Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the increasing regulatory scrutiny on accounting firms in China, with 13 firms receiving regulatory letters from the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) and exchanges for failing to perform due diligence in auditing financial statements, particularly in the case of Hongxiang Co., Ltd. [1][2][3] Group 1: Regulatory Actions - As of January 16, 2024, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange disclosed two regulatory letters criticizing Rongcheng and Zhihong accounting firms for their lack of diligence in auditing Hongxiang's financial reports from 2017 to 2021, which contained false records [1][2] - The CSRC imposed a fine of 25.13 million yuan on Hongxiang Co., Ltd. for fraudulent financial reporting, which included a cumulative inflation of operating income by 1 billion yuan and profits by 392 million yuan over six years [2] - The regulatory actions against the accounting firms included public reprimands and entries into integrity archives, with specific violations noted in their audit processes [4][5] Group 2: Penalties and Financial Implications - A total of 1,643,000 yuan was imposed as fines and confiscated income from three accounting firms and their associated certified public accountants due to inadequate diligence [5] - Zhongxinghua Accounting Firm faced the highest penalties, totaling 1,113.2 million yuan, for issuing false audit reports for Yinjian Technology for the years 2021 and 2022 [5] - Other firms, such as Xingtai and Liananda, also received penalties for failing to perform due diligence in their audits, with fines and confiscated income amounting to 200,000 yuan and 60,000 yuan respectively [5] Group 3: Trends in Regulatory Oversight - The article notes a significant increase in the frequency and severity of penalties imposed on accounting firms by regulatory bodies, indicating a trend towards stricter oversight [6] - Accounting firms engaged in securities services are subject to dual regulation by both the CSRC and the Ministry of Finance, which can lead to compounded penalties for misconduct [6]

Core Viewpoint - Yongtuo Accounting Firm has been severely punished by the Jiangsu Securities Regulatory Bureau for failing to perform due diligence and issuing false audit reports, leading to a ban on engaging in securities services and a total fine exceeding 65 million yuan [1][4][5]. Group 1: Administrative Penalties - The Jiangsu Securities Regulatory Bureau's administrative penalty decision revealed that Yongtuo failed to exercise due diligence, resulting in false records in annual audit reports and verification reports for fund usage [1][2]. - Yongtuo was ordered to rectify its practices and was banned from engaging in securities services, with a total penalty of approximately 65.28 million yuan, which includes confiscated business income and fines [4][5]. - This is the first instance of a regulatory body imposing a ban on an audit firm from conducting securities services since the revision of the Securities Law in 2019 [1]. Group 2: Role in Financial Fraud - Yongtuo acted as an accomplice in financial fraud, knowingly issuing unqualified audit reports despite being aware of significant issues and deficiencies in audit practices [2][3]. - The firm was responsible for auditing several companies, including Hongda Xingye and Hengjiu Technology, where it failed to maintain objectivity and independence, leading to the issuance of false audit reports [2][3]. - Specific instances of misconduct included fabricating audit adjustments and altering financial statements, as well as failing to assess fraud risks adequately [3]. Group 3: Regulatory Environment - The regulatory environment emphasizes the critical role of intermediary institutions, such as accounting firms, in maintaining market integrity and preventing financial misconduct [6]. - The China Securities Regulatory Commission has intensified enforcement actions against violations, with a notable increase in cases involving intermediary institutions failing to perform due diligence [7]. - Recent measures have been introduced to enhance oversight of intermediary institutions, including increased inspections and a focus on improving audit quality and professional competence [7].

处罚决定书内容显示，永拓所此番违法违规行为多次突破职业底线，具体包括：主动介绍恒久科技、鸿 达兴业开展虚假业务，为公司设计走账路径、参与虚假业务资金划转，帮助两家公司掩盖违法事实；在 鸿达兴业项目中，永拓所在无审计调整依据支撑的情况下配合鸿达兴业虚构审计调整分录，篡改合并财 务报表，导致鸿达兴业2020年至2022年年度报告存在虚假记载；在鸿达兴业和恒久科技项目中，部分签 字会计师未实际参与审计业务，质控复核人知悉项目存在异常仍同意项目组审计意见，首席合伙人知悉 相关情况后仍签发无保留意见的审计报告；在科林环保案中，永拓所在监管部门多次通报明确违法线索 的情况下，仍未审慎执业，无视执业准则规定，出具存在虚假记载的审计报告。 面对中介机构失责乱象，监管机构秉承"零容忍"态度从严查处，通过一系列"组合拳"持续压实中介机构 职责。 中证报中证网讯（记者 孟培嘉）江苏证监局网站12月13日信息显示，该局近日对永拓会计师事务所 （特殊普通合伙）（简称"永拓所"）在鸿达兴业、恒久科技、科林环保三家上市公司审计执业过程中未 勤勉尽责违法行为一并作出行政处罚。 根据行政处罚决定书，永拓所在上述三家上市公司的财务报表审计工作中 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the unprecedented wave of delistings in the A-share market due to major violations, highlighting the challenges faced by brokerage investment banks in fulfilling their role as gatekeepers in the capital market [1][3]. Group 1: Regulatory Changes and Impact - As of October 15, 2023, a record number of 13 companies have triggered mandatory delisting indicators due to major violations, marking a significant increase in regulatory scrutiny [3][4]. - Among the 13 companies, 8 have already been delisted, with the first being Zhuolang Technology in March and the latest being Zitian Technology in October [4]. Group 2: Role of Brokerage Investment Banks - The article emphasizes the complex responsibilities of brokerage investment banks, noting that many of them issued "no objection" or "no issues found" reports during the supervision period for companies later confirmed to have committed fraud [1][5]. - Notably, only Guorong Securities issued a risk warning for Jiuyou Co., while most other involved investment banks failed to identify issues during their oversight [7][8]. Group 3: Case Studies of Fraudulent Companies - ST Dongtong, involved in financial fraud from 2019 to 2022, had First Capital as its sponsor, which was implicated in the fraudulent issuance of shares [5]. - Guangdao Digital, under the sponsorship of Wukuang Securities, inflated its revenue by 1.465 billion yuan through fraudulent contracts and invoices from 2018 to mid-2024 [5][6]. Group 4: Changes in Oversight Practices - The article notes that some investment banks frequently changed during the fraud periods, such as Gaohong Data, which switched its sponsoring banks multiple times, indicating a lack of consistent oversight [6][7]. - Investment banks are reportedly increasing their diligence in due diligence processes, especially during the continuous supervision phase, which had previously received less attention [10].

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) is intensifying its crackdown on violations by intermediary institutions, particularly accounting firms, to prevent failures in their "gatekeeper" roles in the capital market [1][3][4]. Summary by Sections Administrative Penalties - In the first half of 2025, the CSRC imposed 25 administrative penalties on 18 securities intermediary institutions, totaling fines of 208.21 million yuan, marking increases of 127%, 175%, and 106% compared to the same period in 2024 [2][4]. - Among the penalized institutions, 21 were accounting firms, accounting for 84% of the total penalties, with the highest number of penalties against Da Xin Accounting Firm and the highest fine against Tianheng Accounting Firm [1][6]. Industry Challenges - The increase in penalties reflects ongoing issues within intermediary institutions, including survival pressures, fierce competition, and collusion with clients for profit [4][5]. - The lack of diligence and professionalism among intermediaries has led to a rise in cases of negligence, with 95 cases reported in 2024, continuing a three-year upward trend [4][6]. Regulatory Focus - The CSRC emphasizes the importance of intermediary institutions in maintaining market integrity and has committed to holding them accountable for any failures in their duties [3][8]. - Experts suggest that maintaining the independence of accounting firms is crucial for effective auditing and compliance with legal standards [8][9]. Recommendations for Improvement - There is a call for reforms in the audit engagement system, including direct appointments of auditors for companies with a history of financial fraud and shortening mandatory rotation periods for auditors [9][10]. - The use of technology in auditing, such as AI and blockchain, is recommended to enhance audit quality and efficiency [10]. Conclusion - The CSRC's stringent measures and the industry's response highlight the critical need for improved accountability and quality in the auditing process to safeguard the interests of investors and the integrity of the capital market [1][3][10].