财务造假是侵蚀资本市场根基的毒瘤，一直是监管层重点打击对象。近日，证监会对某公司（已退市） 涉嫌信息披露违法违规行为依法作出行政处罚事先告知。值得关注的是，此次处罚除了拟对上市公司及 实际控制人、相关董监高等造假责任人依法严惩外，还拟对两名配合造假的主体一并严肃追责，这是首 次对配合造假方同步追责处罚的案例。 当前，监管部门对上市公司财务造假始终保持"零容忍"态势，财务造假和虚假信息披露严重侵蚀市场诚 信基础，严重损害投资者合法权益。近年来，证券监管部门聚焦重点领域和市场关切，通过严厉打击虚 构业务、滥用会计政策等信息披露违法行为，做到"长牙带刺"、有棱有角，"惩防治"并举，努力塑造良 好市场生态。但高压态势之下，仍有人为了利益充当财务造假者帮凶，采取第三方主体配合、串通上市 公司的方式实施财务造假，参与造假的双方乃至多方形成利益链、"生态圈"，扰乱了市场秩序，严重破 坏资本市场诚信环境。 预防上市公司财务造假需要"追首恶"与"打帮凶"并举，严惩配合财务造假者的"帮凶"。除了严厉打击发 行人、上市公司信息披露违法主体外，还需要紧盯公司实际控制人、控股股东、董监高等"关键少数"， 严防保荐、审计、法律等中介机构 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the systemic and covert threats posed by third-party involvement in financial fraud, emphasizing the need for improved legislation and regulatory mechanisms to establish clear accountability for these entities [1][2]. Group 1: Current Legal Framework and Challenges - The existing Securities Law lacks clarity in defining the responsibilities of external parties involved in aiding fraud, leading to a lack of legal precedents for holding suppliers and customers accountable [2][3]. - Current penalties primarily target listed companies and intermediaries, while the direct participants in fraud, such as upstream and downstream companies, remain largely unpunished, resulting in a diluted accountability for third parties [2][3]. - The absence of clear legal provisions for third-party involvement in systemic fraud creates challenges in establishing criminal liability, as existing laws do not explicitly include non-listed companies in the scope of punishment [3][4]. Group 2: Recommendations for Improvement - Experts suggest the need to enhance the third-party responsibility system by standardizing accountability criteria across relevant laws, ensuring a scientifically sound and reasonable responsibility framework [6][7]. - There is a call for the establishment of a collaborative governance system that integrates administrative, criminal, and civil measures, allowing for more effective enforcement against non-listed companies involved in fraud [9]. - The implementation of comprehensive and penetrating regulatory measures is recommended, utilizing digital tools for real-time monitoring of financial activities to enhance oversight capabilities [10].