罕见！3家中介联手追讨，向39名被告索赔3.7亿元

Core Viewpoint - The case of financial fraud involving Zeda Yisheng has seen a significant development, with three intermediary institutions filing a lawsuit against 39 accomplices, marking a complete accountability loop in China's capital market for the first time [1][5][6]. Group 1: Background of the Case - Zeda Yisheng, under the service of Dongxing Securities, Tianjian Accounting Firm, and Kangda Law Firm, successfully listed on the STAR Market in June 2020, but was later found to have committed financial fraud [5]. - From 2016 to 2019, Zeda Yisheng inflated its revenue by 342 million yuan and profit by 187 million yuan, with further inflation of revenue and profit in 2020 and 2021 [5][6]. Group 2: Legal Actions and Financial Implications - The three intermediary institutions have initiated a lawsuit seeking a total of 372 million yuan in compensation from the 39 defendants, which includes 37 companies and 2 individuals [1][6]. - The compensation sought represents 95% of the 388 million yuan previously paid to investors by the intermediary institutions after their administrative penalties [8]. Group 3: Responsibility and Accountability - The lawsuit aims to clarify the responsibility chain, allowing intermediary institutions to pursue those who directly assisted in the fraud, aligning with the principle of fault liability in the Civil Code [6][10]. - The case signals a shift from punishing the end parties (listed companies/intermediaries) to targeting the source (trading partners), potentially disrupting the previous "subcontracting" of fraud [6][10]. Group 4: Challenges in Legal Proceedings - Key evidence for the intermediary institutions includes proving that the third parties were aware of Zeda Yisheng's fraudulent intentions and establishing a direct link between improper transactions and the fraudulent outcomes [8][9]. - The difficulty of providing sufficient evidence may impact the success of the claims, with expectations that third parties may only bear partial responsibility [8][9]. Group 5: Future Implications and Recommendations - If the intermediary institutions succeed in their claims, it could set a precedent for similar cases, reshaping market behavior and increasing the costs associated with financial fraud [10]. - Recommendations for enhancing the motivation of intermediary institutions to make advance payments include establishing industry mutual aid funds and simplifying the legal processes for claims [12][14].