分文未获 董秘敲诈上市公司录得有期徒刑7年

Core Viewpoint - The case of Huang Jiegen, the former Secretary of the Board of Jiangsu Ankao Intelligent Electric Co., Ltd., has drawn significant attention from the capital market, with the second-instance ruling confirming his conviction for attempted extortion, resulting in a seven-year prison sentence and a fine of 100,000 yuan [2][26]. Company Overview - Jiangsu Ankao Intelligent Electric Co., Ltd. was established on May 20, 2004, and is headquartered in Liyang, Changzhou, Jiangsu. The company specializes in high and ultra-high voltage cable connectors. The controlling shareholders are the Chen brothers: Chen Xiaohui, Chen Xiaoling, and Chen Xiaoming [4]. Case Background - Huang Jiegen, born in April 1984 in Nanchang, Jiangxi, holds a Ph.D. in finance and previously worked as a senior market analyst at Guotai Junan Securities before joining Ankao Intelligent Electric in August 2021 as the Secretary of the Board [4][5]. - On August 26, 2022, Huang was taken into custody by the Liyang Public Security Bureau on suspicion of extortion [5]. Legal Proceedings - The Liyang People's Procuratorate charged Huang with extortion in August 2024, alleging that he modified a performance agreement to include a clause that significantly increased the likelihood of the company's default [6][7]. - Huang's actions included concealing the addition of the term "quarterly" in the performance agreement, which raised the probability of breach by the company [8][10]. Court Findings - The Liyang People's Court determined that Huang's actions constituted extortion, as he attempted to leverage the company's financial reporting to pressure the management for stock compensation [19][21]. - The court calculated the extortion amount based on the stock price during the attempted extortion period, determining it to be approximately 3.2165 million yuan [19]. Sentencing and Appeals - The first-instance judgment sentenced Huang to seven years in prison and a fine of 100,000 yuan, which was upheld in the second-instance ruling by the Changzhou Intermediate People's Court [22][26]. - Huang's defense argued that the performance agreement was a collaborative effort and could not have been unilaterally modified without proper review and approval [25].