Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Association is revising the "Management Measures for the Reputation Information of the Securities Industry," marking the first adjustment since its implementation in 2022. The revisions focus on two main areas: including bribery that interferes with regulatory enforcement in the category of unlawful dishonesty, and providing a waiver channel for securities firms to mitigate investor losses through a proactive compensation mechanism [1][2]. Group 1: Proactive Compensation Mechanism - The revised draft specifies that if an issuer causes losses to investors due to fraudulent issuance or false statements, the relevant securities company can apply to the China Securities Association for exemption from recording related administrative penalty information in the reputation information database if they proactively reach a compensation agreement with the affected investors [1]. - This mechanism reflects the regulatory authority's encouragement of proactive compensation by securities firms, linking the initiative to reputation evaluation, which compels firms to be more prudent in due diligence, material verification, and ongoing supervision [1]. - The design of this system aims to optimize investor relief efficiency and shorten the rights protection cycle, allowing investors to receive compensation more quickly and avoid additional losses from lengthy litigation processes [1]. Group 2: Inclusion of Bribery in Dishonesty Category - The revisions implement the China Securities Regulatory Commission's directive to "investigate both bribery and receiving bribes together," including information on administrative penalties and disciplinary actions for interference with regulatory enforcement through improper means such as bribery [2]. - Even if the circumstances are minor and no penalties are imposed, information recognized by disciplinary inspection or administrative supervision agencies will also be included in the category of unlawful dishonesty [2]. - By incorporating bribery interference into reputation management, involved institutions and individuals will face joint penalties across the industry, which serves as a significant measure for the regulatory authority to purify the market ecosystem and maintain enforcement authority [2].

【导读】中证协 修订 《证券行业执业声誉信息管理办法》 并征求意见 见习记者 舍梨 近日，记者从券商人士处获悉，中国证券业协会（以下简称 " 中证协 " ）对《证券行业执业 声誉信息管理办法》（以下简称《管理办法》）进行了修订，目前正在征求行业意见。 据悉，《管理办法》自2022年发布实施以来，为行业构建市场化的声誉约束机制奠定了制度 基础，本次修订是该办法运行三年后的首次调整。 此次修订主要有三大变化 ： 一是，明确以贿赂等手段干扰监管执法将被纳入违法失信范畴； 二是鼓励券商主动赔偿欺诈发行等导致的投资者损失，券商以先行赔付积极减轻或消除投资 者损害的，可免于记入执业声誉信息库；三是完善诚信信息来源，将来源于证监会诚信档案 数据库的信息调整为会员自行报送。 贿赂等行为被纳入违法失信 范畴 从修订内容来看，贯彻落实证监会关于坚持受贿行贿一起查的工作部署， 中证协 进一步明确 有关违法失信信息：以贿赂等不正当手段干扰中国证监会及其派出机构监管执法工作，被予 以行政处罚、纪律处分，或者因情节较轻、未受到处罚处理，但被纪律检查或行政监察机构 认定的信息，被纳入违法失信范畴。 业内人士认为，将行贿干扰监管纳入执业声誉 ...

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Association is revising the "Securities Industry Practitioner Reputation Information Management Measures" to enhance regulatory compliance and management practices [1] Group 1: Regulatory Changes - The revised version clarifies the types of illegal and dishonest information that will be recorded, including cases of bribery that interfere with the China Securities Regulatory Commission's enforcement actions [1] - It specifies that administrative penalties or disciplinary actions will be recorded, as well as cases where individuals are not penalized but are identified by disciplinary inspection or administrative supervision [1] Group 2: Compensation Mechanism - The revision introduces a proactive compensation mechanism, allowing for the exclusion of penalty information from the practitioner reputation database if the entity actively reduces or eliminates investor harm through this mechanism [1]

Core Viewpoint - The introduction of a "dual pre-compensation" mechanism in Beijing's Nanluoguxiang aims to enhance consumer confidence and streamline the resolution of consumption disputes, transforming the traditional post-incident accountability into a proactive approach that prioritizes consumer rights and business integrity [2][16]. Group 1: Mechanism Implementation - The "dual pre-compensation" mechanism allows merchants to be the first responsible party for refunds, with the merchant required to refund customers unconditionally. If the merchant fails to resolve the issue, the merchants' association will step in to provide compensation [4][10]. - This mechanism has led to a significant reduction in consumer complaints, with Nanluoguxiang reporting "zero complaints" during the recent May Day holiday, despite receiving over 847,000 visitors [2][4]. Group 2: Broader Adoption and Variations - Other regions such as Henan, Shanghai, and Hainan have also implemented similar pre-compensation mechanisms, indicating a growing trend across China to enhance consumer protection and streamline dispute resolution [10][12]. - In cities like Zibo, a fund has been established to support the pre-compensation mechanism, with over 1,000 disputes resolved and more than 300,000 yuan in economic losses recovered for consumers [12][14]. Group 3: Challenges and Considerations - The implementation of these mechanisms faces challenges such as ensuring sustainable funding and addressing malicious claims. Experts suggest that a national framework may be necessary to standardize these practices and ensure fairness and efficiency [15][16]. - The success of the pre-compensation mechanism relies on effective evidence collection and responsibility tracing, which are crucial for maintaining consumer trust and optimizing the overall consumption environment [15][16].

Core Viewpoint - *ST Guangdao is facing severe regulatory penalties due to significant financial fraud, which may lead to its forced delisting from the Beijing Stock Exchange due to violations of major misconduct regulations [1][8]. Financial Fraud Scale and Methods - The company engaged in systematic fraud from 2018 to mid-2024, inflating revenue by a total of 14.65 billion yuan, with inflated revenue ratios exceeding 85% across all periods [2][5]. - The inflated operating costs amounted to 7.54 billion yuan, with similar high ratios of over 83% [2][5]. - The fraud involved falsifying a complete set of documents, including purchase and sales contracts, invoices, and delivery notes [2][3]. Regulatory Penalties - The company faces a maximum fine of 10 million yuan, while the actual controller, Jin Wenming, is fined 15 million yuan and banned for life from the securities market [6][7]. - The penalties cover all levels of responsibility, from decision-makers to execution layers, emphasizing the end of the "decorative" role of independent directors [7]. Delisting Mechanism - The company is at risk of dual delisting due to financial misconduct and a significant violation of listing rules, marking it as the first major misconduct delisting case on the Beijing Stock Exchange [8][9]. Investor Protection - A compensation fund of 220 million yuan has been established to cover losses incurred by eligible investors due to false statements, reflecting a proactive approach by the underwriting institution [10]. - This mechanism aims to address the challenges of lengthy litigation and evidence collection for investors [10]. Broader Implications - The case establishes a comprehensive accountability system, integrating administrative penalties, criminal accountability, civil compensation, and forced delisting, signaling a shift towards a "zero tolerance" policy in regulatory enforcement [11]. - The case serves as a benchmark for the health of the capital market, indicating that the costs of financial fraud will outweigh the benefits, thereby promoting compliance and internal control [13][14].