11月28日晚间，ST立方公告称，公司于2025年11月28日收到中国证券监督管理委员会安徽监管局下 发的《行政处罚及市场禁入事先告知书》，公司2021年、2022年、2023年年度报告存在虚假记载， 2021、2022年虚假记载的营业收入金额合计达5.92亿元，占该两年披露的年度营业收入合计金额的 50.91%。 公告称， 公司可能触及重大违法强制退市情形，股票可能被实施重大违法强制退市 。公司股票于 2025年12月1日（星期一）起停牌，并于2025年12月2日（星期二）起复牌。自复牌之日起，公司股 票被实施退市风险警示。 此外，28日稍早时间， 证监会官网发文称，安徽证监局严肃查处立方数科严重财务造假案件 。 文中指出，近日，证监会对上市公司立方数科股份有限公司（简称立方数科）涉嫌定期报告财务数据存 在虚假记载作出行政处罚及市场禁入事先告知。 经查，2021年至2023年，立方数科通过开展代理业务、融资性贸易、虚假贸易等方式，累计虚增收入 6.38亿元、成本6.28亿元。其中，2021年收入、成本分别虚增2.80亿元、2.77亿元，2022年收入、 成本分别虚增3.12亿元、3.05亿元，2023年收入 ...

北京商报讯（记者 马换换 李佳雪）11月28日晚间，证监会官网显示，近日，证监会对上市公司ST立方 （300344）涉嫌定期报告财务数据存在虚假记载作出行政处罚及市场禁入事先告知。 同时，证监会决定对本案所涉会计师事务所执业行为正式立案调查，涉嫌未能勤勉尽责的将依法严惩。 对于相关违法行为可能涉及的证券犯罪问题线索，证监会将坚持应移尽移的工作原则，依法依规移送公 安机关。 同日晚间，ST立方披露公告称，公司因定期报告涉嫌信息披露违法违规，被证监会立案调查。公司及 相关人员于11月28日收到安徽证监局下发的《行政处罚及市场禁入事先告知书》，公司2021年、2022 年、2023年年度报告存在虚假记载。公司股票于12月1日起停牌，并于12月2日起复牌。自复牌之日起， 公司股票被实施退市风险警示。公司股票简称由"ST立方"变更为"*ST立方"。如根据正式的处罚决定书 结论，公司触及重大违法强制退市情形，公司股票将被终止上市。 经查，2021年至2023年，ST立方通过开展代理业务、融资性贸易、虚假贸易等方式，累计虚增收入6.38 亿元、成本6.28亿元。其中，2021年收入、成本分别虚增2.80亿元、2.77亿元， ...

登录新浪财经APP 搜索【信披】查看更多考评等级 出品：新浪上市公司研究院 文/夏虫工作室 核心观点：科创信息（维权）与大有科技的交易究竟是遭遇合同诈骗还是涉嫌财务造假？为何公司在仅 收到预付款890万元，便全额确认收入？与此同时，科创信息为何不直接与川综能交易，嵌入大有科技 是否涉嫌垫资业务？公司是否存在造假动机？值得注意的是，公司当年业绩承压。 近日，科创信息因涉嫌信息披露违法违规，遭监管立案调查。 受此影响，公司股价遭受重挫，立案调查公告日当天股价跌停，11月17日至11月27日，公司股价跌幅达 到22.18%。 来源：wind 对于科创信息爆雷，新浪上市公司研究院夏虫工作室早在2025年09月23日提前发出风险预警。 我们在创意信息财务造假案例复盘中发现，其财务造假交易主体国网四川综合能源服务有限公司（简 称"川综能"）、国宁睿能绿色能源科技有限公司（简称"国宁睿能"）不仅仅包括创意信息，也同时牵涉 多家上市公司，其中包括科创信息、微创光电等。随着创意信息被认定财务造假，我们首次对科创信 息、微创光电等发出是否存在财务造假风险的疑问，同时提示是否相关标的又是否可能存在ST或强制 退市等风险。具体详见《 ...

经查，2021年至2023年，立方数科通过开展代理业务、融资性贸易、虚假贸易等方式，累计虚增收入 6.38亿元、成本6.28亿元。其中，2021年收入、成本分别虚增2.80亿元、2.77亿元，2022年收入、成本分 别虚增3.12亿元、3.05亿元，2023年收入、成本分别虚增0.46亿元、0.45亿元。立方数科连续三年虚增收 入和成本，严重违反证券法律法规，安徽证监局拟对立方数科处以1000万元罚款，对汪逸等10名责任人 合计罚款3000万元。立方数科涉嫌触及重大违法强制退市情形，深交所将依法启动退市程序。 智通财经11月28日讯，据证监会网站，近日，证监会对上市公司立方数科股份有限公司（简称立方数 科）涉嫌定期报告财务数据存在虚假记载作出行政处罚及市场禁入事先告知。 同时，证监会决定对本案所涉会计师事务所执业行为正式立案调查，涉嫌未能勤勉尽责的将依法严惩。 对于相关违法行为可能涉及的证券犯罪问题线索，证监会将坚持应移尽移的工作原则，依法依规移送公 安机关。 ...

同时，我会决定对本案所涉会计师事务所执业行为正式立案调查，涉嫌未能勤勉 尽责的将依法严惩。对于相关违法行为可能涉及的证券犯罪问题线索，我会将坚持应 移尽移的工作原则，依法依规移送公安机关。 经查，2021年至2023年，立方数科通过开展代理业务、融资性贸易、虚假贸易等 方式，累计虚增收入6.38亿元、成本6.28亿元。其中，2021年收入、成本分别虚增 2.80亿元、2.77亿元，2022年收入、成本分别虚增3.12亿元、3.05亿元，2023年收 入、成本分别虚增0.46亿元、0.45亿元。立方数科连续三年虚增收入和成本，严重违 反证券法律法规，安徽证监局拟对立方数科处以1000万元罚款，对汪逸等10名责任人 合计罚款3000万元。立方数科涉嫌触及重大违法强制退市情形，深交所将依法启动退 市程序。 近日，证监会对上市公司立方数科股份有限公司（简称立方数科）涉嫌定期报告 财务数据存在虚假记载作出行政处罚及市场禁入事先告知。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The sudden resignation of Longcheng Securities' president, Li Xiang, raises suspicions, particularly as it coincides with the sensitive period of regulatory scrutiny related to the financial fraud case involving Te Fa Information, where Longcheng Securities served as a long-term sponsor [1][9][10]. Group 1: Resignation Details - Li Xiang submitted his resignation on July 18, 2025, citing "personal reasons," and left the company entirely after five years as president [1]. - His departure was notably abrupt, with the board approving the resignation on the same day without any transitional arrangements, which is unusual for such a senior position [8][9]. - Li Xiang's resignation comes just before the regulatory authorities are expected to determine the responsibilities of related intermediary institutions in the Te Fa Information fraud case [9][10]. Group 2: Financial Fraud Case - Te Fa Information was found to have committed financial fraud amounting to nearly 200 million yuan over five years from 2015 to 2019, during which Longcheng Securities continued to provide sponsorship [2][16]. - Longcheng Securities has been associated with Te Fa Information for over a decade, consistently issuing compliance reports despite the ongoing fraud [14][16]. - The fraud involved fabricating transactions and inflating revenues, with Longcheng Securities failing to detect these issues during the critical period [16][19]. Group 3: Li Xiang's Compensation and Responsibilities - During his tenure, Li Xiang received over 10 million yuan in compensation, raising questions about accountability given the significant risks associated with the company's core business [12][17]. - As president, Li Xiang had direct management authority over the investment banking operations, which were implicated in the fraud case [16][19]. - The potential regulatory repercussions for Longcheng Securities include administrative penalties and possible civil liabilities if investors pursue collective lawsuits [18][19].

Core Viewpoint - The long-term and systematic financial fraud at Hengli Industrial has led to significant regulatory penalties even after the company's delisting, with a total fine of nearly 40 million yuan imposed on the company and 19 related individuals [2][4]. Group 1: Financial Fraud Details - Hengli Industrial's financial fraud primarily involved trade business falsification, particularly in ethylene glycol trading, resulting in inflated revenues [3]. - From 2020 to mid-2023, the company inflated its operating income for three and a half consecutive years, with specific figures: 2020 - approximately 227 million yuan (74.24% of reported income), 2021 - 181 million yuan (52.27%), 2022 - 135 million yuan (55.08%), and the first half of 2023 - 5.119 million yuan (47.77%) [3]. Group 2: Regulatory Actions - The Hunan Securities Regulatory Bureau has imposed penalties on both the company and individual responsible parties, reflecting a "personal accountability" approach in regulation [4]. - The company was fined 8 million yuan and 19 individuals received a total of 31.4 million yuan in fines, with the former chairman receiving a 4.5 million yuan fine and a five-year market ban [4]. Group 3: Delisting and Consequences - Hengli Industrial's stock was subject to delisting warnings due to negative net profits and low operating income, leading to its formal delisting on July 16, 2025 [5][6]. - The company failed to disclose its annual report on time, which was linked to significant disagreements with its auditing firm regarding reported revenues [6]. Group 4: Investor Reactions - Following the revelation of the financial fraud details, investors who suffered losses during the period of false statements are beginning to seek legal recourse [7].

Core Viewpoint - The A-share market is demonstrating a "zero tolerance" attitude towards major illegal delisting behaviors, as evidenced by the recent forced delisting of *ST Dongtong and *ST Suwu due to severe violations [2][9] Summary by Sections Major Violations and Delisting - *ST Dongtong and *ST Suwu have been forced to suspend trading due to serious violations, marking a significant shift in regulatory enforcement [2][7] - Since 2025, the number of companies facing major illegal delisting has reached 13, a historical high [9] Specific Violations - *ST Dongtong engaged in financial fraud through its subsidiary for four consecutive years, inflating profits significantly, with a peak of 124 million yuan in 2022, representing 219.43% of its total profit for that year [5][6] - *ST Suwu concealed its actual controlling party and inflated revenues, with related party non-operating fund occupation reaching 1.693 billion yuan, nearly depleting the company's net assets [6][7] Regulatory Changes - The new delisting regulations specify that companies with continuous fraud for three years or more will be decisively removed from the market, lowering the thresholds for identifying fraudulent activities [10][12] - The updated standards include three tiers for recognizing fraud, with specific monetary thresholds and percentage criteria [10] Enforcement and Accountability - The regulatory environment has intensified, with a comprehensive system for punishing financial fraud being established, including administrative, civil, and criminal penalties [12][13] - The regulatory body emphasizes the importance of holding not only the companies accountable but also those who collude with them in fraudulent activities [12] Investor Protection - Measures are being implemented to enhance investor protection, particularly in cases of major illegal delisting, encouraging companies to compensate affected investors [13] - Technological advancements such as AI and big data are being utilized to improve regulatory oversight and detect hidden illegal activities [13]

Core Viewpoint - The A-share market is demonstrating a "zero tolerance" attitude towards major illegal delisting behaviors, as evidenced by the simultaneous delisting of two companies, *ST Dongtong and *ST Suwu, due to severe violations of regulations [1][2][7]. Summary by Sections Company Violations - *ST Dongtong engaged in financial fraud through its subsidiary for four consecutive years, inflating profits significantly, with a reported profit inflation of 52.23 million yuan in 2019, 58.77 million yuan in 2020, 79.48 million yuan in 2021, and 124 million yuan in 2022, leading to a total of 2.29 billion yuan in penalties [3][4]. - *ST Suwu concealed its actual controlling party and inflated revenues, with non-operational fund occupation reaching 1.693 billion yuan, accounting for 96.09% of its net assets by the end of 2023 [5][7]. Regulatory Changes - The recent delistings reflect a significant shift in regulatory attitudes, with new rules stipulating that companies involved in continuous financial fraud for three years or more will be decisively delisted, thus tightening the standards for identifying fraudulent activities [2][8]. - The updated delisting criteria include thresholds for financial fraud, such as a single-year fraud amount exceeding 200 million yuan or cumulative fraud exceeding 300 million yuan over two years, which has led to an increase in companies facing delisting risks [9]. Enforcement and Accountability - The regulatory framework has evolved to include a comprehensive system of penalties, including administrative, civil, and criminal actions against those involved in financial fraud, indicating a robust enforcement mechanism [10][12]. - The regulatory authorities are focusing on holding not only the companies accountable but also third-party accomplices involved in fraudulent activities, aiming to dismantle the "ecosystem" of financial fraud [10][11]. Investor Protection - There is an ongoing effort to enhance investor protection, particularly in cases of major illegal delistings, encouraging companies to take proactive measures to compensate affected investors [11]. Market Implications - The increase in major illegal delistings signals a tightening of the capital market's "exit mechanism," promoting a more competitive market environment and reducing the number of companies willing to engage in systematic financial fraud [12].

Core Viewpoint - The A-share market is demonstrating a "zero tolerance" attitude towards major illegal delisting behaviors, as evidenced by the recent forced delisting of *ST Dongtong and *ST Suwu due to severe violations of regulations [1][5][9] Summary by Sections Major Violations and Delisting - On November 25, *ST Dongtong and *ST Suwu received administrative penalty decisions from the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC), leading to their stocks being suspended from trading starting November 26 [1][5] - Since 2025, the number of companies facing major illegal delisting has reached 13, marking a historical high [1][6] - *ST Dongtong engaged in financial fraud through its subsidiary for four consecutive years and used false data in a 2022 private placement, constituting fraudulent issuance [3][4] - *ST Suwu concealed its actual controlling shareholder and systematically inflated revenue, with related party fund occupation reaching 1.693 billion yuan, accounting for 96.09% of the company's net assets [1][5] Regulatory Changes and Enforcement - The recent delistings reflect a significant change in regulatory attitudes, driven by the continuous improvement of delisting systems, which now clearly state that companies with three or more years of fraud will be decisively removed [1][6] - New regulations have lowered the thresholds for identifying fraudulent activities, allowing more companies with long-term fraudulent behaviors to be exposed [6][10] - The updated standards for financial fraud delisting include specific thresholds for fraudulent amounts and their proportions relative to financial indicators [6][10] Comprehensive Governance System - A comprehensive governance system is being established to combat financial fraud, including holding accomplices accountable and utilizing technology for "penetrating" regulatory networks [2][9] - The regulatory framework emphasizes a three-pronged punishment system (administrative, civil, and criminal) for financial fraud cases, showcasing a firm stance against illegal activities in the capital market [7][9] Investor Protection and Market Ecology - The increase in major illegal delisting cases reflects the regulatory body's commitment to a "zero tolerance" policy towards financial fraud and the determination to dismantle the fraud "ecosystem" [9][10] - The CSRC has issued guidelines to enhance investor protection, particularly in cases of major illegal delisting, encouraging companies to take proactive measures to compensate affected investors [9][10]