判了！欺诈发行募资10亿元、连续四年财务造假，紫晶存储核心高管集体获刑

Core Viewpoint - The case of Guangdong Zijing Information Storage Technology Co., Ltd. (Zijing Storage) highlights the importance of accountability in China's capital market, emphasizing that financial fraud and information disclosure violations are serious crimes that can lead to severe penalties for responsible individuals and companies [2][8]. Group 1: Company Overview - Zijing Storage, established in 2010, is a light storage technology company that offers optical storage media for consumer markets and optical storage devices and solutions for enterprise markets [3]. - The company went public on the STAR Market in February 2020, raising 1.023 billion yuan with an initial share price of 21.49 yuan, and saw its stock price surge by 264% on the first trading day, reaching a market capitalization of nearly 15 billion yuan [3]. Group 2: Financial Fraud Details - Zijing Storage engaged in extensive financial fraud, including fabricating sales contracts, falsifying logistics documents, and prematurely recognizing revenue, which began in 2017 [4][5]. - The scale of the fraud was significant, with the company inflating its revenue by approximately 435 million yuan in 2017 (13.9% of that year's revenue) and by 3.28 billion yuan in 2020 (58.26% of that year's revenue) [4][5]. Group 3: Legal Consequences - The company was sentenced to a fine of 37 million yuan for fraudulently issuing securities, while its legal representative and actual controller, Zheng Mu, received a prison sentence of seven years and six months for multiple offenses [5][6]. - A total of 10 individuals associated with Zijing Storage were criminally prosecuted, with sentences ranging from two years to seven years and six months, reflecting the severity of the financial misconduct [6][7]. Group 4: Investor Compensation and Regulatory Impact - Investors affected by the fraud have been compensated efficiently, with approximately 1.086 billion yuan paid to 16,986 investors within two months through a compensation mechanism initiated by the regulatory authority [7]. - The case has prompted a significant shift in regulatory expectations, emphasizing that intermediaries must conduct thorough due diligence to avoid severe financial and reputational consequences [8].