laws are ultimately applied to our
PEO relationship with our worksite employees in a manner adverse to the Company,
such  an  application  could  have  a  material  adverse effect on the Company's
financial  condition  or  results  of  operations.

     While  many  states  do not explicitly regulate PEOs, 21 states have passed
laws  that  have  licensing  or  registration requirements for PEOs, and several
other  states  are  considering  such  regulation.  Such laws vary from state to
state,  but  generally  provide for monitoring the fiscal responsibility of PEOs
and,  in  some  cases,  codify  and  clarify  the co-employment relationship for
unemployment,  workers'  compensation, and other purposes under state law. There
can  be  no  assurance that we will be able to satisfy licensing requirements of
other  applicable  relations  for  all  states.  Additionally,  there  can be no
assurance  that  we  will  be  able  to  renew  our  licenses  in  all  states.

THE  MAINTENANCE  OF HEALTH AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE PLANS THAT COVER
WORKSITE  EMPLOYEES  IS  A  SIGNIFICANT  PART  OF  OUR  BUSINESS.

     The  current  health  and  workers'  compensation contracts are provided by
vendors  with  whom  we  have  an established relationship, and on terms that we
believe  to  be  favorable. While we believe that replacement contracts could be
secured  on  competitive  terms  without  causing  significant disruption to our
business,  there  can  be  no  assurance  in  this  regard.

OUR  STANDARD AGREEMENTS WITH PEO CLIENTS ARE SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION ON 60-DAYS
WRITTEN  NOTICE  BY  EITHER  THE  COMPANY  OR  THE  CLIENT.

     Accordingly,  the  short-term nature of these agreements make us vulnerable
to  potential  cancellations  by  existing  clients,  which could materially and
adversely  affect  our  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations.
Additionally, our results of operations are dependent, in part, upon our ability
to  retain  or  replace client companies upon the termination or cancellation of
our  agreements.

A  NUMBER  OF  LEGAL  ISSUES REMAIN UNRESOLVED WITH RESPECT TO THE CO-EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT  BETWEEN  A  PEO  AND  ITS  WORKSITE  EMPLOYEES,  INCLUDING  QUESTIONS
CONCERNING  THE  ULTIMATE  LIABILITY  FOR  VIOLATIONS  OF  EMPLOYMENT  AND
DISCRIMINATION  LAWS.

     Our  client  service  agreement  establishes  a  contractual  division  of
responsibilities  between  us  and  our clients for various personnel management
matters,  including  compliance  with  and  liability  under  various government
regulations.  However,  because  we  act  as a co-employer, we may be subject to
liability  for  violations  of  these  or  other  laws despite these contractual
provisions,  even  if  we  do  not  participate in such violations. Although our
agreement  provides  that  the  client  is  to  indemnify  us  for any liability
attributable to the conduct of the client, we may not be able to collect on such
a  contractual indemnification claim, and thus may be responsible for satisfying
such liabilities. Additionally, worksite employees may be deemed to be agents of
the  Company,  subjecting  us  to  liability  for  the  actions of such worksite
employees.

VOLATILITY  OF  STOCK  PRICE:

     The  market  price  of  our  common  stock  historically  has  fluctuated
significantly. Our stock price could fluctuate significantly in the future based
upon  any  number of factors such as: general stock market trends; announcements
of  developments related to our business; fluctuations in our operating results;
announcements  of  technological innovations, new products or enhancements by us
or  our  competitors;  general  conditions  in  the  markets  we  serve; general
conditions  in  the  U.S. economy; developments in patents or other intellectual
property  rights;  and  developments in our relationships with our customers and
suppliers.

     In  addition,  in recent years, the stock market in general, and the market
for  shares  of  technology stocks in particular, have experienced extreme price
fluctuations,  which  have  often been unrelated to the operating performance of
affected  companies.  Similarly,  the  market  price  of  our  common  stock may
fluctuate  significantly  based  upon  factors  unrelated  to  our  operating
performance.

IF OUR OPERATIONS CONTINUE TO RESULT IN A NET LOSS, NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITAL AND
A  DECLINE  IN  NET WORTH, AND WE ARE UNABLE TO OBTAIN NEEDED FUNDING, WE MAY BE
FORCED  TO  DISCONTINUE  OPERATIONS.

     For  several  recent  periods,  up  through the present, we had a net loss,
negative  working  capital  and  a decline in net worth, which raise substantial
doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Our losses have resulted
primarily  from  an  inability  to  achieve  revenue targets due to insufficient
working capital. Our ability to continue operations will depend on positive cash
flow,  if  any,  from  future  operations and on our ability to raise additional
funds  through equity or debt financing. Although we have reduced our work force
and  suspended some of our operations, if we are unable to achieve the necessary
product sales or raise or obtain needed funding, we may be forced to discontinue
operations.

ABSENCE  OF  DIVIDENDS:

     We  have  not paid any cash dividends on our common stock to date and we do
not  anticipate  paying  cash  dividends  in  the  foreseeable  future.

LIQUIDITY  OF  COMMON  STOCK:

     Trading of Greenland common stock is conducted over-the-counter through the
NASD  Electronic  Bulletin  Board and covered by Rule 15g-9 under the Securities
Exchange  Act  of  1934.  Under  this  rule,  broker/dealers who recommend these
securities  to persons other than established customers and accredited investors
must  make  a  special  written  suitability determination for the purchaser and
receive  the  purchaser's  written  agreement  to  a  transaction prior to sale.
Securities  are  exempt from this rule if the market price is at least $5.00 per
share.

     The  Securities  and Exchange Commission adopted regulations that generally
define  a  "penny  stock" as any equity security that has a market price of less
than  $5.00 per share. Additionally, if the equity security is not registered or
authorized  on  a  national securities exchange or the Nasdaq and the issuer has
net  tangible assets under $2,000,000, the equity security also would constitute
a  "penny  stock."  Greenland common stock does constitute a penny stock because
our  common  stock  has  a market price less than $5.00 per share and our common
stock  is  not  quoted  on  Nasdaq.  As  Greenland common stock falls within the
definition  of penny stock, these regulations require the delivery, prior to any
transaction  involving  Greenland  common  stock,  of  a  disclosure  schedule
explaining the penny stock market and the risks associated with it. Furthermore,
the  ability of broker/dealers to sell Greenland common stock and the ability of
shareholders  to  sell  Greenland  common  stock  in the secondary market may be
limited.  As  a  result,  the  market  liquidity  for  Greenland common stock is
adversely  affected.  The  Company  can  provide  no  assurance  that trading in
Greenland  common stock will not be subject to these or other regulations in the
future,  which  may  negatively  affect  the  market for Greenland common stock.
Furthermore,  this  lack  of  liquidity  also may make it more difficult for the
Company  to  raise  capital  in  the  future.

PART  II     OTHER  INFORMATION

ITEM  1.  -  LEGAL  MATTERS

     Greenland, along with Seren Systems ("Seren"), its then current and primary
software developer and supplier for its own ABM terminals, was in the process of
completing  development  of  the  check  cashing service interface to the Mosaic
Software  host  system  being  implemented  to  support a large network of V.com
terminals.  In September 2000, Seren unilaterally halted testing and effectively
shut-down  any  further  check  cashing  development  for the V.com project. The
parties participating in this project may have been financially damaged, related
to  the  delay  in  performance by Greenland and Seren. None of the parties have
brought  suit  against  us  and/or  Seren  at  this time. There is no assurance,
however,  that  such  suit(s)  will  not  be  brought  in  the  future.

     On  May  23,  2001  we filed a Complaint in San Diego County naming Michael
Armani  as  the  defendant.  We  allege  breach of contract by Michael Armani in
connection  with  two separate stock purchase agreements. We seek damages in the
amount  of  $474,595.  On August 7, 2001 we filed a request for Entry of Default
against  Mr.  Armani  in  the  amount of $474,595 and the court granted entry of
default.  Subsequently  Mr.  Armani  filed  a  motion  to set aside the entry of
default  and  on October 26, 2001 the court granted said motion and the entry of
default was set aside. Greenland and Mr. Armani participated in mediation and as
a  result  entered into a settlement agreement whereby Mr. Armani agreed to make
certain  cash  payments to us and the parties entered into mutual release of all
claims.  Mr.  Armani  defaulted in his obligation to make the first cash payment
and consequently, we obtained a judgment against Mr. Armani for $100,000. We are
continuing  our  efforts  to  collect  on  the  judgment.

     On  May  23,  2001 Arthur Kazarian, Trustee for the General Wood Investment
Trust (the "Landlord") filed a Complaint in San Diego County naming Greenland as
a  defendant.  The Complaint alleges breach of contract pursuant to the terms of
the  lease  agreement  between  Greenland and the Landlord for the real property
located  at  1935 Avenida Del Oro, Oceanside, California and previously occupied
by  us.  The  Complaint  seeks  damages in the amount of approximately $500,000.
Although  we remain liable for the payments remaining for the term of the lease,
the  Landlord  has  a  duty  to  mitigate  said  damages.  We  recorded  a lease
termination  liability of $275 thousand during the year ended December 31, 2001.
We  entered  into  a  settlement agreement with Arthur Kazarian, Trustee for the
General Wood Investment Trust (the "Landlord") where by we agreed to pay the sum
of  $220,000  to  the  Landlord in installments payments of $20,000 in May 2002,
$50,000 in October 2002 and the remaining balance in December 2002. In the event
we  default  in  any  or  all  scheduled payments, the Landlord is entitled to a
stipulated  judgment  of  approximately  $275,000.  We  were  unable to make the
scheduled  payments and as a result, on July 8, 2002, the Landlord has entered a
judgment  lien  against  Greenland  in  the  amount  of  $279,654.

The  Company  entered  into  an agreement with Intellicorp, Inc. ("Intellicorp")
whereby  Intellicorp  agreed  to  invest $3,000,000 in exchange for seats on the
board  of  directors and restricted shares of common stock of the Company. After
making  the  initial  payment of $500,000, Intellicorp defaulted on the balance.
The  Company  is  seeking  a recovery of the unpaid $2,500,000.  The defendant's
ability  to  pay  is unknown. The Company had issued 46,153,848 shares of common
stock  for the investment. The shares were returned back to the Company and were
cancelled.  A  default  judgment  was  entered  against  defendant  IntelliCorp,
IntelliGroup, and Isaac Chang. On May 16, 2003 the Court held a prove-up hearing
for proof of damages. On July 17, 2003, the court entered Judgment By Default By
Court  and  awarded  the  Company  damages against IntelliCorp, IntelliGroup and
Isaac  Chang  in  the  amount  of  $3,900,000  including $1,000,000 in  punitive
damages  .  Defendants  time  to  appeal  said damage award expires on or about,
September  17, 2003. In the event defendants appeal the damage award the Company
will  respond  to  the  appeal, if no appeal if filed, the Company will commence
collection actions. There is no assurance that the Company will be successful in
its  collection  efforts.

On  July  5, 2001 Max Farrow, a formal officer of the Company, filed a Complaint
in  San  Diego  County  naming  Greenland  Corporation,  Thomas  J.  Beener,
Intelli-Group, Inc., Intelli-Group LLC and Intelli-Corp, Inc. as defendants. The
Complaint alleges breach of contract in connection with Mr. Farrow's resignation
as  an  officer and director of the Company in January 2001. The Company and Mr.
Thomas  Beener,  entered into a settlement agreement with Max Farrow whereby Mr.
Farrow  agreed  to  release  Mr.  Beener  from  all claims, obligations etc., in
exchange  for  the  issuance  of  8  million  restricted  shares  of  Greenland
Corporation  common  stock.  The good faith settlement was approved by the court
and  the  agreed  upon  consideration  was  delivered to Mr. Farrow. The Company
entered  into  a settlement with Farrow whereby the Company agreed to a judgment
of  $125,000.  However,  the  judgment  will  not be enforced until such time as
efforts  to collect against IntelliCorp et al, have been exhausted. In the event
funds are collected from IntelliCorp. Mr. Farrow will receive the first $125,000
plus  50%  of  the  next $200,000 collected. The Company will retain all amounts
collected  thereafter.

     Fund  Recovery,  a temporary staffing services filed a complaint against us
alleging  breach  of contract. A summary judgment motion is pending. We recorded
the  liability  amount of $14 thousand in the consolidated financial statements.

     John  Ellis  has  filed  an  action in San Diego County against the Company
seeking  damages  of  approximately  $60,000  for  an alleged breach of contract
action. Mr. Ellis  appeared to have abandoned this action. John Ellis also filed
an  action  in  San  Diego  County  against  the  Company  seeking  damages  of
approximately  $60,000 for an alleged breach of contract action . In response to
the  action  filed  in  San  Diego  County, the Company  filed a motion to quash
service  and  to compel arbitrationThe court granted the request of the Company
and  directed  Mr.  Ellis  to  pursue his claims in arbitration.     The Company
believes  it  has  valid  defenses  to the allegations.  The amount at issue was
recorded  as  a  liability  in  the  consolidated  financial  statements.

     NKS  Enterprises,  Inc.  commenced  a  legal action against us in San Diego
Superior  Court  in  Vista  California  seeking  damages  in connection with the
purchase  and operation of a MaxCash ABM. The case was settled in December 2002.
The  maximum amount to be paid under the settlement is $100,000. In exchange, we
will  receive the MaxCash ABM sold to NKS Enterprises. The Company was unable to
comply  with  terms  of  settlement  and  NKS has entered a judgment against the
Company  for  $100,000.  This  amount  was  recorded  as  a  liability  in  the
consolidated  financial  statements.

On  July  30,  2003,  the  Company  commenced  a  legal  action against CardPlus
International,  Inc.,  in Superior Court in San Diego California seeking damages
in  connection  with  the  sale  of  five MaxCash ABM's and the licensing of the
Company's  CCBO  back  office  processing  software.  The  Company is requesting
$500,000  in  damages.

     There  are  several vendors and/or trade creditors we owe money to and that
have  threatened litigation. We continue to attempt to resolve these matters but
due  to  the  lack  of cash we are not certain that suitable arrangements can be
made.  These  potential  actions may, alone or together, have a material adverse
impact  on  our  ability  to  operate.

Greenland's  officers  and directors are aware of no other threatened or pending
litigation, which would have a material, adverse effect on us. From time to time
we are a defendant (actual or threatened) in certain lawsuits encountered in the
ordinary  course  of  its  business,  the resolution of which, in the opinion of
management,  should not have a material adverse effect on our financial position
results  of  operations,  or  cash  flows.

ITEM  2  -  CHANGES  IN  SECURITIES

     The Company issued 115.1 million shares to Imaging Technologies Corporation
(ITEC) pursuant to a share purchase agreement for a convertible promissory note,
payable  in  two  years,  in  the  amount  of  $2.25  million.

     The  Company  issued  3.9 million shares to related parties to retire notes
payable  in  the  amount  of  $27  thousand.

     The Company issued 10.3 million and 1.8 million shares for services for the
six  months  ended  June  30,  2003  and  2002,  respectively.  The  Company has
recognized  expenses  for  such  services in the amount of $98 thousand and $649
thousand  in  2003  and  2002,  respectively.

ITEM  3  -  DEFAULTS  ON  SENIOR  SECURITIES

None.

ITEM  4  -  SUBMISSION  OF  MATTER  TO  VOTE  OF  SECURITY  HOLDERS

None.

ITEM  5  -  OTHER  INFORMATION

None.

ITEM  6  -  EXHIBITS  AND  REPORTS  ON  FORM  8-K

(a)     Exhibits

10(a)  -  Closing  Agreement, dated January 7, 2003, between ITEC and Greenland,
incorporated  by  reference  to  Form  8-K  dated  January  21,  2003.

10(b)  -  Agreement  and  Assignment  of Rights, dated February 1, 2003, between
Accord  Human Resources, Inc., Greenland, and ITEC, incorporated by reference to
Exhibit  10(k)  to  Form  10-KSB  filed  April  7,  2003.

10(c)  -  Agreement  and  Assignment  of  Rights,  dated  March 1, 2003, between
StaffPro  Leasing  2,  Greenland,  and  ExpertHR,  incorporated  by reference to
Exhibit  10(l)  to  Form  10-KSB  filed  April  7,  2003.

10(d)  -  Promissory Note, dated March 1, 2003, payable to StaffPro Leasing 2 by
Greenland, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(m) to Form 10-KSB filed April
7,  2003.

10(e)  -  Stock Purchase Agreement among Greenland, ITEC, and ExpertHR Oklahoma,
Inc.,  dated  March  18,  2003.

99.1  -  Certification  of  the  Chief  Executive  Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350,  as  Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

99.2  - Certifications Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(b)     Reports  on  Form  8-K

On  January  21,  2003, the Company filed Form 8-K to report a change in control
related  to  the  acquisition  of  shares  by  Imaging Technologies Corporation.

<PAGE>
SIGNATURES

In  accordance with the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant  has  duly  caused  this  report  to  be  signed on its behalf by the
undersigned  thereunto  duly  authorized.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



<S>                         <C>
Date: August 19, 2003. . .  By: /s/ Thomas J. Beener
  Thomas J. Beener
  CEO, President



Date: August 19, 2003. . .  By: /s/ James Downey
  James Downey
  Chief Accounting Officer
</TABLE>

<PAGE>