Core Viewpoint - The case of Zeda Yisheng's financial fraud has led to a significant legal development where three intermediary institutions are suing 39 accomplices for a total of 372 million yuan, marking a complete accountability loop in China's capital market [1][4]. Group 1: Legal Developments - The three intermediary institutions, Dongxing Securities, Tianjian Accounting Firm, and Kangda Law Firm, have filed lawsuits against 39 defendants, including 37 companies and 2 individuals, for their alleged involvement in Zeda Yisheng's financial fraud [1][4]. - The lawsuit represents the first instance in China where intermediaries can seek compensation from third parties after making advance payments to investors [1][5]. - Legal experts suggest that if the intermediaries win, it could set a significant precedent for similar cases, establishing a standard for accountability in financial fraud [2][5]. Group 2: Financial Details - The total amount being claimed in the lawsuits is 372 million yuan, with Dongxing Securities seeking 215 million yuan, Tianjian Accounting Firm 123 million yuan, and Kangda Law Firm 33.49 million yuan [4]. - The intermediaries had previously compensated investors approximately 388 million yuan, which included a punitive commitment of 105 million yuan from Dongxing Securities [3][6]. Group 3: Challenges and Evidence - The success of the intermediaries' lawsuits hinges on their ability to provide evidence of the defendants' subjective fault and the direct causal relationship between their actions and the damages incurred [1][6]. - Key evidence required includes abnormal transaction records, communication documents, and proof of financial flows that indicate complicity in the fraud [6][7]. - Experts believe that the third parties may only bear partial responsibility due to the intermediaries' own faults and the need for shared accountability among all parties involved [6][7]. Group 4: Market Implications - The case has prompted a reevaluation of how to effectively hold "fraud accomplices" accountable, suggesting a multi-faceted governance system that includes civil compensation, administrative regulation, and criminal liability [2][8]. - Recommendations for enhancing the willingness of intermediaries to make advance payments include establishing specialized liability insurance for false statements and simplifying the judicial recovery process [2][9]. - The case signals a shift from punishing the end parties (listed companies/intermediaries) to targeting the source of fraud (third-party accomplices), potentially reshaping market behavior and compliance awareness [5][7].