Group 1 - Four delisted companies have been penalized by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) within a month, with total fines amounting to 85.6 million yuan [1][2][3] - Qingdao Zhongcheng was fined 7.5 million yuan for false reporting and failure to disclose significant litigation matters, with additional fines of 13.1 million yuan imposed on eight responsible individuals [2][3] - Pan Hai Holdings faced penalties due to breaches in financing contracts, with unpaid debts amounting to 5.943 billion yuan in 2022 and 2.6 billion yuan in 2023, which were not disclosed in a timely manner [3][4] Group 2 - Jiangsu Sunshine and Changjiang Health are also facing penalties, with proposed fines of 3.3 million yuan and 53.3 million yuan respectively for failing to disclose related party transactions and significant guarantees [1][4] - Jiangsu Sunshine's violations include not disclosing non-operating fund occupation, while Changjiang Health is accused of failing to disclose major guarantees and related party fund occupation [4][5] - Qianshan Pharmaceutical's chairman and general manager received a two-year prison sentence for violations related to information disclosure and fund misappropriation, highlighting the criminal consequences for serious infractions [5][6] Group 3 - The regulatory environment emphasizes that delisting does not equate to immunity from penalties, as a comprehensive accountability system is being implemented [1][6] - Legal experts note that the enforcement actions target not only the companies but also key individuals, major shareholders, and intermediaries involved in fraudulent activities [6][7] - The approach aims to increase the cost of illegal activities and deter key decision-makers from engaging in misconduct [6][7]

Core Viewpoint - The case of Changjiang Runfa Health Industry Co., Ltd. highlights severe financial misconduct involving 3.558 billion yuan in fund misappropriation and systematic information disclosure fraud, emphasizing the regulatory principle of "delisting does not exempt from liability" [1][4]. Group 1: Financial Misconduct - From 2021, the controlling shareholder, Runfa Group, treated Changjiang Health as a "cash machine," using covert methods to extract funds, leading to significant non-operational fund occupation [3]. - The scale of fund occupation grew explosively, reaching 2.798 billion yuan in 2021, accounting for 60.73% of the net assets, and increasing to 3.674 billion yuan in 2022, which represented 79.01% of the net assets [3]. - By April 30, 2024, 3.558 billion yuan remained unreturned, equivalent to several times the company's net assets in previous reporting periods [3]. Group 2: Regulatory Actions - The 53.3 million yuan fine is the highest in recent years for similar cases, affecting the company, its controlling shareholder, and responsible individuals, with the former CFO facing a three-year market ban [4]. - The regulatory response reflects a commitment to addressing capital market irregularities, with the case being part of a broader trend of increased enforcement against financial misconduct [5]. Group 3: Investor Impact and Legal Recourse - Following the penalty announcement, affected investors can initiate claims, particularly those who purchased shares between January 13, 2021, and April 29, 2024, and sold or still hold shares after April 30, 2024 [6]. - The case serves as a warning for corporate governance, with regulators pushing for a comprehensive accountability system and emphasizing the need for compliance to protect market integrity and investor rights [7].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights that companies that have been delisted are still subject to regulatory scrutiny and accountability for past violations, indicating that delisting does not exempt them from legal responsibilities [1] Regulatory Actions - In the past week, three delisted companies and their related parties have faced regulatory actions, including being investigated or fined, due to alleged illegal activities during their listing period [1] - Year-to-date, multiple companies, including Yili Clean Energy, Delisted Longyu, Taihe Group, and Dongxu Optoelectronics, have been held accountable post-delisting, with fines exceeding 100 million yuan for Yili Clean Energy and Dongxu Optoelectronics [1] Enforcement Statistics - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has investigated over 70 delisted companies for illegal activities and has referred 33 cases for suspected information disclosure crimes [1] Accountability Framework - Tianshuan, Dean of the National Institute of Financial Research at Tsinghua University, emphasizes a comprehensive accountability system targeting "sick" delisted companies and their responsible parties, aimed at enhancing compliance awareness and investor confidence [1] - Regulatory bodies have significantly intensified their enforcement actions against delisted companies and responsible individuals, ensuring thorough coverage of administrative supervision [1] Legal Consequences - The article notes that alongside administrative penalties, criminal accountability and civil compensation are also being pursued, which greatly increases the cost of illegal activities for companies [1]

Core Viewpoint - The concept of "delisting does not exempt from liability" has become a regulatory norm in the capital market, indicating that companies and related parties will continue to be held accountable for violations even after delisting [1][4]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - Three delisted companies and their related parties have recently faced regulatory actions, including investigations and penalties, highlighting ongoing accountability in the market [1][2]. - China Zhongqi Investment Co., Ltd. announced that its controlling shareholder, Zhongqi Group, received a notice of investigation from the CSRC for suspected information disclosure violations [2]. - Jiangsu Sunshine, a delisted company, received a notice of administrative penalty for failing to disclose significant events related to a related party transaction, with proposed fines totaling 3.3 million yuan [3]. Group 2: Trends in Delisting Accountability - There has been a notable increase in regulatory actions against delisted companies, with over 70 companies investigated for violations and 33 cases referred for suspected criminal information disclosure [4]. - The regulatory framework aims to enhance compliance awareness among market participants and boost investor confidence, contributing to the high-quality development of the capital market [4]. Group 3: Legal Mechanisms and Enforcement - The introduction of representative litigation mechanisms for delisted companies marks a significant advancement in civil compensation, reducing the cost of investor rights protection and increasing litigation efficiency [6]. - The CSRC has intensified its crackdown on financial fraud, with 13 companies facing mandatory delisting this year due to severe violations, particularly financial misconduct [7]. - Regulatory authorities are focusing on key individuals such as actual controllers and major shareholders to ensure accountability and prevent failures in oversight by intermediaries [7].

Core Viewpoint - The concept of "delisting does not exempt from liability" has become a regulatory norm in the capital market, indicating that companies and related parties will continue to face accountability for illegal activities even after delisting [1][5]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - Recently, three delisted companies and their related parties have faced regulatory actions, including investigations and fines, due to violations during their listing period [1][2]. - China Zhongqi Investment Co., Ltd. announced that its controlling shareholder received a notice of investigation from the CSRC for suspected information disclosure violations [3]. - Jiangsu Sunshine, another delisted company, received a notice of administrative penalty for failing to disclose significant events related to a related party transaction, with a proposed fine of 3.3 million yuan [4]. Group 2: Increasing Accountability - The trend of holding delisted companies accountable has become common, with several companies like Yili Clean Energy and Taihe Group also facing penalties exceeding 100 million yuan this year [6]. - The CSRC has investigated over 70 delisted companies for illegal activities and has referred 33 cases for suspected criminal information disclosure violations [7]. Group 3: Legal Mechanisms and Market Integrity - The introduction of a representative litigation mechanism for delisted companies marks a significant breakthrough in civil compensation, reducing the cost of investor rights protection and increasing litigation efficiency [8]. - The CSRC has intensified its crackdown on financial fraud, with 13 companies facing mandatory delisting this year due to serious violations, particularly financial fraud [10][11]. - Regulatory bodies are focusing on key individuals such as actual controllers and major shareholders to ensure accountability and prevent failures in oversight by intermediaries [11].

Core Viewpoint - The concept of "delisting does not exempt from liability" has become a regulatory norm in the capital market, indicating that companies and related parties will still face accountability for illegal activities even after delisting [1][4]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - Three delisted companies and their related parties have recently faced regulatory actions, including investigations and penalties, due to violations during their listing period [1][2]. - China Zhongqi Investment Co., Ltd. announced that its controlling shareholder received a notice of investigation from the CSRC for suspected information disclosure violations [2]. - Jiangsu Sunshine, a delisted company, received a notice of administrative penalty for failing to disclose significant events related to related party transactions, with a proposed fine of 3.3 million yuan [3]. Group 2: Trends in Delisting Accountability - There has been a notable increase in regulatory actions against delisted companies, with over 70 companies investigated for illegal activities and 33 cases referred for suspected criminal information disclosure [4]. - The regulatory framework aims to enhance compliance awareness among market participants and boost investor confidence, contributing to the high-quality development of the capital market [4]. Group 3: Legal Mechanisms and Enforcement - The introduction of representative litigation for delisted companies marks a significant advancement in civil compensation mechanisms, reducing the cost of investor rights protection and increasing litigation efficiency [5]. - The CSRC has intensified its crackdown on financial fraud, with 13 companies facing mandatory delisting this year due to severe violations, particularly financial misconduct [6]. - Regulatory authorities are focusing on key stakeholders, including actual controllers and major shareholders, to ensure accountability and maintain market stability [6].

Core Viewpoint - The concept of "delisting does not exempt from liability" has become a regulatory norm in the capital market, indicating that companies and related parties will still face accountability for illegal activities even after delisting [1][4]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - Three delisted companies and their related parties have recently faced regulatory actions, including investigations and penalties, highlighting the ongoing accountability in the market [1][2]. - China Zhongqi Investment Co., which has been delisted for over a year, announced that its controlling shareholder is under investigation by the CSRC for information disclosure violations [2]. - Jiangsu Sunshine, another delisted company, received a notice of administrative penalty for failing to disclose significant events related to related party transactions, with a proposed fine of 3.3 million yuan [3]. Group 2: Trends in Delisting and Accountability - The trend of holding delisted companies accountable has become common, with several companies like Yili Clean Energy and Dongxu Optoelectronics facing fines exceeding 100 million yuan [4]. - The CSRC has investigated over 70 delisted companies for illegal activities and has referred 33 cases for potential criminal prosecution [4]. - A comprehensive accountability system is being established to enhance compliance awareness among market participants and boost investor confidence [4]. Group 3: Legal Mechanisms and Market Integrity - The introduction of representative litigation mechanisms for delisted companies marks a significant advancement in civil compensation, reducing the cost of investor rights protection [5]. - The regulatory focus on financial fraud has intensified, with 13 companies facing mandatory delisting this year due to severe violations, particularly financial misconduct [6]. - The CSRC aims to create a robust market ecosystem by strictly enforcing penalties for financial fraud and ensuring that key stakeholders are held accountable [6].

Core Viewpoint - The regulatory signal of "delisting does not exempt" is being continuously released, with three delisted companies' related parties being investigated or penalized within a week, indicating a shift in regulatory enforcement against companies that have exited the market [2][9]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - Three delisted companies, China Zhongqi, Futong Information, and Jiangsu Sunshine, have faced investigations or penalties for information disclosure violations, highlighting that delisting is not the end but the starting point for accountability [2][3][9]. - China Zhongqi's controlling shareholder was investigated by the CSRC for information disclosure violations after the company was delisted due to negative net profit and low revenue [3][4]. - Futong Information was also investigated for similar violations, with its parent company facing potential impacts on its debt repayment ability [4][5]. Group 2: Financial Performance and Consequences - China Zhongqi reported a revenue of 31.78 million yuan in 2022, a 35.77% decrease year-on-year, and a net profit loss of 3.877 million yuan, marking a 360.25% decline [3]. - Futong Information was delisted after its stock price fell below 1 yuan for twenty consecutive trading days, and it has been under investigation since March 2023 [5][6]. - Jiangsu Sunshine faced penalties for failing to disclose significant financial events, including the misappropriation of 170 million yuan by its controlling shareholder, leading to administrative penalties for the company and its executives [6][7]. Group 3: Broader Regulatory Trends - The CSRC has intensified its regulatory scrutiny, with multiple companies facing administrative penalties or investigations this year, reinforcing the principle that delisting does not exempt companies from accountability [7][9]. - Since the new delisting regulations were implemented, the CSRC has investigated 67 delisted companies for violations and referred 33 cases for potential criminal charges [8][10]. - The CSRC aims to maintain a healthy market ecosystem by ensuring orderly entry and exit of companies, with a commitment to pursuing accountability for delisted companies and their responsible parties [10].

2025.10. 19 本文字数：2420，阅读时长大约4分钟 作者 | 第一财经 周楠 此后，该公司2023年年报被出具"无法表示意见"的审计报告。最终，深交所决定终止其上市资格。 退市之前，中国中期在2018年至2022年连续5年收到深交所问询函。 资料显示，截至今年6月底，中期集团持有中国中期6707.76万股，持股比例19.44%，为后者控股股 东。 与之类似，退市公司富通信息的相关方也在近期突遭立案。21富通01（188049.SH）近期披露，因 涉嫌子公司富通信息信披违法违规，富通集团被证监会立案。 对于立案影响，富通集团称，该事项可能对公司偿债能力造成一定影响，目前生产经营相对正常。 去年8月12日，因触发面值退市条件，富通信息从深交所摘牌，该公司股票在当年5月20日至6月17 日期间，连续二十个交易日每日收盘价均低于1元。 "退市不免责"的监管信号持续释放，一周之内，三家退市公司相关方被立案或遭罚。 公告显示，本周（10月13日至17日），中国中期控股股东、富通信息母公司、江苏阳光控股股东接 连被立案或处罚，均涉嫌信息披露违法违规。上述3家公司均退市一年有余，其中，富通信息、江苏 阳光均为面值 ...

"退市不是终点，而是追责起点。" "退市不免责"的监管信号持续释放，一周之内，三家退市公司相关方被立案或遭罚。 公告显示，本周（10月13日至17日），中国中期控股股东、富通信息母公司、江苏阳光控股股东接连被 立案或处罚，均涉嫌信息披露违法违规。上述3家公司均退市一年有余，其中，富通信息、江苏阳光均 为面值退市。 退市公司批量被查释放何种信号？南开大学金融发展研究院院长田利辉告诉第一财经，一周之内三家退 市公司相关方遭遇监管，"退市不免责"已成为监管常态。"监管层彻底打破部分公司'一退了之'的侥幸心 理。退市不是终点，而是追责起点，违法违规行为将被'一追到底'。"他说。 3家退市公司相关方遭监管 中国中期退市一年多之后，其控股股东突遭立案。据中资5（400216.NQ）10月13日披露，因涉嫌信息 披露违法违规，证监会决定对中期集团立案调查。 去年6月28日，中国中期从深交所摘牌。据披露，该公司因2022年经审计净利润为负且营收低于1亿元， 2023年5月被实施退市风险警示，证券简称变更为*ST中期。年报数据显示，2022年，中国中期营收 3178.17万元，同比下降35.77%，扣非净利润亏损387.7万元 ...