因爱康科技2019—2023年信披存在重大遗漏、虚假记载，2024年部分信披存在虚假记载、未及时披露情 形，浙江证监局决定对公司责令改正，给予警告，并处以1200万元的罚款；对包括时任董事长、实际控 制人邹承慧在内的5名责任人给予警告，并共处以2230万元的罚款。 实际上，年内已有多家已退市公司收到证监部门《行政处罚决定书》或《行政处罚事先告知书》。此 外，也不乏退市后被移送公安机关追究刑事责任、被起诉索赔的案例。 中经记者 孙汝祥 夏欣 北京报道 业内专家对《中国经营报》记者表示，对存在违法行为的退市公司及相关责任方，进行全链条立体化追 责，使得"退市不免责"的原则不断得以彰显。 "退市不免责"又增一案例。11月28日，浙江证监局集中公布对已退市公司爱康科技及5名责任人的行政 处罚决定。 爱康科技退市后遭罚 浙江证监局11月28日公布的《行政处罚决定书》显示，爱康科技2019—2023年信息披露存在重大遗漏、 虚假记载；2024年部分信息披露存在虚假记载、未及时披露情形。 其中，爱康科技未按规定披露非经营性资金占用情况，未按规定披露关联担保，2021—2023年年报存在 重大遗漏；通过少计借款费用方式虚增利 ...

Group 1 - Four delisted companies have been penalized by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) within a month, with total fines amounting to 85.6 million yuan [1][2][3] - Qingdao Zhongcheng was fined 7.5 million yuan for false reporting and failure to disclose significant litigation matters, with additional fines of 13.1 million yuan imposed on eight responsible individuals [2][3] - Pan Hai Holdings faced penalties due to breaches in financing contracts, with unpaid debts amounting to 5.943 billion yuan in 2022 and 2.6 billion yuan in 2023, which were not disclosed in a timely manner [3][4] Group 2 - Jiangsu Sunshine and Changjiang Health are also facing penalties, with proposed fines of 3.3 million yuan and 53.3 million yuan respectively for failing to disclose related party transactions and significant guarantees [1][4] - Jiangsu Sunshine's violations include not disclosing non-operating fund occupation, while Changjiang Health is accused of failing to disclose major guarantees and related party fund occupation [4][5] - Qianshan Pharmaceutical's chairman and general manager received a two-year prison sentence for violations related to information disclosure and fund misappropriation, highlighting the criminal consequences for serious infractions [5][6] Group 3 - The regulatory environment emphasizes that delisting does not equate to immunity from penalties, as a comprehensive accountability system is being implemented [1][6] - Legal experts note that the enforcement actions target not only the companies but also key individuals, major shareholders, and intermediaries involved in fraudulent activities [6][7] - The approach aims to increase the cost of illegal activities and deter key decision-makers from engaging in misconduct [6][7]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights that companies that have been delisted are still subject to regulatory scrutiny and accountability for past violations, indicating that delisting does not exempt them from legal responsibilities [1] Regulatory Actions - In the past week, three delisted companies and their related parties have faced regulatory actions, including being investigated or fined, due to alleged illegal activities during their listing period [1] - Year-to-date, multiple companies, including Yili Clean Energy, Delisted Longyu, Taihe Group, and Dongxu Optoelectronics, have been held accountable post-delisting, with fines exceeding 100 million yuan for Yili Clean Energy and Dongxu Optoelectronics [1] Enforcement Statistics - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has investigated over 70 delisted companies for illegal activities and has referred 33 cases for suspected information disclosure crimes [1] Accountability Framework - Tianshuan, Dean of the National Institute of Financial Research at Tsinghua University, emphasizes a comprehensive accountability system targeting "sick" delisted companies and their responsible parties, aimed at enhancing compliance awareness and investor confidence [1] - Regulatory bodies have significantly intensified their enforcement actions against delisted companies and responsible individuals, ensuring thorough coverage of administrative supervision [1] Legal Consequences - The article notes that alongside administrative penalties, criminal accountability and civil compensation are also being pursued, which greatly increases the cost of illegal activities for companies [1]

Core Viewpoint - The concept of "delisting does not exempt from liability" has become a regulatory norm in the capital market, indicating that companies and related parties will continue to be held accountable for violations even after delisting [1][4]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - Three delisted companies and their related parties have recently faced regulatory actions, including investigations and penalties, highlighting ongoing accountability in the market [1][2]. - China Zhongqi Investment Co., Ltd. announced that its controlling shareholder, Zhongqi Group, received a notice of investigation from the CSRC for suspected information disclosure violations [2]. - Jiangsu Sunshine, a delisted company, received a notice of administrative penalty for failing to disclose significant events related to a related party transaction, with proposed fines totaling 3.3 million yuan [3]. Group 2: Trends in Delisting Accountability - There has been a notable increase in regulatory actions against delisted companies, with over 70 companies investigated for violations and 33 cases referred for suspected criminal information disclosure [4]. - The regulatory framework aims to enhance compliance awareness among market participants and boost investor confidence, contributing to the high-quality development of the capital market [4]. Group 3: Legal Mechanisms and Enforcement - The introduction of representative litigation mechanisms for delisted companies marks a significant advancement in civil compensation, reducing the cost of investor rights protection and increasing litigation efficiency [6]. - The CSRC has intensified its crackdown on financial fraud, with 13 companies facing mandatory delisting this year due to severe violations, particularly financial misconduct [7]. - Regulatory authorities are focusing on key individuals such as actual controllers and major shareholders to ensure accountability and prevent failures in oversight by intermediaries [7].

Core Viewpoint - The concept of "delisting does not exempt from liability" has become a regulatory norm in the capital market, indicating that companies and related parties will continue to face accountability for illegal activities even after delisting [1][5]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - Recently, three delisted companies and their related parties have faced regulatory actions, including investigations and fines, due to violations during their listing period [1][2]. - China Zhongqi Investment Co., Ltd. announced that its controlling shareholder received a notice of investigation from the CSRC for suspected information disclosure violations [3]. - Jiangsu Sunshine, another delisted company, received a notice of administrative penalty for failing to disclose significant events related to a related party transaction, with a proposed fine of 3.3 million yuan [4]. Group 2: Increasing Accountability - The trend of holding delisted companies accountable has become common, with several companies like Yili Clean Energy and Taihe Group also facing penalties exceeding 100 million yuan this year [6]. - The CSRC has investigated over 70 delisted companies for illegal activities and has referred 33 cases for suspected criminal information disclosure violations [7]. Group 3: Legal Mechanisms and Market Integrity - The introduction of a representative litigation mechanism for delisted companies marks a significant breakthrough in civil compensation, reducing the cost of investor rights protection and increasing litigation efficiency [8]. - The CSRC has intensified its crackdown on financial fraud, with 13 companies facing mandatory delisting this year due to serious violations, particularly financial fraud [10][11]. - Regulatory bodies are focusing on key individuals such as actual controllers and major shareholders to ensure accountability and prevent failures in oversight by intermediaries [11].

Group 1 - The principle of "delisting does not exempt from liability" is reaffirmed, indicating that delisting is a starting point for accountability rather than an end point [1][2][3] - Regulatory bodies have significantly increased the accountability measures against delisted companies and their executives, with notable fines imposed on companies like Huatie Co. and Taihe Group [2][3] - A comprehensive accountability system has been established, targeting not only the delisted companies but also related parties, including intermediaries involved in fraudulent activities [4][5] Group 2 - The administrative penalties are designed to provide immediate deterrence, while criminal accountability serves as a high-pressure deterrent, and civil compensation, particularly through representative lawsuits, offers investor relief [5][6] - The introduction of representative lawsuits for investors marks a significant breakthrough in investor protection mechanisms, allowing for collective claims against delisted companies and their affiliates [6][7] - Intermediaries are now also being held accountable, as seen in the case of Geer Software, where they are pursuing compensation from parties involved in fraudulent activities [7] Group 3 - Continuous improvement of the accountability system is necessary, with suggestions for enhancing investor protection and streamlining the processes for civil and criminal accountability [8][9] - The need for clearer standards regarding the accountability of third parties involved in fraud is emphasized, along with the importance of strengthening recovery efforts from responsible parties [9][10] - Recommendations include improving data sharing among regulatory bodies and enhancing the efficiency of case handling, as well as exploring diversified dispute resolution mechanisms to lower the costs for small investors [10][11]

Core Viewpoint - The principle of "delisting does not exempt from liability" is being reinforced, indicating a shift towards a comprehensive accountability system for delisted companies and related parties [1][2][4]. Regulatory Actions - In August, Huatie Co. and Taihe Group received fines of 24.15 million yuan and 17.4 million yuan respectively for violations, highlighting the increased enforcement against delisted companies [1][2]. - The regulatory bodies are pursuing a full-chain accountability system, enhancing compliance awareness and investor confidence, which is crucial for the high-quality development of the capital market [2][4]. Legal Framework - The establishment of a three-dimensional accountability system involving administrative penalties, civil liability, and criminal prosecution is being emphasized, with significant penalties being imposed on companies and their executives [2][5]. - The Supreme Court and the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) have issued guidelines to ensure strict enforcement against fraudulent activities, facilitating seamless connections between administrative and criminal responsibilities [5][6]. Investor Protection - The introduction of representative litigation mechanisms for investors marks a significant breakthrough in protecting investor rights, allowing for collective claims against delisted companies [6][10]. - The CSRC's actions against companies like Meishang Ecology, which was sent for criminal prosecution post-delisting, demonstrate the commitment to investor protection and accountability [5][6]. Accountability of Intermediaries - Intermediaries involved in fraudulent activities are also being held accountable, as seen in the case of Geler Software, which faced claims for 372 million yuan from three intermediary firms [7][10]. - The legal responsibilities of intermediaries are being clarified, expanding the scope of accountability within the financial ecosystem [7][10]. Continuous Improvement - There is an ongoing need to enhance the full-chain accountability system, particularly in protecting investor rights and improving the efficiency of legal processes [8][11]. - Suggestions include optimizing data sharing among regulatory bodies and establishing compensation funds to ensure timely restitution for investors [10][11].