深交所通报2个IPO现场督导案例！发行人、券商、会所被监管

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent supervisory actions taken by the Shenzhen Stock Exchange regarding two IPO companies on the ChiNext board, highlighting issues related to internal controls, revenue recognition, and procurement management [1][2][3]. Group 1: Case One - Internal Control Issues - The issuer's internal control over revenue recognition was not effectively executed, with sales contracts lacking specific acceptance or signing methods, primarily relying on phone negotiations with clients [1][3]. - There were anomalies in revenue recognition documents, such as acceptance forms being dated earlier than the actual acceptance dates and instances of duplicate sign-offs with inconsistent seals [3][4]. - Procurement management showed missing documentation, including raw material inspection reports, and some procurement prices were abnormally high without reasonable explanations [3][4]. Group 2: R&D Investment Internal Control - The actual controller of the issuer, acting as a non-full-time R&D personnel, inaccurately reported R&D hours without proper attendance records, leading to discrepancies in R&D labor hour reporting [5][6]. - The basis for calculating R&D salaries was inaccurately disclosed, with a significant portion of the actual controller's salary included in R&D expenses, but the year-end bonus was based on revenue growth rather than R&D contributions [5][6]. - Internal procedures for R&D were not effectively executed, with missing R&D work logs and lack of checks on key milestones for commissioned R&D projects [6]. Group 3: Case Two - Sales Model and Client Credit Policy - The issuer misrepresented its sales model with major trading clients, claiming no typical distribution model existed, while actual agreements indicated otherwise [7][8]. - There was an error in revenue recognition due to inaccurate disclosure of a major client's trading model, which was misclassified as a buyout transaction instead of an export agency [7][8]. - Changes in credit policies for major clients were not disclosed accurately, with a significant reduction in prepayment ratios that were concealed from the public [9][10].