Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the systemic issue of financial fraud in listed companies, particularly focusing on the role of third-party entities in facilitating such fraud, which has become increasingly complex and hidden from regulatory scrutiny [1][11]. Summary by Sections Financial Fraud Cases - The article discusses notable financial fraud cases, such as the Zijing Storage case, which affected 17,000 investors and involved compensation of 1.086 billion yuan from four intermediary institutions [1]. - Since 2020, nearly 70% of the cases punished by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) for revenue fraud involved transaction manipulation [2]. Types of Fraud - Transaction fraud has evolved into a primary method of revenue manipulation, accounting for approximately 70% of total fraud cases [3]. - The article categorizes fraud into two main types: transaction fraud, which involves fabricating non-existent transactions, and accounting manipulation, which distorts existing transactions [2][3]. Role of Third Parties - The involvement of third parties in financial fraud is significant, with an average of over 10 third-party entities participating in each fraudulent case, totaling 686 third parties across 58 cases [4][5]. - Third parties include related parties, real customers, and shell companies, often collaborating to create a façade of legitimate business transactions [6][7]. Legal Accountability - Despite the critical role of third parties in facilitating fraud, they often escape severe legal consequences, with only a small fraction facing penalties [9][10]. - The article emphasizes the need for a comprehensive legal framework to hold third parties accountable, as current penalties are insufficient to deter fraudulent behavior [11]. Market Implications - The prevalence of third-party involvement in fraud reflects deeper issues within market governance, including low legal risks and high incentives for fraudulent activities [8][10]. - The article calls for urgent reforms to enhance investor protection and ensure that all parties involved in financial fraud are held accountable [11].

随着越来越多监管处罚的落地，以及上市公司公告信息的披露，虚假贸易这个财务造假的重要手段，被 扯开的口子越来越大。 虚假贸易往往是造假主体通过空转走单或资金出借，搭建起来的财务迷宫；由此导致的财务造假，是资 本运作失控、内控失效、审计失职的合力反映。从近期诸多案例来看，交易规模变大、暗藏时间拉长， 成为新特征。 伴随着司法、国资、证券等监管体系的重拳出击，越来越多的A股公司都在将虚假贸易作为合规运营的 重要锚点，叠加审计、法律等中介机构的加持，各方集体对虚假贸易"拆弹"。在多位受访者看来，如何 筑牢制度长城，依然是重要考验。 虚假贸易的财务迷宫 4月30日，一纸《行政处罚及市场禁入事先告知书》，将*ST锦港的涉嫌违法事实公诸市场。2022年至 2024年，公司通过虚假贸易业务等方式虚增利润，致使公司数份年报及季报都存在虚假记载。 本次处罚背后，*ST锦港有"二进宫"意味。 *ST锦港早在2024年11月就曾收到行政处罚决定书，监管认定公司财务造假行为，予以警告、罚款、市 场禁入等处罚，证券监管机构罕见地在当日对公司再次立案调查，表明公司及相关方仍存在新的违法违 规行为，待进一步查实。 从调查结论来看，最晚自20 ...

Core Viewpoint - Zhitian Technology (300280.SZ) faces a delisting crisis due to failure to comply with regulatory rectification requirements and ongoing investigations into financial misconduct [2][11]. Group 1: Company Background - Zhitian Technology's main business includes modern services and wholesale retail, specifically internet advertising, cloud services, and e-commerce [3]. - The company was restructured in 2016, with Yao Haiyan and Zheng Lan becoming the actual controllers [3]. Group 2: Regulatory Issues - In February 2024, the Fujian Securities Regulatory Bureau ordered Zhitian Technology to correct false financial records, including inflated revenue and undisclosed major lawsuits [7]. - The company has not hired an auditing firm or submitted a rectification report, leading to a formal investigation by the China Securities Regulatory Commission [8][12]. - Zhitian Technology has been accused of obstructing regulatory enforcement, with key executives avoiding communication with regulators [5][6]. Group 3: Financial Performance - Zhitian Technology's stock price has plummeted over 80% in the past year, with a market value of approximately 1.4 billion yuan before trading suspension [9][11]. - The company failed to disclose its 2024 annual report and 2025 Q1 report on time, further exacerbating its delisting risk [8][11]. Group 4: Shareholder Impact - Approximately 33,000 shareholders are affected by the company's financial issues, with potential legal recourse for those who purchased shares during specific periods [12].

Core Viewpoint - *ST Zhongcheng (300208), formerly known as Qingdao Zhongcheng, is facing delisting from the Shenzhen Stock Exchange due to significant financial misconduct and negative net assets [1][3] Group 1: Delisting Announcement - On May 7, *ST Zhongcheng received a notice from the Shenzhen Stock Exchange regarding the termination of its stock listing [1] - The delisting decision is based on two main violations: negative net assets in 2023 and a qualified audit report for 2024, along with denied internal control audits [1] - The company has been confirmed to have engaged in systematic financial fraud for six years, as per the investigation by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) [1] Group 2: Regulatory Actions - The company was investigated by the CSRC for information disclosure violations starting January 16 of this year [3] - The CSRC issued an administrative penalty notice on April 30, citing fraudulent financial data related to a fictitious project in the Philippines from 2017 to 2021 and further financial misrepresentation regarding Indonesian mining rights from 2020 to 2022 [3] - The company failed to disclose a significant lawsuit involving 627 million yuan, which accounted for 57.47% of its net assets at the end of 2022, leading to a warning and a fine of 7.5 million yuan from the CSRC [3] Group 3: Financial Performance - In the latest annual report, the company reported a revenue of 137 million yuan, a year-on-year decline of 70.21% [3] - The net profit attributable to shareholders was -310 million yuan, reflecting a 73.24% reduction in losses compared to the previous year [3] - The primary reasons for the losses include the completion of the nickel power project, high management costs, and elevated financial expenses [3]

文｜新财域 *ST东方的退市不仅是一家企业的资本败局，更是市场生态与监管体系的一次压力测试。当161亿元财务造假与流动性危机形成双重绞杀，多么光鲜的身 份，也无法阻止企业的快速崩塌。 这不仅是张宏伟个人的滑铁卢，更是中国民营企业野蛮生长后暴露的病灶缩影。 失控的资本游戏 回望**ST东方的资本历程，实际控制人张宏伟的扩张手段堪称"刀尖上的舞蹈"。 这位15岁辍学做泥瓦匠的东北商人，自2017年将主业转向农产品国际贸易后，逐渐陷入"做大规模-质押融资-继续扩张"的致命循环。 从"东北首家"到资本弃子 2025年4月30日。*ST东方这家曾头顶"东北首家民营上市公司"光环的企业，最后以0.36元/股的价格定格退市。没有退市整理期的缓冲，没有投资者说明 会的解答，近13万股东账户里的股票，直接变成了三板市场的"休眠资产"，成为资本市场"退市新规时代"的标志性事件。 若将时间拨回五年前，*ST东方的故事曾是资本市场的"模范样本"。2018年借壳上市时，其"农业+高铁"的双主业模式被券商誉为"穿越周期的黄金组合"， 股价三年暴涨420%。实际控制人张宏伟从泥瓦匠的出身到身价300亿的"东北首富"的故事，更成为经典的"草 ...

令人震惊的是，锦州港在2024年11月首次被证监会立案调查并处罚后，仍持续造假。值得注意的是，公 司18年至23年年报审计机构均为大华会计事务所，但造假似乎被其无视，多年出具无保留的审计意见类 型。 曾系统性财务造假被立案，虚增利润超1.7亿元 锦州港的财务造假行为最早可追溯至2018年。根据中国证监会2024年6月披露的《行政处罚及市场禁入 事先知书》，公司为"做大收入和利润、满足银行贷款需求"，通过无商业实质的虚假贸易业务，系统性 虚增营业收入、营业成本和利润总额。具体来看： 造假规模：2018年至2021年累计虚增营业收入86.24亿元，虚增利润总额1.79亿元。其中，2018年虚增利 润2070.9万元，2019年3899.9万元，2020年4415.7万元，2021年7511.4万元。 造假手段：通过子公司锦国投（大连）发展有限公司控制上下游供应商及客户的资金流转，形成闭环资 金池。例如，采购资金经大连和境等五家供应商流入锦国投资金池，再通过上海盛辙、舟山丰聚益尚等 公司回流至锦州港，制造虚假贸易流水。 责任认定：时任董事长徐健、副董事长兼总经理刘辉被认定为直接负责的主管人员，财务总监李挺等高 管为 ...

瑞财经 严明会5月6日，上市不足三年的帕瓦股份（688184.SH）被实施其他风险警示，更名为"ST帕瓦"，开盘即跌停，审计机构对2024年财 报内控出具否定意见。 回顾其财报，2023年，帕瓦股份营收骤降29%，净利润亏损9737万元；2024年亏损进一步扩大至10.97亿元。而上市前，公司2020-2022年营收 年增速超48%，归母净利润年增长超74%。 1997年5月至2007年9月，张宝历任中南大学助教、讲师；2007年9月，任中南大学冶金科学与工程学院副研究员；2010年12月，任韩国 KIGAM研究院访问学者；2009年7月，历任中南大学校团委书记、冶金与环境学院党委书记；2012年9月至今，任中南大学冶金与环境学院研 究员、博士生导师；2023年1月至2024年4月，任帕瓦供应链管理有限公司执行董事、总经理；2018年7月至今，任公司董事、总经理，2022 年10月至今，任公司董事长。 帕瓦股份董事长兼总经理为张宝，中南大学冶金物理化学博士、化学工程与技术博士后。 东方财富数据显示，2020年至2024年，张宝的薪酬分别为120.7万元、243.2万元、268.8万元、297.8万元、120. ...

Core Viewpoint - The case of Zitian Technology highlights the deep-seated contradictions in corporate governance and regulatory arbitrage within the capital market, serving as a cautionary tale of systemic financial fraud and extreme resistance to regulation [1] Group 1: Financial Fraud and Regulatory Resistance - The crisis of Zitian Technology traces back to the change of actual controller in 2016, leading to aggressive capital operations that created a facade of prosperity, with accounts receivable reaching 2.194 billion yuan by the end of 2022, exceeding annual revenue [2] - Systematic fabrication of transactions was revealed, including the forgery of 812 million yuan in server prepayments in 2022, which later turned into unsubstantiated inventory, and the recognition of revenue from cloud services that had not commenced operations [2] Group 2: Regulatory Confrontation and Consequences - The company faced comprehensive resistance during the on-site inspection initiated by the Fujian Securities Regulatory Bureau in April 2024, including a vacant registered address and refusal to provide financial materials, leading to two investigations by the CSRC in September and October 2024 [3] - As of May 6, 2025, the company's stock has been suspended, with a risk of delisting if the annual report is not disclosed within two months, following a net outflow of 140 million yuan in principal funds in the five trading days before suspension [4] Group 3: Punitive Measures and Regulatory Changes - The incident set multiple regulatory records, with the audit partner fined 1 million yuan and banned from the market for six years, while the actual controller and executives faced fines totaling 800,000 yuan and a ten-year market ban [5] - This combination of penalties signifies a shift in regulatory focus from mere punishment to disrupting the capacity for illegal activities, particularly targeting key links in the financial fraud ecosystem [5] Group 4: Transformation and Governance Deficiencies - Zitian Technology's aggressive transformation from traditional forging machinery to internet advertising and cloud services is characterized as "pseudo-innovation," lacking substantial business support, leading to significant goodwill impairment of 569 million yuan in 2023 [6] - The crisis of Zitian Technology transcends individual cases, becoming a litmus test for the market clearing mechanism under the registration system, with potential delisting marking a precedent for forced delisting due to continuous regulatory resistance and systemic financial fraud [6]

记者 萧峰 2025年4月29日，锦州港股份有限公司（以下简称"ST锦港"或"锦州港"）发布公告称，公司收到中国证 监会辽宁监管局下发的《行政处罚及市场禁入事先告知书》【2025】1号。衡财保·炜衡金融315团队律 师认为，初步判断在2019年4月17日至2023年11月10日（含当日）之前买入，并在2023年11月11日之后 卖出或仍持有该股票的受损投资者，可以提出索赔。此外，在2023年4月28日至2024年11月1日（含当 日）之前买入，并在2024年11月1日之后卖出或仍持有该股票的受损投资者，也可以提出索赔（最终索 赔条件须以法院认定为准）。 据查，2024年8月31日，锦州港发布公告称，因8月30日第十一届董事会审计委员会第二次会议未通过 《2024年半年度报告》，无法在法定期限内披露。直至10月31日收盘后，报告才得以发布。时任副董事 长兼总经理刘辉、副总经理兼财务总监李挺以及董事长尹世辉，对未按期披露负有责任。 从逾期披露到虚假记载 其次，定期报告存在虚假记载，2022-2024年，锦州港通过虚假贸易及跨期确认港口包干作业费收入虚 增利润：2022年虚增3,610.45万元（占当期披露利润总额 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the impending delisting of Guandao Digital, which is set to become the first true delisted stock on the Beijing Stock Exchange due to a "disclaimer of opinion" audit report for its 2024 annual report, following an ongoing investigation by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) for information disclosure violations [1][2]. Group 1: Audit and Financial Issues - Guandao Digital's 2024 annual report received a "disclaimer of opinion" from the auditing firm Zhongshunhua, indicating systemic fraud involving falsified contracts and inflated revenue and net profit, leading to a complete failure of the internal control system [2][4]. - The audit report highlighted three main reasons for the disclaimer: the inability to verify the accuracy of prior accounting corrections, the ongoing CSRC investigation, and significant uncertainties regarding the company's ability to continue as a going concern due to halted main business operations and overdue loans totaling 32.21 million yuan [4][5][6]. Group 2: Company Response and Actions - The board of directors of Guandao Digital has acknowledged the audit findings and is taking steps to address the issues, including hiring a third-party independent agency for further investigation and implementing a rectification plan with clear timelines and responsibilities [3][7]. - The company is also working to stabilize its industrial digitalization business in collaboration with Siemens and is exploring various funding channels to resolve short-term cash flow issues [7]. Group 3: Investor Protection Measures - Guandao Digital's sponsor, Wukuang Securities, has announced plans to take all possible measures, including advance compensation, to protect investor rights amid the ongoing investigation and financial discrepancies [8]. - The article references a previous case where a similar advance compensation fund was established for investors affected by fraudulent activities, highlighting the importance of swift action to mitigate investor losses [9].