Core Viewpoint - The case of a senior sponsor representative, Du Pengfei, facing severe legal consequences for "sudden shareholding" in the IPO project of Zhenhua New Materials has shocked the investment banking community, highlighting the stringent regulatory environment and the serious implications of corruption in the industry [1][2]. Group 1: Case Details - Du Pengfei, a senior executive at a leading brokerage, has been prosecuted for "bribery" related to his involvement in Zhenhua New Materials' IPO, with the prosecution suggesting a sentence of 10 to 11 years despite the involved amount being 4.1 million yuan, of which he personally received about 2 million yuan [1][2]. - The case is notable not only for its severity but also for the circumstances surrounding it, where the issuer, Zhenhua New Materials, actively sought Du's involvement after facing difficulties in fundraising [3][4]. - Zhenhua New Materials initially aimed to raise up to 800 million yuan but only managed to secure 513 million yuan due to insufficient participation from existing shareholders [3][4]. Group 2: Investment Dynamics - Du Pengfei was approached by Zhenhua New Materials to participate in a private placement through a familiar individual, Liu Fei, who ultimately invested 1.5 million yuan on Du's behalf, with the shares registered under an existing shareholder's name [5][6]. - The stock price of Zhenhua New Materials surged post-IPO, reaching a high of 80 yuan per share, leading to significant profits from the investment, totaling 4.1 million yuan, with Du receiving approximately 2 million yuan [6][7]. Group 3: Legal and Regulatory Implications - The prosecution's classification of Du's actions as "bribery" stems from the nature of his role as a sponsor representative, where leveraging his position for personal gain is deemed a violation of legal and ethical standards [7]. - The case reflects a growing trend of increased penalties for financial misconduct in the industry, moving from administrative sanctions to criminal accountability as part of a broader anti-corruption effort [7].

在监管全面从严的当下，一则关于资深保荐代表人因"突击入股"面临重刑的消息，让整个投行圈颇感震 惊。 发行人"主动邀约"与代持操盘 这起案件之所以引发广泛讨论，除了量刑之重外，其案发缘由也颇具戏剧性和警示意义。通常观念中， 突击入股多为保代利用信息优势主动寻租，但在杜鹏飞案中，却出现了发行人"主动求援"的情节。 12月9日，资本市场传来消息，某头部券商投资银行业务管理委员会执行总经理、保荐代表人杜鹏飞， 因在振华新材IPO项目中涉嫌突击入股，被检方以"受贿罪"提起公诉。 令人咋舌的是，尽管涉案金额为410万元，杜鹏飞个人分得约200万元，但检方建议的量刑却高达10至11 年。此外，这起案件并非简单的贪腐，其背后交织着发行人融资受挫后的"主动邀约"、保代利用熟人代 持的隐秘操作，以及司法机关对证券从业人员"交易型受贿"的严厉打击。 资深保代身陷囹圄 一审建议量刑超10年 12月9日，有关某头部券商原保荐代表人杜鹏飞突击入股被判刑的消息在资本市场广泛流传，引发了业 内的强烈关注。有知情人士对此表示，该消息基本属实。据悉，突击入股的对象正是科创板上市公司振 华新材。 据公开消息，该案件已于2025年10月下旬在一审法 ...

Core Viewpoint - A senior sponsor representative from a leading brokerage firm, Du Pengfei, faces severe legal consequences for allegedly engaging in "sudden shareholding" during the IPO project of Zhenhua New Materials, with the prosecution suggesting a prison sentence of 10 to 11 years for the crime of bribery, despite the involved amount being 4.1 million yuan [1][2][6]. Group 1: Case Details - Du Pengfei was the executive general manager of the investment banking business management committee at a top brokerage firm and had a notable career, having participated in several significant capital operation projects, including the IPOs of Zhenhua New Materials and others [2][3]. - The case has been widely discussed due to its dramatic nature, where the issuer, Zhenhua New Materials, allegedly initiated the request for Du to participate in a financing round through a familiar shareholder, leading to a hidden operation involving shareholding [4][5]. - The prosecution's recommendation for a heavy sentence reflects a clear signal of strict punishment for such actions, indicating a shift towards more severe legal repercussions for financial misconduct in the industry [2][6]. Group 2: Legal Implications - The prosecution's classification of Du's actions as "bribery" stems from the nature of the sponsor's role, which combines labor and official duties, allowing for the exploitation of position for personal gain [6][7]. - The case highlights a growing trend in the industry where penalties for financial misconduct are becoming increasingly severe, moving from administrative penalties to criminal accountability [7].

Core Viewpoint - A senior underwriter from a leading brokerage firm, Du Pengfei, faces severe legal consequences for allegedly engaging in "sudden shareholding" during the IPO project of Zhenhua New Materials, with the prosecution suggesting a prison sentence of 10 to 11 years for bribery, despite the involved amount being 4.1 million yuan [1][2]. Group 1: Case Details - Du Pengfei, the former executive general manager of the investment banking business management committee at a top brokerage, was involved in the IPO of Zhenhua New Materials, which successfully listed on the Sci-Tech Innovation Board in September 2021 [2][3]. - The case has drawn significant attention due to the heavy sentencing recommendation and the complex circumstances surrounding the alleged bribery, including the issuer's proactive solicitation for assistance [4][5]. - The prosecution's case is based on the assertion that Du Pengfei utilized his position to gain economic benefits, which constitutes "transaction-type bribery" under Chinese law [7]. Group 2: Financial Implications - The total amount involved in the case is reported to be 4.1 million yuan, with Du Pengfei personally receiving approximately 2 million yuan from the investment [1][5]. - Following Zhenhua New Materials' IPO, the stock price surged, reaching as high as 80 yuan per share, resulting in substantial profits from the investment made through a third party [5]. Group 3: Regulatory Context - The case highlights a growing trend of stricter penalties in the financial sector, with an increasing number of criminal prosecutions for similar offenses in recent years, contrasting with earlier cases that primarily resulted in administrative penalties [8]. - The Securities Law explicitly prohibits securities practitioners from holding or trading stocks directly or indirectly, emphasizing the need for integrity and diligence in their duties [7].

Core Viewpoint - The case discusses the complexities of determining the amount of bribery when a public official returns a gift but receives cash in exchange, highlighting different interpretations of the actions involved [1][2][3]. Group 1: Case Details - Qin, the deputy general manager of a state-owned real estate company, accepted a luxury bag worth 230,000 yuan from Zhao, the representative of an advertising company, in exchange for assistance in securing a project [1][2]. - After using the bag for over a year, Qin returned it to Zhao in December 2019, stating he no longer wanted it and hoped for more cash in return [1][3]. - Zhao subsequently gave Qin a total of 400,000 yuan in cash in January 2020, leading to the investigation in February 2023 [1][2]. Group 2: Different Perspectives on Bribery - The first viewpoint suggests that since Qin returned the bag before the investigation, he did not commit bribery, and the amount of bribery is only the 400,000 yuan received [2][3]. - The second viewpoint argues that the initial acceptance of the bag constituted bribery, and the return of the bag does not affect the total amount, which would be 630,000 yuan (230,000 yuan for the bag plus 400,000 yuan in cash) [2][3]. - The third viewpoint, which is supported by the author, states that the initial acceptance of the bag constituted bribery (230,000 yuan), and the subsequent cash received (400,000 yuan) should be adjusted by the market value of the returned bag (200,000 yuan), leading to a total of 430,000 yuan in bribery [3][4]. Group 3: Legal Interpretation - The legal framework indicates that returning a bribe does not negate the act of bribery if the return is not timely or is done to conceal the crime [4][5]. - The distinction between returning a bribe and engaging in a transaction for more cash is emphasized, with the latter being classified as transactional bribery [6][7]. - The final determination of the bribery amount is based on the market value of the returned item and the cash received, leading to a calculated total of 430,000 yuan [7].