老牌保代突击入股翻车，非法获利410万换10年牢狱

Core Viewpoint - A recent court ruling has significant implications for the investment banking sector, marking a shift in how violations by key personnel in state-owned securities firms are prosecuted, particularly regarding the classification of such individuals as "state workers" under criminal law [1][9]. Group 1: Case Overview - Du Pengfei, former executive general manager of CITIC Securities' investment banking division, was sentenced to 10 years and 2 months in prison for bribery, with a fine of 600,000 yuan and the confiscation of illegal gains totaling 4.1064 million yuan [1][9]. - The case centers around Du's involvement in the IPO of Zhenhua New Materials, where he engaged in illegal stockholding practices through a third party, leading to substantial profits after the stock's lock-up period ended [1][2]. Group 2: Regulatory Implications - The court's ruling establishes that key personnel in state-owned securities firms can be classified as "state workers," which alters the legal landscape for similar cases, previously often resulting in lighter penalties [1][9]. - This case sends a strong signal regarding increased regulatory scrutiny and stricter legal boundaries for investment banking professionals, redefining the risks associated with their roles [1][9]. Group 3: Details of the Violation - Du Pengfei was involved in a scheme where he used a third party to hold shares in Zhenhua New Materials, despite clear prohibitions in the Securities Law against such actions by securities professionals [3][8]. - The IPO of Zhenhua New Materials was initially under financial pressure, prompting the company to allow Du to participate in a private placement through a third party, which ultimately led to his illegal gains [3][4]. Group 4: Legal Proceedings - The case was uncovered during a routine audit by the National Audit Office, which identified irregularities in Du's stock transactions, leading to an investigation by the local supervisory committee [5][6]. - The court's decision emphasized the importance of Du's role in managing state assets, thus justifying the classification of his actions as a serious criminal offense [7][8].