恒道科技海量微型客户核查似流于形式或信披失真，百余函证异常或暴露天健所审计漏洞

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the shift in securities regulatory requirements from "formal compliance" to "substantive authenticity" in the context of the registration system reform, questioning whether Zhejiang Hengdao Technology Co., Ltd. has alleviated concerns regarding the authenticity of its revenue in its second-round inquiry response [1][14]. Group 1: Company Overview - Zhejiang Hengdao Technology Co., Ltd. is under review by the Beijing Stock Exchange, with its application accepted on June 13, 2025, and the latest update on January 21, 2026 [2][14]. - The company is sponsored by Guotai Junan Securities Co., Ltd., with representatives Lu Qi and Wu Shaochao, and audited by Tianjian Certified Public Accountants, with signatory accountants Wei Jianqing and Zhou Wangfei [2][14]. Group 2: Audit and Verification Concerns - There are concerns regarding the effectiveness of audit measures for a significant portion of small and micro clients, with 87% of these clients potentially lacking adequate verification [2][14]. - The on-site visit coverage for clients with transactions below 500,000 yuan has been low, with only 21.08% of small clients visited in 2024, indicating over 500 clients have not been verified by intermediaries [5][6][18]. - The audit process has been criticized for its low external confirmation rates, with only 17.62% of small clients receiving confirmation letters in 2024, raising questions about compliance with auditing standards [21][23]. Group 3: Risk of Revenue Inflation - A significant portion of Hengdao Technology's revenue (20%-30%) comes from high-risk clients, defined as those with registered capital below 500,000 yuan or newly established during the reporting period, which raises concerns about potential revenue inflation through shell companies [22][23]. - The identification of 136 clients with discrepancies in confirmation addresses or contacts signals a high level of fraud risk, suggesting that confirmation letters may not have reached the intended recipients [10][25]. Group 4: Ineffective Verification Methods - The reliance on internal documents for verification, such as contracts and orders, without independent third-party evidence, is questioned, as it may lead to circular reasoning in audits [21][26]. - The audit team’s explanations for address discrepancies, such as group procurement or internal personnel handling, are deemed inadequate and raise further doubts about the integrity of the verification process [10][25].