模拟真实业务周期性造假，金通灵赔付投资者7.7亿元

Core Viewpoint - The case of Jintongling highlights significant issues in corporate governance and regulatory oversight within China's capital markets, particularly regarding long-term financial fraud and the effectiveness of intermediary institutions [1][2][3]. Group 1: Financial Fraud Details - Jintongling engaged in financial fraud for six years, utilizing complex methods such as fictitious contracts and premature revenue recognition, resulting in over 1.1 billion yuan in inflated revenue and over 400 million yuan in inflated profits [2]. - The company also employed reverse tactics in 2019 and 2020, significantly reducing reported profits by 5774.38% in 2019 through large impairment provisions and delayed revenue recognition [2]. - The fraudulent activities were linked to multiple business units and subsidiaries, with a complete chain of deception that coincided with various capital operations, including private placements and bond issuances based on falsified financial reports [2]. Group 2: Role of Intermediaries - The failure of multiple brokerage firms and accounting firms to detect Jintongling's long-term financial fraud raises questions about the effectiveness of the "gatekeeper" system in the capital markets [3][4]. - Despite ongoing audits and financing rounds, the involved intermediaries did not identify the systemic fraud, indicating a lack of substantive scrutiny and a focus on maintaining client relationships over risk management [4]. - The collective failure of these intermediaries reflects deeper systemic issues, including insufficient independence and a lack of professional skepticism, leading to a breakdown of the "gatekeeper" function [4]. Group 3: Legal and Regulatory Implications - The Jintongling case exemplifies the impact of the new securities law and the special representative litigation system, which facilitates collective action for investor rights protection [5][6]. - This legal framework has lowered the barriers for small investors to seek compensation, shifting the burden of legal costs from investors to professional institutions and the offending parties [6]. - The implementation of this system is expected to reshape market dynamics, increasing the costs of financial misconduct for companies and enhancing the accountability of intermediaries [6].