Core Viewpoint - The Shenzhen Stock Exchange issued a regulatory letter to Zhihong Accounting Firm (Special General Partnership) and criticized the signing accountants for their inadequate audit practices during the financial statement audit of Jiangsu Lihua Animal Husbandry Co., Ltd. for the year 2023 [1][4]. Group 1: Audit Violations - Zhihong Accounting Firm and the signing accountants failed to execute audit procedures adequately related to inventory, risk assessment, internal control testing, sampling, revenue, cash funds, and share-based payment expenses [2][4][5]. - Specific deficiencies included insufficient attention to inventory-related audit evidence, inadequate execution of risk assessment procedures, and failure to perform necessary audit sampling [3][5][6]. - The firm did not verify the accuracy and completeness of business data in the ERP system and failed to obtain sufficient audit evidence regarding the timing of certain construction projects being capitalized [6][7]. Group 2: Quality Management Issues - The firm did not ensure that the project team adhered to quality review procedures and failed to implement quality review opinions effectively [3][8]. - There were inconsistencies in the preparation of audit work papers, including discrepancies between the directory and actual content, leading to incomplete documentation [3][8]. - The actions of Zhihong Accounting Firm violated the regulations set forth in the "Rules for Listing of Stocks on the Growth Enterprise Market (Revised in August 2023)" [8].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the disciplinary actions taken by the Shenzhen Stock Exchange against Tianjian Accounting Firm and its certified public accountants for their involvement in the financial fraud case of Sichuang Medical Technology Co., Ltd, highlighting the serious implications of falsified financial statements and inadequate auditing practices [1][4]. Group 1: Disciplinary Actions - Tianjian Accounting Firm and its certified public accountants Hu Yanlong, Xu Lili, and Ni Bin received disciplinary actions for their roles in the financial fraud case involving Sichuang Medical [1][4]. - Hu Yanlong and Xu Lili are prohibited from signing any issuance and disclosure documents from June 28, 2025, to June 27, 2026 [1][4]. - Tianjian Accounting Firm received a public reprimand, while Hu Yanlong and Xu Lili also faced public reprimands, and Ni Bin received a notice of criticism [1][4]. Group 2: Fraudulent Activities - Sichuang Medical was found to have fabricated significant false content in its public offering documents, including financial data from 2017 to 2020 [1][7]. - The company inflated revenue and profits through fictitious transactions with subsidiaries and early revenue recognition practices [1][7]. - The 2019 and 2020 annual reports of Sichuang Medical contained false records, failing to accurately disclose financial data [1][7]. Group 3: Audit Failures - Tianjian Accounting Firm failed to effectively identify and assess fraud risks during the audit of Sichuang Medical [1][8]. - The firm did not implement adequate audit procedures regarding abnormal revenue recognition and did not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence [1][9][10]. - There were discrepancies between the audit documentation and actual execution, indicating a lack of due diligence in the auditing process [1][12][13].

Group 1 - The Xiamen Securities Regulatory Bureau disclosed a penalty announcement against Rongcheng Accounting Firm for inadequate audit procedures during the annual report audit of Ruida Futures Co., Ltd [1][2] - Issues identified include insufficient audit evidence for revenue recognition, inadequate confirmation procedures, and incomplete or inaccurate audit documentation [1][2] - The actions of Rongcheng violated the "Management Measures for Information Disclosure of Listed Companies" and resulted in warning letters issued to the firm and responsible auditors [2] Group 2 - In April, the Xiamen Securities Regulatory Bureau issued a warning letter to Ruida Futures for poor internal control management and non-compliance with accounting standards regarding revenue recognition [2] - The internal control issues at Ruida's subsidiary, Ruida Xinkong Capital Management Co., Ltd, led to inaccuracies in financial data disclosed in annual reports [2]

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has imposed penalties on Zhongshen Hua Accounting Firm for failing to conduct due diligence during the audit of Ningxia Yuangao Industrial Group's financial statements for 2018 and 2019, resulting in false records of cash, revenue, and profits [1][5]. Summary by Sections Audit Violations - Zhongshen Hua's audit reports contained false records, with Ningxia Yuangao's 2018 and 2019 annual reports showing inflated cash, revenue, and profit figures [1][5]. - The firm failed to develop specific audit plans and did not adequately identify and assess risks, leading to significant deficiencies in fraud risk response and audit procedures [6][8]. Specific Audit Failures - The firm did not independently send confirmation letters and failed to monitor the mailing process, exposing the audit to risks of interception and alteration [11]. - In 2018 and 2019, Zhongshen Hua did not execute planned audit procedures to test the effectiveness of the financial reporting system, violating relevant auditing standards [7][8]. Penalties Imposed - The CSRC has ordered the confiscation of Zhongshen Hua's audit business income amounting to 754,717 yuan and imposed a fine of approximately 1,509,433 yuan. The two signing accountants, Zhao Gang and Wang Haiting, were each fined 250,000 yuan [2].

Core Viewpoint - The Shenzhen Securities Regulatory Bureau has imposed administrative penalties on Lixin Certified Public Accountants for their audit of the financial statements of Rihai Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. for the years 2018 and 2019, citing false records and inadequate audit procedures [1][4][11]. Group 1: Audit Violations - Lixin's audit reports and related documents for Rihai Intelligent contained false records, leading to inflated profits of 33.43 million yuan in 2018 and 3.68 million yuan in 2019, which represented 37.58% and 5.13% of the reported profits for those years respectively [1][4][10]. - The audit procedures for goodwill were inadequately executed, as Lixin relied on an asset evaluation report that did not consider the impact of minority shareholders' equity on goodwill, resulting in incorrect audit conclusions [2][5][9]. - The audit of main business income was also insufficient, with Lixin failing to account for significant financing components in a contract, leading to an overstatement of income by 2.13 million yuan [2][6][9]. Group 2: Penalties and Responsibilities - Lixin was ordered to correct its practices, had its business income confiscated amounting to 3.77 million yuan, and was fined 7.55 million yuan [11][12]. - The responsible auditors, Zhang Yong and Wang Zehui, received warnings and fines of 550,000 yuan and 500,000 yuan respectively for their roles in the audit failures [11][12]. - The regulatory body emphasized that Lixin's actions violated multiple provisions of the Securities Law and auditing standards, indicating a lack of due diligence in their audit processes [6][10][11].

文/梧桐兄弟 中兴财光华被责令改正，没收业务收入4,622,641.51元，并处以9,245,283.02元的罚款，其他签字会计师一并被罚。 1.弘高装饰虚构工程项目合同，虚增工程项目收入和利润，导致弘高股份2015年虚增收入7,939.97万元，虚增利润2,116.53万元；2016年虚增收入21,906.38万元，虚 增利润3,113.97万元。该等项目合同产生的应收账款的减值计提与转回，导致弘高股份2017年虚减利润2,698.04万元，2018年虚增利润3,100.33万元。 近期，北京证监局公布一份行政处罚决定书， 中兴财光华在对弘高股份2018年、2019年、2020年、2021年年度财务报表审计过程中未勤勉尽责，出具的审计报告 存在虚假记载。 2.弘高装饰对仅收取管理费的建筑施工挂靠类工程项目，按照项目合同金额确认收入和成本，并确认相关应收账款，虚增工程项目收入和利润，导致弘高股份2015 年虚增收入2,450.00万元，虚增利润512.00万元；2016年虚减收入223.25万元，虚减利润302.18万元；2017年虚增收入6,199.41万元，虚增利润367.24万元；2018年 虚增收入7 ...

炒股就看金麒麟分析师研报，权威，专业，及时，全面，助您挖掘潜力主题机会！ 登录新浪财经APP 搜索【信披】查看更多考评等级 4月7日，江苏证监局发布公告，对苏亚金诚会计师事务所（特殊普通合伙）从业人员祁成兵采取出具警 示函的行政监管措施，并记入证券期货市场诚信档案。 公告显示，根据《中华人民共和国证券法》的有关规定，中国证监会对苏亚金诚会计师事务所（特殊普 通合伙）执业的江苏舜天股份有限公司（以下简称江苏舜天）2015年年报审计项目进行了调查。发现事 务所在执业过程中存在以下问题： 一、业务承接程序存在缺陷 2015年事物所首次承接江苏舜天业务，应当与前任会计师就对审计有重大影响的事项进行沟通。调查发 现，审计底稿中收到前任会计师回复函时间晚于2015年审计报告出具时间，违反了《中国注册会计师审 计准则第1153号——前任注册会计师和后任注册会计师的沟通》第七条的规定。 上述执业问题违反了《上市公司信息披露管理办法》（证监会令第40号）第五十二条、五十三条的规 定。祁成兵作为江苏舜天2015年审计报告签字会计师，对上述违规行为负有主要责任。 基于上述违规行为，根据《上市公司信息披露管理办法》（证监会令第40号 ...

文/飞云 2月17日，辽宁证监局发布公告，因在富创精密（688409）2023年年报审计项目时未能有效执行关联方审计程序，未识别A公司与富创精密构成关联关系，对立信会 计师事务所及注册会计师唐国骏、黄亮采取监管谈话措施的决定。在此之前，立信所本月已被证监会江苏局、四川局相继处罚。2月13日，立信所及其注会师田 华、姜波、庄继宁因在对南卫股份（603880）2020年至2021年年报审计项目中存在多项执业问题而被江苏证监局出具警示函；2月11日，立信所及注会华毅鸿、崔霞 霖又因在审计迈克生物（300463）2023年财务报表项目中存在多项违规行为，被四川证监局采取监管谈话的决定。 立信会计师事务所（特殊普通合伙）及唐国骏、黄亮： 经查，你们在执行沈阳富创精密设备股份有限公司（以下简称富创精密）2023年年报审计项目（报告编号：信会师报字〔2024〕第ZA11268号）时，存在以下问 题： 富创精密于2023年2月与A公司发生交易。你们在审计中未能有效执行关联方审计程序，未识别A公司与富创精密构成关联关系，不符合《中国注册会计师审计准 则第1323号——关联方》（2022年修订）第四条第二款的规定。 上述行为违反 ...

| 索 引 号 | bm56000001/2025-00000653 ਦੇ | 发 | 行政监管措施; | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 发布机构 | 发文日期 | | 2025年01月10日 | | ਸਮ 称 | 关于对音华永道中天会计师事务所（特殊普通合伙）、陈建翔、蔡静敏采取出具警示函措施的决定〔2025〕1号 | | | | 文 号 | (2025) 1号 主题词 | | | 普华永道中天会计师事务所（特殊普通合伙）、陈建翔、蔡静敏： 依据《中华人民共和国证券法》的有关规定，我局对普华永道中天会计师事务所（特殊普通合伙，以下简称普华永道）执业的天创时尚股份有限公司（以下简称 *ST天创）2022年审计工作进行检查。经查，你所审计执业存在以下问题： 二、其他非流动资产审计程序不规范。 2022年11月*ST天创子公司与个人吴某签订协议，以4,000万元收购深圳市快美妆科技有限公司8.87%股权，并将预付股权 款2,000万元计入其他非流动资产核算。2022年底其他非流动资产期末余额因此较上年末产生较大变动。普华永道对上述股权投资的风险识别不够充分，没有设 计和实施充分的审计程序 ...

文/梧桐小编 11月25日，安徽证监局公布对大华会计师事务所（特殊普通合伙）以及郝丽江、李东辉采取出具警示函措施的决定。经查，安徽证监局发现大华所及签字会计师 郝丽江、李东辉在三只松鼠股份有限公司2023年年报审计项目执业中存在以下问题：1、了解内部控制审计程序执行不到位。在了解内部控制-销售与收款时，未 针对不同模式、渠道的内控设计执行了解和测试。在了解内部控制-生产与仓储中，未见执行穿行测试。2、期后回款审计程序执行不到位。在执行母公司主要客 户期后回款核查时，未对部分主要客户的期后回款额超过期末应收款余额情况执行进一步的审计程序。3、预付账款审计程序执行不到位。公司预付账款审计程序 中，未见对进口供应商基本信息及期后收货情况检查底稿。4、存货审计程序执行不到位。存货函证中存在部分未回函或回函不符，未见相关替代程序底稿。存货 监盘报告中显示存在替代检查存货，但未见相关底稿。5、推广费用审计程序执行不到位。底稿中未见重要供应商（提供推广服务）的费用确认单等结算单据。安 徽证监局决定对大华所、三只松鼠2023年年报审计项目签字会计师郝丽江及李东辉采取出具警示函的行政监管措施。 此前的5月13日，大华所因金通灵 ...