新华社电 打着"维权"的幌子，干着敲诈的勾当，事后还要签订"法律服务"合同……江苏宿迁一名假律 师专门敲诈酒企，于近日获刑十一年六个月，并处罚金人民币三十万元。 记者采访了解到，此案揭开"维权"外衣下的敲诈犯罪，对当地营商环境起到"一扫阴霾"的作用。本案 中，检察机关既斩黑手，也治"隐患"：今年上半年，宿迁民营酒企因商标侵权被诉案件同比减少近 30%。 一个人凭啥"拿捏"一个行业？案件暴露的问题，令人深思。 一夜之间， 他们都收到"诉前和解告知书" 时间回溯到2023年夏，宿迁一小镇。数十家小酒企老板几乎同时收到一份"诉前和解告知书"，上面盖着 一家知识产权服务中心的公章，称其酒企存在侵权行为。"告知书"上还附有侵权的商标或包装的照片。 接到"告知书"，老沈心情忐忑，他的小酒企过去确有此类问题，于是主动去电，与"告知书"上那家知识 产权服务中心的工作人员沟通。 双方一坐下来，对方抛出"方案"：要么与其和解，支付3.5万元"和解费"；要么将线索移交被侵权酒 企，由被侵权酒企起诉赔偿。 当时，老沈的酒企刚接了40万元定制酒订单，一旦涉诉，原材料、生产线、工人工资全得打水漂。最 终，老沈同意支付3.5万元"平事"。 ...

"就剐蹭了一下，居然要我赔10万？" 前不久，北京市公安局海淀分局清河派出所接到事主赵女士的报警称被人设局"酒驾"敲诈了93000元。 接警后，民警迅速展开调查，向赵女士了解事情的来龙去脉。据赵女士讲述，她与嫌疑人刘某某通过网 络相识，刘某某凭借热情周到的表现获取赵女士的信任，并邀请赵女士在线下见面。聊天时，赵女士无 意间提及自己有辆名牌轿车，刘某某变得更加热情，并迅速联系好友郜某某陪同赵女士吃饭。 饭桌上，二人十分"热情"地劝说赵女士喝酒，碍于情面，赵女士最终喝了一瓶啤酒。饭局结束后，赵女 士准备叫代驾，却被刘某某拦下："这儿离酒店又不远，你才喝了一瓶啤酒，肯定没事。"心存侥幸的赵 女士就这样发动了汽车，她不知道的是，这一踩油门，正好踩进了对方精心布下的圈套里。 2 酒后剐蹭，10万可私了 近日 北京海淀警方经过细致侦查、精准出击 打掉一个做局"碰瓷"的敲诈勒索团伙 成功抓获犯罪嫌疑人5名 1 线下见面，劝酒藏猫腻 为了让赵女士相信，刘某某提出帮赵女士一起凑这10万元，还主动承担了7000元。在几人的威胁与劝说 下，赵女士只好妥协，无奈支付了剩下的93000元。 3 抽丝剥茧，将团伙一网打尽 赵女士开车出去 ...

Group 1 - The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court sentenced members of the Bai family crime group, with five defendants receiving the death penalty and others receiving varying sentences, including life imprisonment and long-term imprisonment [1][2] - The Bai family crime group, led by Bai Suocheng and Bai Yingcang, was involved in various criminal activities, including telecom fraud, murder, and drug trafficking, with financial damages exceeding 29 billion yuan [2] - The court found that the defendants committed multiple crimes, including fraud, intentional homicide, and organized prostitution, reflecting the severity of their actions and the impact on society [2] Group 2 - The trial was attended by representatives from the National People's Congress, members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, family members of the victims, and the public [3]

Core Viewpoint - The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court has publicly pronounced the verdict on the Bai family criminal group case, highlighting the extensive criminal activities and severe penalties imposed on the key members of the group [1][2]. Group 1: Criminal Activities - The Bai family criminal group, led by Bai Suocheng and other core family members, engaged in various criminal activities including telecommunications fraud, operating casinos, intentional homicide, and drug trafficking, resulting in over 29 billion yuan in illicit funds [2]. - The group utilized their influence in the Kokang region of Myanmar to establish multiple business ventures, such as hotels and technology parks, which served as fronts for their criminal operations [2]. Group 2: Court Verdict - The court sentenced five key defendants, including Bai Suocheng and Bai Yingcang, to death, while two others received death sentences with a two-year reprieve [3]. - Additional defendants received life sentences or varying terms of imprisonment, along with fines and asset confiscation as part of the penalties [3].

Core Viewpoint - The company, Guangda Special Materials, has a robust corporate governance structure and internal control system, ensuring normal operations and steady business progress despite past incidents involving its executives [2][3]. Group 1: Corporate Governance and Management - Guangda Special Materials has a clear governance structure with defined processes for daily operations managed by the executive team, and all board members and senior management are fulfilling their roles normally [2]. - As of the announcement date, there has been no change in the company's control, and the company is unaware of the developments regarding past incidents involving its executives [3]. Group 2: Executive Background and Compensation - Xu Weiming, born in 1968, has been serving as the executive director and general manager of Guangda Steel since April 2003, and currently holds the position of chairman and general manager [3]. - In 2024, Xu Weiming received a pre-tax compensation of 2.1048 million yuan, and as of June 2025, he directly holds 12.65 million shares, accounting for 5.6% of the total share capital [3]. Group 3: Past Incidents - In April 2020, Xu Weiming was involved in a blackmail case where he was extorted for 335,000 yuan by an individual posing as a journalist, claiming to have private secrets about company executives [4]. - The court sentenced the perpetrator to ten years and six months in prison for extortion and ordered the return of the extorted funds to the victims, including Xu Weiming [5]. Group 4: Company Performance - Guangda Special Materials reported significant growth in its 2025 semi-annual report, achieving operating revenue of 2.534 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 34.74%, and a net profit attributable to shareholders of 185 million yuan, up 332.67% [6]. - The company attributed its performance improvement to strong demand in downstream industries, effective product structure optimization, and enhanced profitability through cost reduction and efficiency improvements [6].

Core Viewpoint - The company, Guangda Special Materials, maintains a stable operational status with a well-established corporate governance structure and internal control system, ensuring normal business operations and management by the executive team [2] Company Overview - Guangda Special Materials is a high-tech enterprise focused on high-quality special alloy materials, primarily engaged in the R&D, production, and sales of high-end steel materials and components for advanced equipment [6] - The company was officially listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange's Sci-Tech Innovation Board on February 11, 2020, becoming the first stock from Zhangjiagang on this board [6] Financial Performance - For the first half of 2025, Guangda Special Materials reported significant growth, achieving operating revenue of 2.534 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 34.74% [6] - The net profit attributable to shareholders reached 185 million yuan, reflecting a remarkable year-on-year growth of 332.67% [6] - The net profit after deducting non-recurring gains and losses was 179 million yuan, with an astonishing year-on-year increase of 2139.45% [6] - The company attributes its performance growth to favorable demand in downstream industries, robust production and sales, and optimization of product structure to reduce costs and enhance efficiency [6] Management and Governance - The executive team, including Chairman and General Manager Xu Weiming, is actively fulfilling their roles, and the company's control has not changed as of the announcement date [2][4] - Xu Weiming has been with the company in various leadership roles since 2003 and received a pre-tax remuneration of 2.1048 million yuan in 2024 [4]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal case involving Zhai Xinxin, who was sentenced to 12 years in prison for extortion, which led to the suicide of her ex-husband Su Xiangmao. The case highlights issues of domestic abuse, financial manipulation, and the consequences of coercive relationships [1][28][37]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - On September 19, 2025, the Beijing Haidian District People's Court sentenced Zhai Xinxin to 12 years in prison for extortion and imposed a fine of 100,000 RMB, along with compensation of over 70,000 RMB to the plaintiffs [1][28][38]. - The court found that Zhai Xinxin's actions constituted extortion, as she threatened to report her ex-husband for tax evasion and illegal business practices unless he paid her 10 million RMB and transferred property to her [28][37]. Group 2: Background of the Individuals Involved - Su Xiangmao, the victim, was the founder of WePhone and had a history of financial success, which made him a target for Zhai Xinxin's manipulative tactics [3][24]. - Zhai Xinxin, born in 1986, was perceived as a "good student" and had a stable academic background, which contrasts sharply with her later criminal behavior [11][13][19]. Group 3: Relationship Dynamics - The relationship between Su Xiangmao and Zhai Xinxin began in March 2017, leading to a marriage that lasted only 42 days before Zhai initiated divorce proceedings under threats [36][37]. - Zhai Xinxin's demands included a significant financial settlement and property transfer, which Su Xiangmao could not meet, leading to his tragic decision to take his own life [24][27][37]. Group 4: Aftermath and Public Reaction - Following Su Xiangmao's death, his family accused Zhai Xinxin of fraud and extortion, leading to legal actions against her [29][30]. - The case has drawn significant media attention, raising awareness about the dangers of financial abuse and coercive relationships [3][24][33].

Core Viewpoint - A recent case in Linyi City, Shandong Province, involved a suspect named Zhang who extorted money from multiple small restaurants by falsely claiming to have found foreign objects in their food, leading to a total of over 5000 yuan in extorted amounts [1][19]. Group 1: Incident Overview - Four restaurant owners reported incidents of extortion to the police, claiming a customer demanded high medical compensation after alleging they found glass shards and toothpicks in their takeout orders [2][14]. - The suspect targeted small to medium-sized restaurants, exploiting their fear of negative reviews and reputational damage to extract payments without verifying the claims [14][16]. Group 2: Investigation and Arrest - Police investigation revealed that the complaints shared similar details, indicating they were orchestrated by the same individual, leading to the identification of Zhang as the suspect [15][16]. - Zhang was apprehended on the evening of July 30, and during interrogation, he admitted to fabricating the claims of foreign objects in food to carry out the extortion [17][18]. Group 3: Extortion Methodology - Zhang's method involved injuring himself and creating fake medical documentation to support his claims, which he used to intimidate restaurant owners into paying him off [18]. - He had previously received compensation for a similar incident, which inspired him to pursue this scheme against multiple restaurants [18].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing legal dispute between Ankao Zhidian and its former secretary Huang Jiegen has reached a significant milestone with Huang being convicted of extortion, which he plans to appeal. The case highlights the complexities surrounding allegations of financial misconduct and the challenges of corporate governance in the Chinese market [1][2][3]. Group 1: Background of the Case - The conflict began in August 2022 when Huang questioned the authenticity of Ankao Zhidian's financial reports and refused to sign them, leading to accusations of extortion during negotiations for performance-based stock rewards [1][6][12]. - Huang's allegations of financial fraud were based on discrepancies in the company's reported profits, which he believed were inflated through premature revenue recognition [13][15][16]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - Huang was arrested on July 28, 2023, during a court hearing related to his administrative lawsuit against the regulatory bodies for not investigating the alleged financial fraud [2][3]. - The court's ruling on August 11, 2023, found Huang guilty of extortion, with the sentence expected to be severe, although details remain undisclosed as he intends to appeal [1][4]. Group 3: Financial Allegations - Huang reported that Ankao Zhidian had inflated its profits by 44% in the 2021 semi-annual report and by 64.5% in the annual report, primarily through the early recognition of revenue from a project that had not yet generated actual income [15][16]. - The company’s financial performance has deteriorated significantly, with its stock price dropping by 60% since its peak in November 2021, reflecting a loss of investor confidence [24]. Group 4: Company and Industry Impact - Ankao Zhidian, which specializes in cable connection systems and gas-insulated transmission systems, has faced severe scrutiny and regulatory actions due to the allegations of financial misconduct [12][16]. - The ongoing legal battle and the company's declining stock performance have led to a significant reduction in institutional investor holdings, from 15.3% to 2.1%, indicating a loss of market trust [24].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing legal dispute between the listed company Ankao Zhidian and its former secretary Huang Jiegen has reached a significant milestone, with Huang being convicted of extortion, which he plans to appeal. The case highlights the complexities of corporate governance and financial integrity within the company [1][3]. Group 1: Background of the Dispute - The conflict began in August 2022 when Huang Jiegen questioned the authenticity of Ankao Zhidian's financial reports and refused to sign them, leading to accusations of extortion when he sought stock rewards as per a performance agreement [1][5]. - Huang's apprehension stemmed from concerns about potential retaliation for his insistence on truthful reporting, prompting him to submit a written opinion indicating he could not guarantee the accuracy of the financial statements [8][9]. - The performance agreement stipulated that Huang would receive stock rewards contingent on the company's market value meeting specific targets over three years, alongside commitments to maintain a minimum profit growth [9][10]. Group 2: Financial Misconduct Allegations - Huang raised alarms about potential financial misconduct after noticing discrepancies in the company's profit figures across different versions of financial reports, leading him to suspect that profits were artificially inflated [17][21]. - He reported that the company had prematurely recognized revenue from a project, which he believed had not generated any actual income, resulting in significant profit inflation in the financial statements [19][21]. - Huang filed multiple complaints with the China Securities Regulatory Commission regarding the alleged financial fraud, but the regulatory response was limited, leading to dissatisfaction with the outcomes [22][23]. Group 3: Legal Proceedings and Outcomes - The legal proceedings have been marked by delays and conflicting narratives from both parties, with Huang portraying himself as a whistleblower while the company accused him of premeditated extortion [1][23]. - The court's ruling on Huang's conviction for extortion has raised questions about the nature of his demands, which he argues were legitimate claims for owed compensation rather than illegal extortion [5][26]. - The case reflects broader issues of corporate governance, accountability, and the protection of whistleblowers in the financial sector, with implications for investor confidence in Ankao Zhidian [27][30].