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 ...

Core Viewpoint - The recent actions against three delisted companies signal a clear message that "delisting does not equate to exemption from accountability" in the regulatory landscape of the Chinese capital market [2][3]. Summary by Relevant Sections Regulatory Actions - Three delisted companies, China Zhongqi, Jiangsu Sunshine, and Futong Information, were recently named by regulatory authorities for ongoing issues despite their delisted status [1][3]. - Jiangsu Sunshine received an administrative penalty notice for non-operational fund occupation and information disclosure violations, resulting in a total fine of 3.3 million yuan [1][5]. - China Zhongqi and Futong Information are under investigation for suspected information disclosure violations, with investigations still ongoing [1][5]. Delisting Context - The trend of regulatory scrutiny post-delisting is becoming more pronounced, with 178 companies having been forcibly delisted between 2021 and September 2025 [1][8]. - The principle of "delisting does not mean safe landing" is emphasized, as regulatory accountability extends to delisted companies [1][8]. Specific Violations - Jiangsu Sunshine's violations include the occupation of non-operational funds, specifically 170 million yuan for land purchase and 261 million yuan in overdue receivables from its controlling shareholder [4][5]. - Futong Information faced multiple issues, including delayed disclosures of significant financial information and discrepancies in financial reports, with a 98% variance in net profit forecasts [6][9]. Accountability Mechanisms - The regulatory framework is evolving towards a "three-punishment linkage" system, combining administrative, civil, and criminal accountability for serious violations [10]. - Since early 2024, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has initiated investigations into 67 delisted companies, with 46 facing administrative penalties totaling 1.246 billion yuan [9][10]. - The establishment of a comprehensive accountability system aims to ensure that penalties are not halted by delisting, with ongoing civil compensation mechanisms for investors [10].

Core Viewpoint - The recent actions against three delisted companies signal a clear trend in regulatory enforcement, emphasizing that delisting does not equate to immunity from accountability [2][3]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - Three delisted companies, China Zhongqi, Jiangsu Sunshine, and Futong Information, were recently named by regulatory authorities for ongoing issues despite their delisted status [1][3]. - Jiangsu Sunshine received an administrative penalty notice for non-operational fund occupation and information disclosure violations, resulting in a total fine of 3.3 million yuan [1][5]. - China Zhongqi and Futong Information are under investigation for suspected information disclosure violations, with investigations still ongoing [1][6]. Group 2: Specific Violations - Jiangsu Sunshine's violations include the occupation of funds related to land transfer payments and overdue receivables from its controlling shareholder's subsidiary, totaling 2.61 billion yuan [4][5]. - Futong Information faced issues such as delayed information disclosure regarding significant lawsuits and financial discrepancies in its reports, with a 98% variance in its profit forecast compared to audited results [6][8]. Group 3: Broader Implications - The trend of regulatory scrutiny post-delisting is not isolated, as several other companies have faced similar consequences, reinforcing the principle that delisting does not end regulatory oversight [7][8]. - Since the implementation of stricter delisting regulations, the number of companies forcibly delisted has reached 178, more than double the total before the reforms [7][8]. - The regulatory framework is evolving towards a comprehensive accountability system, integrating administrative, civil, and criminal penalties for serious violations, which will continue to apply even after a company is delisted [8][9].

Core Viewpoint - The recent actions against three delisted companies signal a new regulatory trend in China, emphasizing that delisting does not equate to immunity from accountability for past violations [1][3][6]. Group 1: Recent Regulatory Actions - Three delisted companies, China Zhongqi, Jiangsu Sunshine, and Futong Information, were recently named by regulatory authorities for ongoing issues despite their delisted status [1][3]. - Jiangsu Sunshine received an administrative penalty notice for non-operational fund occupation and information disclosure violations, resulting in a total fine of 3.3 million yuan [1][4]. - China Zhongqi and Futong Information are under investigation for suspected information disclosure violations, with investigations still ongoing [1][4]. Group 2: Background and Context - The number of companies forcibly delisted from 2021 to September 2025 has reached 178, more than double the total number of delisted companies before the reform [1][8]. - The regulatory framework is evolving to ensure that delisted companies remain accountable for their past actions, with a focus on a "three-punishment linkage" system combining administrative, civil, and criminal penalties [1][9]. Group 3: Specific Violations - Jiangsu Sunshine's violations included the occupation of funds related to land transfer payments and overdue receivables from its controlling shareholder's subsidiary, totaling 2.61 billion yuan [4][5]. - Futong Information faced issues such as delayed disclosures of significant lawsuits and financial discrepancies, with a 98% variance between its profit forecast and audited results [5][9]. Group 4: Broader Implications - The ongoing regulatory actions against delisted companies reflect a commitment to enhancing market integrity and accountability, with a notable increase in investigations and penalties since the implementation of stricter delisting policies [8][9]. - The establishment of a comprehensive accountability system aims to deter future violations and protect investors, with ongoing cases indicating that the regulatory scrutiny will continue [9].

Core Viewpoint - The recent actions taken against three delisted companies in China signal a clear message: delisting does not exempt companies from accountability, and regulatory scrutiny is intensifying [1][2]. Summary by Relevant Categories Regulatory Actions - Three companies, China Zhongqi, Jiangsu Sunshine, and Futong Information, have faced regulatory actions within four days, highlighting the ongoing enforcement against delisted firms [1]. - Jiangsu Sunshine was fined 3.3 million yuan for fund occupation and false information disclosure, while China Zhongqi and Futong Information are under formal investigation for information disclosure violations [1]. Delisting and Accountability - A total of 178 companies have been delisted from the A-share market this year, indicating an accelerated pace of market cleanup [1]. - The process of delisting is just the beginning; accountability measures are being reinforced, with a focus on continuous regulatory follow-up [1]. Enforcement Mechanism - A comprehensive accountability system is being established, integrating administrative, civil, and criminal penalties, which is becoming the norm in regulatory practices [1].

Core Viewpoint - The recent actions taken against three delisted companies highlight a new regulatory trend in the Chinese capital market, emphasizing that delisting does not equate to immunity from accountability [2][3]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - Three delisted companies, China Zhongqi, Jiangsu Sunshine, and Futong Information, were recently named by regulatory authorities for various violations, reinforcing the message that "delisting does not exempt from responsibility" [1][3]. - Jiangsu Sunshine received a notice of administrative penalty for non-operational fund occupation and information disclosure violations, resulting in a total fine of 3.3 million yuan [1][5]. - China Zhongqi and Futong Information are under investigation for suspected information disclosure violations, with investigations ongoing [1][6]. Group 2: Specific Violations - Jiangsu Sunshine's violations include the occupation of funds related to land transfer payments and overdue accounts receivable from its controlling shareholder's subsidiary, totaling 2.61 billion yuan [4][5]. - Futong Information faced issues such as delayed information disclosure regarding significant lawsuits and financial discrepancies in its reports, with a 98% variance in its profit forecast compared to audited results [6][9]. - The regulatory scrutiny extends beyond the companies to include key individuals such as actual controllers and financial executives, indicating a comprehensive accountability approach [8]. Group 3: Broader Context - Since the implementation of stricter delisting regulations, the number of companies forcibly delisted has reached 178 from 2021 to September 2025, more than double the total before the reform [7]. - The regulatory framework is evolving towards a "three-punishment linkage" system, combining administrative, civil, and criminal penalties for serious violations, which continues even after a company is delisted [8][9]. - Approximately 8 companies facing delisting risks due to fund occupation have completed substantial rectifications, recovering a total of 8 billion yuan [7].

Core Viewpoint - The recent actions by regulatory authorities against three delisted companies highlight a new trend in the capital market governance, emphasizing that delisting does not equate to exemption from accountability [2][4]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - Three delisted companies, China Zhongqi, Jiangsu Sunshine, and Futong Information, were recently named by regulatory bodies for ongoing issues despite their delisted status [4][9]. - Jiangsu Sunshine received an administrative penalty notice for non-operational fund occupation and information disclosure violations, resulting in a total fine of 3.3 million yuan [6][7]. - China Zhongqi and Futong Information are under investigation for suspected information disclosure violations, with investigations still ongoing [4][10]. Group 2: Specific Violations - Jiangsu Sunshine's violations include the occupation of funds related to land transfer payments and overdue accounts receivable from its controlling shareholder's subsidiary, totaling 2.61 billion yuan [5][6]. - Futong Information faced issues such as delayed information disclosure regarding significant lawsuits and frozen bank accounts, as well as discrepancies in financial reporting [8][9]. Group 3: Broader Implications - The trend of holding delisted companies accountable is not isolated, as several other companies have faced similar scrutiny post-delisting, reinforcing the principle that "delisting does not mean safe landing" [9][10]. - Since the implementation of stricter delisting regulations, the number of companies forcibly delisted has reached 178, significantly increasing the pace of market exit [9][10]. - The regulatory framework is evolving towards a comprehensive accountability system that includes administrative, civil, and criminal penalties, indicating a shift towards more rigorous enforcement [10][11].

Core Viewpoint - The regulatory environment in China's capital market is tightening, with an increase in investigations by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) into companies for financial misconduct, emphasizing that "delisting does not exempt" companies from accountability [1][5]. Group 1: Regulatory Investigations - Shandong Ruyi Technology Group and Xiamen Road and Bridge Information Co., Ltd. have been announced to be under investigation by the CSRC for suspected violations related to financial information disclosure [1]. - As of October 16, 2023, a total of 89 companies have disclosed investigations by the CSRC, including 8 companies for suspected violations in regular financial reporting [1][5]. - The trend indicates a proactive approach by regulators, with investigations serving as a "pre-warning" mechanism to alert investors to potential financial fraud [2][3]. Group 2: Financial Misconduct and Accountability - The CSRC has intensified its efforts to hold not only companies but also responsible individuals accountable for financial fraud, establishing a comprehensive accountability system [4]. - Recent cases, such as *ST Dongtong, highlight severe penalties for companies involved in financial fraud, including fines and potential delisting [2][4]. - The regulatory framework now includes administrative, civil, and criminal liabilities, creating a multi-layered accountability structure that aims to deter financial misconduct [4][6]. Group 3: Impact on Delisted Companies - Seven companies that have been delisted this year are now facing investigations, reinforcing the message that delisting does not absolve them of legal responsibilities [5][6]. - The CSRC has already investigated 67 delisted companies for violations, with 33 cases referred for potential criminal charges [5][6]. - This approach aims to eliminate the "get away with it" mentality among companies, ensuring that accountability is maintained even after delisting [5][6].