Core Viewpoint - The Eastsun Group and its founder Li Zhaoting have faced severe penalties from regulatory authorities due to systemic violations in the securities market, including a total fine of 1.7 billion yuan and lifetime bans for key individuals [1][4][10]. Summary by Relevant Sections Regulatory Actions - The Hebei and Shenzhen Securities Regulatory Bureaus announced administrative penalties against Eastsun Group, Eastsun Blue Sky, and Eastsun Photovoltaics, totaling 1.7 billion yuan for 43 responsible parties [1][4]. - Li Zhaoting was fined 588.54 million yuan, while Eastsun Group was fined 583.24 million yuan, with additional penalties for other executives [5]. Violations Identified - Four major violations were identified: 1. Fraudulent issuance of stocks and bonds, raising 7.565 billion yuan and 3.5 billion yuan respectively through falsified business activities [2]. 2. Financial fraud from 2015 to 2019, inflating revenues by 64.585 billion yuan and profits by 18.628 billion yuan [2]. 3. Misappropriation of funds, with a total of 16.959 billion yuan in non-operational fund occupation [2]. 4. Failure to disclose annual reports on time for Eastsun Photovoltaics and Eastsun Blue Sky [2]. Company Status and Risks - Eastsun Blue Sky has issued warnings about potential delisting due to its stock price being below 1 yuan for 19 consecutive trading days and non-operational fund occupation of 7.527 billion yuan [6][9]. - Eastsun Photovoltaics has already been delisted, and Eastsun Blue Sky is at risk of following suit if corrective actions are not taken [6][9]. Historical Context - Li Zhaoting, once the richest man in Shijiazhuang, built a capital empire with assets exceeding 200 billion yuan, but the group has faced significant financial losses and operational issues since 2019 [7][9]. - The group has been accused of using its listed companies as tools for financial exploitation, leading to continuous losses and a collapse of its capital structure [9]. Ongoing Investigations - The China Securities Regulatory Commission is investigating the illegal practices of related intermediary institutions and will pursue recovery of misappropriated funds [10]. - The case serves as a warning for the capital market, emphasizing strict enforcement of delisting regulations to protect investors and maintain market integrity [10].

Core Viewpoint - Yulong Co., Ltd. announced its decision to voluntarily withdraw from stock trading due to significant operational uncertainties stemming from poor business conditions and deteriorating cash flow, with trading suspension effective from March 27 [1] Group 1: Operational Crisis - The decision to delist is a result of multiple operational risks converging, with a reported net cash outflow of 2.271 billion yuan in the first three quarters of 2024, worsening by over 300% year-on-year, indicating a broken cash flow chain [2] - The company faces a chain reaction from debt defaults, having failed to pay 495 million yuan to suppliers, leading to the judicial freezing of core assets, including over 500 million yuan in bank deposits and equity stakes in two mining subsidiaries [2] - The Australian subsidiary NQM is facing international arbitration due to a default on an acquisition payment of 8.5 million AUD, further weakening overseas asset operations [2] Group 2: Business Viability - Despite the Pakingo Gold Mine contributing 323 million yuan in net profit in the first half of 2024, the mine's equipment has been in operation for over 40 years, reaching its operational limits, and the company acknowledges a significantly shorter remaining lifespan than previously claimed [3] - The state-owned shareholder, JG Capital, chose to delist to prevent risk transmission, with a short-term interest-bearing debt to cash ratio of 2.15 times, indicating potential financial instability if the company remained listed [3] Group 3: Financial Irregularities - The company’s bulk trade business shows signs of systemic fraud, with a significant change in revenue recognition method leading to a drastic drop in reported revenue from 7.28 billion yuan to 1.62 billion yuan, a reduction of 77.7% [4] - There is a paradox in cash flow, with prepayments of 3.56 billion yuan and accounts receivable of 3.67 billion yuan, indicating a triangular debt situation, particularly with overlapping amounts owed to suppliers [4] - A significant discrepancy exists between reported net profit of 288 million yuan and a cash outflow of 2.271 billion yuan, highlighting a potential "paper profit" scenario akin to previous financial scandals [5] Group 4: Valuation Issues - The valuation of the Pakingo Gold Mine has collapsed, revealing deep-seated issues in resource-based company valuations [6] - The mine's remaining lifespan was previously overstated, with a reported extension from 1.5 years to 13 years based on questionable resource re-evaluations [7] - The mining cost structure is unsustainable, with costs potentially reaching 1,600 USD per ounce, nearing the current gold price, raising concerns about profitability [7] - The market has expressed distrust in the company's operational capabilities, as indicated by a significant drop in market valuation compared to industry peers [7]

文/梧桐兄弟 近期，退市公司鸿达兴业股份有限公司（400207，原代码002002）收到江苏证监局下发的《行政处罚事先告知书》，鸿达兴业退市之前涉及财务造假，虚增利润 总额逾40亿。 根据《行政处罚事先告知书》，2020年1月至2023年6月期间， 鸿达兴业通过篡改原始财务账套、指使审计人员虚构审计调整分录和篡改财务报表等方式，虚增营 业收入合计3,505,452,250.52元，虚增利润总额合计4,077,671,116.96元。 鸿达兴业主要生产主体内蒙古乌海化工有限公司（以下简称"乌海化工"）、内蒙古中谷矿业有限责任公司（以下简称"中谷矿业"）、西部环保有限公司（以下简 称"西部环保"，与乌海化工、中谷矿业统称为"乌海化工等三家子公司"）、内蒙古中科装备有限公司（以下简称"中科装备"）、包头市新达茂稀土有限公司（以下 简称"新达茂稀土"）等公司 已被法院裁定受理破产重整或破产清算。 此外，时任董事会秘书林少韩此次被罚款200万，而其已于2024年4月 因公司长期拖欠劳动报酬、未缴纳社会保险 辞职。 但与鸿达兴业投资者相比，公司股价由6-7元/股跌至不足1元，直至退市，谁欠谁呢？ 经查明，你们涉嫌存在以下 ...

星标 ★ IPO日报 精彩文章第一时间推送 两家公司因为存在虚假记载，公司股票交易将被实施其他风险警示！ 3月23日晚间， 香雪制药 (300147)发布公告称，公司收到中国证监会发出的《行政处罚事先告知书》，因公司披露的2019年年度报 告存在虚假记载，公司股票交易将被实施其他风险警示，股票简称由"香雪制药"变更为"ST香雪"。 朗源股份 (300175)同一天披露公告称，近日收到山东证监局出具的《行政处罚事先告知书》，因公司2019年年度报告和更正公告存 在虚假记载，深圳证券交易所将对公司股票交易实施其他风险警示，股票简称由"朗源股份"变更为"ST朗源"。 制图：佘诗婕 存在虚假记载 具体来看，最新披露的《行政处罚事先告知书》显示，香雪制药2019年年度报告存在虚假记载。2019年12月，香雪制药位于广州生 物岛上5栋别墅被相关政府部门拆除香雪制药未按规定确认拆除别墅产生的在建工程损失，导致2019年年度报告虚增利润5383.25万 元，占当期披露利润总额的45.98%，2019年年度报告存在虚假记载。 另外，香雪制药未按规定披露关联方非经营性资金占用，2016年至2020年年度报告存在重大遗漏。2016 ...

两年造假超十亿的普利制药走向退市 登录新浪财经APP 搜索【信披】查看更多考评等级 界面新闻记者 | 唐卓雅 界面新闻编辑 | 谢欣 历经近8个月的调查，普利制药虚增业绩一事迎来最终裁决。 3月21日晚间，普利制药收到中国证监会下发的《行政处罚决定书》，因虚增业绩触及重大违法强制退市情形，公司股 票可能被终止上市。自3月24日起公司股票及可转债停牌。 经查明，2021年至2022年，普利制药通过虚构成品药和原料药销售业务的方式，虚假确认药品销售收入和利润。其中， 2021年多计营业收入4.36亿元，占当年披露营业收入的28.90%，多计利润总额2.90亿元，占当年披露利润总额的 62.06%；2022年多计营业收入4.56亿元，占当年披露营业收入的25.23%，多计利润总额3.79亿元，占当年披露利润总额 的86.36%。 同期，普利制药将其开展的不具有控制权的乙酰碘化物、碘化物（碘佛醇专用）和酵母抽提物贸易业务按总额法核算， 导致2021年多计营业收入7799.73万元，占当年披露营业收入的5.17%；2022年多计营业收入5925.97亿元，占当年披露 营业收入的3.28%。 普利制药成立于1992年，销 ...

中青宝财务造假案中案？恐涉高德信IPO欺诈发行 近日，中青宝发布公告称，因涉嫌2019年至2021年年度报告存在虚假记载，以及未及时披露实际控 制人被采取刑事强制措施，公司收到深圳证监局下发的《行政处罚事先告知书》。公司及实际控制人、 多名高管面临被给予警告并处以罚款的处罚，罚款金额合计1470万元。公司股票自3月18日起被实施其 他风险警示，股票简称变更为"ST中青宝（维权）"。 中青宝是否沦为高德信IPO欺诈的"白手套"？ 首先，中青宝的溃败，或暴露出家族式企业治理的致命缺陷： 实控人凌驾内控：李瑞杰家族长期掌控董事会与子公司运营。2023年12月实控人张云霞因债务纠纷 被刑拘后，李瑞杰要求公司隐匿信息长达7个月，直至2024年7月才披露，直接动机是为保障关联企业融 资不受影响。这种"个人利益优先"的决策模式，导致内控机制完全失效。 其次，公司信披违规"惯性化"： 收购空壳公司：2022年以溢价3倍收购实控人控制的宝德香港公司，但未披露其近乎空壳的实质， 被深交所认定信披不完整。 经查明，2019年至2021年期间，中青宝全资子公司深圳市宝腾互联科技有限公司与深圳市高德信通 信股份有限公司签订采购合同，后 ...

来源：财经下午茶 3月18日，香港高等法院驳回了许家印前妻丁玉梅的两项申请，包括要求闭门聆讯以保护隐私， 以及修订资产冻结令以明确其可自由动用的资产范围。 法官强调需要公开聆讯以确保清盘透明、保护公众利益。法官更指丁玉梅试图造成混淆和拖延诉 讼进程。 香港高等法院本次驳回的两项申请是丁玉梅在上个月提出的。 当时，面对寄来的300多封"催债"信件，丁玉梅向香港高等法院提出两项申请。 首先，丁玉梅要求修订资产冻结令，明确哪些资产不在冻结范围内，以便她能够自由支配部分资 产。丁玉梅提出了一系列豁免要求，包括豁免她其中一个银行户口的美金资产，不回答清盘人的 某些问题，以及不持续更新其资产信息等。 其次，丁玉梅以保护隐私为由，申请闭门聆讯，避免公开审理对其生活造成尴尬和不便。 不过，香港高等法院驳回了上述两项请求。法官高浩文在判词中指出，恒大清盘案涉及公众利 益，为确保清盘过程透明及司法公正，本案必须公开审理，强调司法公开是保障公众知情权的重 要原则，遂拒绝其不公开聆讯的申请。 在本次香港高等法院披露的法律文件中，有两个信息引人关注。 首先，丁玉梅在申请闭门聆讯的众多理由中，有一条显示其目前正与自己的两个未成年子女和两 ...

来源|财经下午茶 3月18日，香港高等法院驳回了许家印前妻丁玉梅的两项申请，包括要求闭门聆讯以保护隐私，以及修订资产冻结令以明确其可自由动用的资产范 围。 法官强调需要公开聆讯以确保清盘透明、保护公众利益。法官更指丁玉梅试图造成混淆和拖延诉讼进程。 香港高等法院本次驳回的两项申请是丁玉梅在上个月提出的。 当时，面对寄来的300多封"催债"信件，丁玉梅向香港高等法院提出两项申请。 首先，丁玉梅要求修订资产冻结令，明确哪些资产不在冻结范围内，以便她能够自由支配部分资产。丁玉梅提出了一系列豁免要求，包括豁免她其中 一个银行户口的美金资产，不回答清盘人的某些问题，以及不持续更新其资产信息等。 其次，丁玉梅以保护隐私为由，申请闭门聆讯，避免公开审理对其生活造成尴尬和不便。 不过，香港高等法院驳回了上述两项请求。法官高浩文在判词中指出，恒大清盘案涉及公众利益，为确保清盘过程透明及司法公正，本案必须公开审 理，强调司法公开是保障公众知情权的重要原则，遂拒绝其不公开聆讯的申请。 在本次香港高等法院披露的法律文件中，有两个信息引人关注。 首先，丁玉梅在申请闭门聆讯的众多理由中，有一条显示其目前正与自己的两个未成年子女和两个未成 ...

以下文章来源于金角财经 ，作者Chong Lei 金角财经 . 城市新中产读本，拆解经济事件背后的逻辑。 回顾过往，恒大、康美等财务造假大案中的审计机构，都因失职遭受了严厉惩处。值得警惕的是，作 为头部内资所的大华却重蹈覆辙，其执业质量屡遭监管警示。这引发出一个令人窒息的问题： 当系统性风险已然显现，为何专业机构的风控机制仍形同虚设？为何监管警示与市场预警不断发出， 却始终未能触动其整改决心？ 作者：Chong Lei,CFA 来源：金角财经（ID: F-Jinjiao) 大华会计师事务所，正深陷东方集团的造假风波。 不久前，证监会通报了东方集团财务造假案的最新进展，称后者披露的2020年至2023年财务信息严重 不实，涉嫌重大财务造假，可能触及重大违法强制退市情形。 "连续造假4年"震惊市场同时，作为东方集团的审计机构，大华的角色也被放至聚光灯下。 作为对东方集团审计多年的专业机构，大华在数年间，面对那些连普通投资者都能察觉的财务数据异 常，如过百亿高营收与极低毛利率的诡异矛盾，仿佛视而不见，连续给出"标准无保留"意见。这不禁 让人发问，大华究竟是专业能力不足，还是另有原因？ 此外，近年来，大华已多次出现在 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the significant issue of internal control failures in listed companies, which serve as a breeding ground for financial fraud, and emphasizes the need for a thorough examination of the auditing mechanisms and corporate governance systems in place [2][5]. Summary by Sections Financial Fraud Cases - Dongfang Group was fined millions by the CSRC for significant financial fraud, having inflated business revenue by over 16 billion yuan through fictitious business operations over four years [3]. - A staggering 80% of companies penalized by the CSRC had received unqualified audit opinions regarding their internal controls in the five years leading up to their penalties [4][8]. Audit Mechanisms and Internal Controls - The audit process is likened to a health check for a company, focusing on the compliance of financial reporting and internal controls [7]. - The Ministry of Finance and the CSRC issued guidelines in 2010 stating that any significant internal control deficiencies should lead to a negative audit opinion [7]. - Despite clear evidence of financial misconduct, many companies received standard unqualified opinions on their internal controls during the years of their violations [10][12]. Statistics on Audit Opinions - From 2022 onwards, 257 companies were penalized for financial reporting violations, with many having never received non-standard audit opinions in the five years prior [12][13]. - Among the companies that faced penalties, 178 had internal control audits that were deemed effective, despite their violations [13]. Discrepancies in Audit Findings - The article discusses the disconnect between audit opinions and regulatory penalties, attributing it to differences in the focus and capabilities of auditors versus regulatory bodies [17][18]. - Auditors often prioritize financial reporting over internal controls, leading to a lack of attention to potential internal control failures [18]. Recommendations for Improvement - To restore the credibility of audits, experts suggest enhancing auditor independence, adopting modern auditing techniques, and addressing low-cost competition that undermines audit quality [23][25][26]. - A comprehensive digital system is recommended to improve internal governance and reduce violations of internal control procedures [30]. - Cultivating a compliance culture within companies is essential, with suggestions for regular risk training and establishing a whistleblower system to encourage reporting of misconduct [31]. Conclusion - The article concludes that the effectiveness of internal controls is crucial for corporate governance, and there is an urgent need for companies to address the systemic issues that lead to audit failures and financial misconduct [28][29].