中经记者 孙汝祥 夏欣 北京报道 近日，上海市高级人民法院作出二审终审判决：配合华虹计通（已退市）进行财务造假的三家公司，对 华虹计通赔偿投资者损失的付款义务，承担比例连带赔偿责任。 该案也是国内首例判决配合上市公司财务造假的供应商、客户承担民事赔偿责任的案件。 此前在8月份，配合泽达易盛（已退市）财务造假的第三方，也被已承担泽达易盛案赔偿责任的三家中 介起诉追偿。 证监会指出，近年来资本市场财务造假出现新特点，即第三方主体配合、串通上市公司实施造假，双方 乃至多方形成利益链、"生态圈"。 接受《中国经营报》记者采访的专家表示，民事赔偿责任是对配合造假第三方立体化追责的重要一环， 相关诉讼将追责范围从上市公司延伸至整个造假"生态链"，有助于彻底打破"造假同盟"的侥幸心理。 配合造假第三方被判担责 近日，上海市高级人民法院作出二审判决，维持一审判决，即华虹计通赔偿两名投资者投资差额损失、 佣金损失、印花税损失；时任董事、总经理徐明，三家配合华虹计通财务造假的公司，分别对华虹计通 的付款义务在50%、20%、10%、10%的范围内承担连带责任。 关于该案，时间要追溯到三年前。 2022年12月29日，上海证监局向 ...

21世纪经济报道记者崔文静近日，随着华虹计通证券虚假陈述责任纠纷案二审结果的公布，一起针对配 合上市公司财务造假的关联方判令承担连带赔偿责任的典型案例正式落地，标志着我国资本市场对财务 造假"帮凶"的追责更进一步。 不过，由于此次华虹计通案申请索赔的投资者仅两名，配合造假关联方目前实际所需赔付金额相对有 限。如若后续更多投资者申请索赔，其连带赔付金额则另当别论。 华虹计通案中配合造假关联方被判罚并非偶然，实际上，配合造假第三方正在成为监管部门的重点监管 对象。 与提前确认营业收入等"左右腾挪式造假"不同，由第三方配合的造假往往更为隐蔽且难以发现。其模式 大致可分为两类：一类是真假混同，即将真实业务与虚假业务混杂在一起；另一类则是完全虚构业务。 要完成这些造假行为，仅靠上市公司通常难以实现，往往需要依赖"第三方"的积极配合。 该案中，因严重财务造假已于2023年退市的华虹计通，其造假期间提供审计服务的立信会计师事务所已 被罚没超过155万元。而最新判决显示，曾经配合华虹计通实施造假的三家关联方——上海仪电物联技 术股份有限公司（以下简称"上海仪电"）、中京复电（上海）电子科技有限公司（以下简称"中京复 电"）和 ...

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has intensified its crackdown on financial fraud among listed companies, imposing significant penalties on multiple firms for financial misconduct, with some companies facing penalties exceeding 100 million yuan [1] Group 1: Regulatory Actions - On September 12, several companies including *ST Dongtong (300379.SZ), Lieneng 5 (formerly Yili Clean Energy), *ST Guangdao (839680.BJ), ST Tiansheng (002872.SZ), *ST Xinchao (600777.SH), and *ST Lingda (300125.SZ) disclosed administrative penalties from the CSRC [1] - Companies such as *ST Dongtong and Lieneng 5, along with their executives, were fined over 100 million yuan [1] Group 2: Industry Trends - The regulatory environment has shifted towards a "zero tolerance" approach regarding financial fraud, with enforcement actions becoming increasingly stringent [1] - This year, numerous companies have received penalties exceeding 100 million yuan due to significant financial fraud, with over ten companies facing forced delisting as a result of major violations [1] - Even companies that have already been delisted continue to face accountability for their financial misconduct [1]

另一方面，也要看到，随着执法力度的加大，打击和防范上市公司财务造假面临一些新的形势和问题。 鉴于此，监管部门须强化条块结合、区域联动模式，积极构建跨部门协作体系，促成各部门、各地区各 司其职、齐抓共管的良好工作格局，多管齐下形成强大合力，织密"线索发现—监管执法—立体化追 责"的全方位监管链条。 ■择远 上市公司财务造假必将受到严惩。8月8日，证监会通报，严肃查处贵州辖区深交所主板上市公司*ST高 鸿（000851）严重财务造假案件。 财务造假严重挑战信息披露制度的严肃性、严重毁坏市场诚信基础、严重破坏市场信心、严重损害投资 者利益，是侵蚀市场根基的"毒瘤"。基于此，监管部门始终将其作为证券监管执法的重点，持续以雷霆 手段予以严厉打击，一批重大典型案件得到及时惩处，市场生态有效净化。 此次公布的案件处理，再次诠释了"打击资本市场财务造假是证券监管执法一以贯之的重点"这一核心理 念，向市场各方清晰展现了监管部门整肃净化市场环境的坚决态度。 在笔者看来，要进一步强化对上市公司财务造假的打击力度。一方面，监管部门要继续坚持市场化、法 治化原则，不断夯实严监管氛围。 一要严监管。强化穿透式监管，多渠道识别并循环筛查有 ...

Core Viewpoint - *ST Gaohong has engaged in severe financial fraud from 2015 to 2023, inflating revenue by approximately 19.8 billion and profits by over 76.2 million through fictitious trade activities [1][5] Regulatory Actions - Regulatory authorities have adopted a "zero tolerance" approach towards severe fraud, implementing both administrative and criminal penalties [2] - The company faces mandatory delisting due to significant violations, with the stock price experiencing volatility prior to the delisting warning [2] - Key executives, including the chairman and general manager, have been fined and banned from the market for their roles in the fraud [2][3] Fraud Details - The fraud involved fictitious trade operations, with direct involvement from company executives and third parties, leading to inflated financial statements [3][5] - Specific individuals, including a former director, were found to have knowingly participated in the fraudulent activities, which were linked to the company's financial misreporting [3] Audit Oversight - Despite the severity of the fraud, the auditing firm failed to detect the financial discrepancies prior to the investigation, raising questions about the effectiveness of audit practices [4] Media and Public Oversight - Investigative journalism has played a crucial role in uncovering the fraud, highlighting the importance of media in monitoring corporate behavior [6] - The company has ceased disclosing key financial relationships, which could hinder the detection of fraudulent activities in the future [6]

Core Viewpoint - Financial fraud is a significant issue undermining the foundation of capital markets, leading to strict regulatory actions against companies involved in such practices [1][2][3] Group 1: Regulatory Actions - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has issued administrative penalties against a company (now delisted) for violations related to information disclosure, marking a notable case where accomplices in fraud are also being held accountable [1] - The regulatory environment maintains a "zero tolerance" stance towards financial fraud and false information disclosure, aiming to protect investor rights and market integrity [1][2] Group 2: Accountability Measures - There is a need for dual approaches in preventing financial fraud: targeting the primary offenders and also holding accomplices accountable, including key stakeholders such as actual controllers, major shareholders, and board members [2] - Strengthening the accountability of accomplices in financial fraud is crucial, with a focus on enhancing administrative, civil, and criminal penalties for all parties involved in fraudulent activities [2] Group 3: Market Impact - A stringent crackdown on financial fraud is essential for creating a more regulated and orderly capital market, which is vital for supporting high-quality economic development [3]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the systemic and covert threats posed by third-party involvement in financial fraud, emphasizing the need for improved legislation and regulatory mechanisms to establish clear accountability for these entities [1][2]. Group 1: Current Legal Framework and Challenges - The existing Securities Law lacks clarity in defining the responsibilities of external parties involved in aiding fraud, leading to a lack of legal precedents for holding suppliers and customers accountable [2][3]. - Current penalties primarily target listed companies and intermediaries, while the direct participants in fraud, such as upstream and downstream companies, remain largely unpunished, resulting in a diluted accountability for third parties [2][3]. - The absence of clear legal provisions for third-party involvement in systemic fraud creates challenges in establishing criminal liability, as existing laws do not explicitly include non-listed companies in the scope of punishment [3][4]. Group 2: Recommendations for Improvement - Experts suggest the need to enhance the third-party responsibility system by standardizing accountability criteria across relevant laws, ensuring a scientifically sound and reasonable responsibility framework [6][7]. - There is a call for the establishment of a collaborative governance system that integrates administrative, criminal, and civil measures, allowing for more effective enforcement against non-listed companies involved in fraud [9]. - The implementation of comprehensive and penetrating regulatory measures is recommended, utilizing digital tools for real-time monitoring of financial activities to enhance oversight capabilities [10].