【导读】 *ST 苏吴触及重大违法强制退市情形，自 11 月 26 日开市起停牌 中国基金报记者 闻言 11 月 25 日晚间， *ST 苏吴发布公告称，中国证监会出具的《行政处罚决定书》，认定公 司及相关当事人存在三项违法事实，导致公司触及重大违法强制退市情形。 同一天， *ST 苏吴收到上海证券交易所下发的《关于拟终止江苏吴中医药发展股份有限公司 股票上市的事先告知书》《关于对江苏吴中医药发展股份有限公司、实际控制人暨时任董事 长钱群山及有关责任人予以纪律处分的决定》。 *ST 苏吴计划自 11 月 26 日开市起停牌。 11 月 25 日收盘， *ST 苏吴股价报 1.24 元 / 股，涨幅达 5.08% ，总市值为 8.81 亿元。 监管明确三项违法事实 公告显示， 11 月 25 日， *ST 苏吴及相关当事人收到中国证监会出具的《行政处罚决定 书》，明确 *ST 苏吴及相关当事人存在三项违法事实： 一是未如实披露实际控制人， 2018 年至 2023 年年报存在虚假记载。 二是虚增营业收入、营业成本和利润， 2020 年至 2023 年年报存在虚假记载。 三是未按规定披露关联方非经营性占用资金情况 ...

Core Viewpoint - The recent ruling in the Huahong Jitong Securities fraud case marks a significant step in holding accomplices of financial fraud accountable in China's capital market, indicating a shift towards stricter enforcement against those aiding in financial misconduct [2][3]. Summary by Relevant Sections Case Details - Huahong Jitong, which was delisted in 2023 due to severe financial fraud, had its auditing firm, Lixin Accounting Firm, fined over 1.55 million yuan. Three related parties—Shanghai Yidian, Zhongjing Fudian, and Shanghai Zhongka—were ordered to bear joint liability for investor losses, with compensation responsibilities ranging from 10% to 20% [2][5]. Legal Implications - The ruling sets a precedent with a higher liability percentage compared to previous cases, such as the Saiwei Intelligent case, where accomplices faced only 3% liability. This indicates a trend towards more stringent penalties for those involved in financial fraud [5][6]. Regulatory Environment - Regulatory bodies are enhancing their oversight through improved legal frameworks, inter-departmental collaboration, and information-sharing systems. The ongoing legislative process for the "Regulations on the Supervision of Listed Companies" aims to empower authorities to investigate and penalize third parties involved in financial fraud [11][12]. Broader Impact - The Huahong Jitong case, along with other significant cases, contributes to a comprehensive accountability system for accomplices in financial fraud, suggesting that third parties aiding in such activities will face increasing legal and financial repercussions [3][8].

Core Viewpoint - The recent ruling in the Huahong Jitong case marks a significant step in holding accomplices of financial fraud accountable in China's capital market, indicating a shift towards stricter enforcement against those aiding in financial misconduct [1][2]. Summary by Sections Case Details - Huahong Jitong, which was delisted in 2023 due to severe financial fraud, had its auditing firm, Lixin Accounting Firm, fined over 1.55 million yuan. Three related parties—Shanghai Yidian, Zhongjing Fudian, and Shanghai Zhongka—were ordered to bear joint liability for investor losses, with compensation responsibilities ranging from 10% to 20% [1][4][6]. Legal and Regulatory Developments - The ruling in the Huahong Jitong case is part of a broader trend, alongside other cases like Saiwei Intelligent and Yuebo Power, to establish a comprehensive accountability system for accomplices in financial fraud, thereby enhancing the regulatory environment of the capital market [2][8]. - The current regulatory framework is evolving, with the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) working on the "Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Listed Companies" to empower it to investigate and penalize third parties involved in financial fraud [10][12]. Enforcement Mechanisms - The CSRC is implementing a three-pronged approach to strengthen regulatory oversight: improving legal frameworks, enhancing inter-departmental collaboration, and establishing a reporting system for accomplices in fraud cases [10][12]. - A significant aspect of this approach is the establishment of a mechanism for transferring leads on suspected accomplices to relevant authorities based on their industry, which aims to create a coordinated enforcement environment [11][12]. Implications for Third Parties - The increased liability for accomplices, as seen in the Huahong Jitong case, suggests that third parties involved in financial fraud will face higher penalties, indicating a shift in the cost of compliance and the risks associated with aiding fraudulent activities [6][8]. - The relatively high percentage of joint liability (10%-20%) for accomplices in this case, compared to previous cases where the liability was only 3%, highlights a significant escalation in the accountability measures being enforced [6][8].

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 ...

Core Viewpoint - The recent ruling in the Huahong Jitong case marks a significant step in holding accomplices of financial fraud accountable in China's capital market, indicating a shift towards stricter enforcement against those who facilitate financial misconduct [1][2][3] Summary by Relevant Sections Case Details - Huahong Jitong, which was delisted in 2023 due to severe financial fraud, had its auditing firm, Lixin Accounting Firm, fined over 1.55 million yuan [1] - Three related parties—Shanghai Yidian, Zhongjing Fudian, and Shanghai Zhongka—were ordered to bear joint liability for investor losses, with compensation responsibilities ranging from 10% to 20% [1][2] Legal Implications - The ruling sets a precedent with a higher liability percentage compared to previous cases, such as the Saiwei Intelligent case, where the liability was only 3% [2][3] - The case illustrates a growing trend where third parties involved in financial fraud are increasingly subject to significant penalties, indicating that aiding in fraud will incur heavy costs [2][3] Regulatory Developments - Regulatory bodies are enhancing their oversight through improved legal frameworks, inter-departmental collaboration, and information-sharing systems [1][4][6] - The introduction of the "Securities Company Supervision and Management Regulations" aims to empower regulatory authorities to investigate and penalize third parties involved in financial fraud [5][6] Enforcement Mechanisms - A new mechanism for transferring leads on suspected accomplices to relevant authorities has been established, enhancing the enforcement of regulations against financial fraud [6] - The establishment of a reporting system for third-party accomplices is intended to create a coordinated regulatory effort across different sectors [6][7] Overall Impact - The combination of legal improvements, collaborative enforcement, and significant case rulings is expected to create a robust regulatory environment that deters financial fraud in the capital market [7]

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]

Core Viewpoint - The regulatory authorities are intensifying efforts to combat financial fraud in listed companies, emphasizing the importance of maintaining market integrity and protecting investor interests [1][2]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has announced severe penalties for financial fraud, specifically citing the case of *ST Gao Hong, which involved serious financial misconduct [1]. - The regulatory framework will focus on strict supervision, enforcement, and penalties to deter financial fraud, including enhancing the whistleblower reward system and increasing the costs of violations [2][3]. Group 2: Collaborative Efforts - A multi-departmental collaboration is essential to strengthen the detection and enforcement against financial fraud, creating a comprehensive regulatory chain that includes information sharing and joint accountability [3]. - The establishment of a long-term mechanism integrating administrative, criminal, and civil liabilities is expected to hold both primary offenders and accomplices accountable, thereby dismantling the ecosystem of fraud [3][4]. Group 3: Case Studies and Implications - A recent case involving Zhejiang Haiyan Liyuan Environmental Technology Co., where the actual controller received a one-year prison sentence for financial fraud, highlights the increasing criminal accountability for key individuals involved in financial misconduct [4]. - The ongoing efforts to combat financial fraud are expected to enhance market transparency and protect investors' rights, contributing to the stable and sustainable development of China's capital market [4].

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].