Workflow
先行赔付基金
icon
Search documents
保荐项目定增期间严重财务造假募资22亿元 第一创业毫无察觉客观上协助欺诈发行
Xin Lang Zheng Quan· 2025-09-15 10:31
Core Viewpoint - *ST Dongtong faces a potential fine of 229 million yuan from the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) due to false reporting in its financial statements from 2019 to 2022 and fraudulent issuance in its 2022 private placement [1][2][3] Group 1: Financial Misconduct - From 2019 to 2022, *ST Dongtong inflated its revenue by 61.45 million yuan, 84.85 million yuan, 125.51 million yuan, and 160.53 million yuan, representing 12.29%, 13.25%, 14.54%, and 17.68% of the reported revenue for those years respectively [2] - The inflated profits for the same period were 52.23 million yuan, 58.77 million yuan, 79.48 million yuan, and 123.69 million yuan, accounting for 34.11%, 22.72%, 30.35%, and 219.43% of the reported profit totals [2][3] Group 2: Role of First Capital - First Capital, the underwriter for *ST Dongtong's 2022 private placement, failed to detect the severe financial fraud during the reporting period, which raises questions about its due diligence [3][5] - First Capital's commitment in the underwriting document stated that it had sufficient reason to believe that the issuer's application documents and disclosures were free from false statements or omissions [3][5] Group 3: Implications of Fraudulent Activities - The fraudulent activities included the early recognition of over 100 million yuan in revenue by Taice Technology, which was acquired by *ST Dongtong at a significant premium [1][6] - Following the completion of performance commitments in 2021, Taice Technology's revenue plummeted by 87.38% in 2022, indicating a drastic change in financial performance [6][8] Group 4: Regulatory and Market Reactions - The CSRC has indicated that *ST Dongtong's fraudulent disclosures could lead to a forced delisting due to continuous financial misconduct [1][3] - The establishment of a compensation fund by First Capital could help restore investor confidence and mitigate reputational damage in light of the ongoing investigations [13]
对近200亿元财务造假、欺诈发行竟没有察觉甚至“打保票” 国新证券是否勤勉尽责待考
Xin Lang Zheng Quan· 2025-08-12 10:20
Core Viewpoint - *ST Gaohong faces significant risks of forced delisting due to nearly 20 billion yuan in financial fraud and fraudulent issuance, as indicated by the China Securities Regulatory Commission's (CSRC) administrative penalty notice [1][4][5] Group 1: Financial Fraud Details - From 2015 to 2023, *ST Gaohong inflated its revenue by a total of 198.76 billion yuan through various fraudulent activities, including fictitious trade operations [3][12] - The inflated profits over the same period amounted to 76.23 million yuan, with the highest annual inflation occurring in 2019, where approximately 50% of the revenue was fabricated [3][13] - The fraudulent activities were primarily facilitated by the company's major stakeholders, including Jiang Qing and his spouse, who controlled key suppliers and customers [12][13] Group 2: Role of Guoxin Securities - Guoxin Securities, as the sponsor and independent financial advisor for *ST Gaohong's 2020 private placement, failed to detect the extensive financial fraud over seven years, during which the fraud amount reached 187.47 billion yuan, accounting for 94.32% of the total fraud [2][6] - Despite having a legal obligation to conduct thorough due diligence, Guoxin Securities did not identify any anomalies in *ST Gaohong's financial reports or related documents [5][11] - The lack of oversight by Guoxin Securities during the critical years of 2015-2021 raises questions about their diligence and responsibility in safeguarding investor interests [11][12] Group 3: Regulatory Actions and Consequences - The CSRC plans to impose penalties exceeding 160 million yuan on *ST Gaohong and related parties, including a fine of 135 million yuan for the company [4][5] - The potential for criminal charges against key individuals involved in the fraud is also being considered by the CSRC [4][5] - Guoxin Securities has not yet faced any formal investigation or penalties, but the ongoing scrutiny may lead to future accountability [5][12]