长达6年的"财务魔术" 南京中院的一纸判决，揭开了金通灵连续6年财务造假的真相。令市场震惊的不仅是其造假时间跨度之 长，更在于其造假手段复杂精密。 "这起案件已不是简单的财务注水，而是一套精心设计、包含了虚增与反向虚减的组合操作。"投资机构 代表宋奇峰对《法人》记者直言。 深入分析金通灵的造假手法，可发现其财务舞弊行为呈现出明显的"节奏控制"特征：在2017年、2018 年、2021年和2022年，该公司通过虚构合同、提前确认收入等手段，累计虚增营业收入超过11亿元，虚 增利润总额超过4亿元；在2019年和2020年，该公司则进行反向操作，通过计提大额减值准备、延迟确 认收入等方式，大幅"洗低"利润，其中2019年虚减利润的幅度高达披露利润总额的5774.38%。 转自：北京日报客户端 1月7日，持有金通灵股票的投资者王先生"割肉"离场，自1月6日该公司股票复牌并被实施*ST风险警示 以来，短短两个交易日股价累计跌幅近10%。 2025年12月31日，江苏省南京市中级人民法院（以下简称"南京中院"）对金通灵证券虚假陈述责任纠纷 案作出一审先行判决，判令其向4.33万名投资者赔偿损失共计近7.75亿元。此案波及 ...

因被南通中院裁定受理重整，1月6日开市，金通灵科技集团股份有限公司（以下简称"金通灵公 司"）股票交易被实施退市风险警示，股票简称由"金通灵"变更为"*ST金灵"，成为2026年首批被ST的 个股之一。当日盘前集合竞价阶段，*ST金灵一字跌停，正式开盘后跌幅有所收窄，截至午间收盘跌逾 10%。 但面对累计超11亿元的虚增营收、超4亿元的虚增利润，这份看似不匹配的行政罚单实则是整个立 体化追责体系的基础和前提。 因涉嫌违规信披、欺诈发行，2024年底，金通灵公司及季伟等6人已被移送检察机关审查起诉； 2025年7月，案件进入审判阶段，检察机关确定以欺诈发行股票罪、违规披露重要信息罪分别追究相关 责任方的刑事责任；同年9月末，案件宣判，被告人被处以最高6年有期徒刑，合计被罚没超1340万元。 如今，民事索赔诉讼一审宣判，数亿元的投资者赔偿金额以及相关人员的市场禁入和职业终结，反 映了当前资本市场"长牙带刺"、严惩造假的监管导向。 然而，金通灵公司面对的困境不止于此。2025年最后一天，金通灵公司、光大证券、华西证券、国 海证券纷纷披露重大诉讼进展公告。 根据公告，金通灵公司证券虚假陈述责任纠纷案已一审宣判，4家公 ...

构建财务造假综合惩防体系是净化资本市场生态的基础性工程。 近日证监会召开资本市场财务造假综合惩防体系跨部门工作推进座谈会，围绕进一步加强资本市场财务 造假综合惩防工作进行研究部署。这次座谈会阵势浩大，最高法等13个部门汇聚一堂，共商大计，凸显 各方面的高度重视。 新年伊始，国内资本市场延续强势，此时将财务造假问题拎出来讨论和研究部署，将有助于强化投资者 对市场的信心，提高人们的信任预期。近年来中国金融市场正在发生显著变化，直接融资市场正成为人 们配置金融资产、追求财富增长不可或缺的领域，随着适度宽松货币政策基调的持续，储蓄等收益率处 于临界区间，资本市场投资已是投资者的必选；与风险共舞，不仅考验着中国资本市场的健康发展，也 助推居民树立正确的投资观和风险观；而要让广大投资者安心、放心，通过打击财务造假等举措，将是 基本的安心、稳市工程。 近年来中国在打击资本市场财务造假等行为方面成效显著。权威数据显示，2024年以来，证监会累计查 办财务造假案件159起，做出行政处罚111起，罚没金额81亿元，向公安机构移送涉嫌财务造假犯罪线索 112件，支持金通灵、美尚生态、锦州港等案件受损投资者提起特别代表人诉讼等。这些 ...

备受关注的金通灵证券虚假陈述责任纠纷特别代表人诉讼案迎来一审判决。 2025年12月31日，光大证券披露重大诉讼进展公告，公司牵涉的金通灵证券虚假陈述责任纠纷案一审判决，南京中院判决金 通灵公司向4.33万余名投资者赔偿近7.75亿元损失，并承担相关律师费、案件受理费等。 公告同时提及，对光大证券等其他25名被告承担民事赔偿责任的诉讼请求将继续审理，法院将另行制作裁判文书。鉴于案件 后续审理存在不确定性，光大证券表示暂无法判断该案对公司本期利润或期后利润的影响。 此外，据了解，与金通灵案同步启动的美尚生态案特别代表人诉讼的审判工作，也在有序推进中。两案的推进标志标志着特 别代表人诉讼适用力度持续加大，并从试点探索逐步走向常态化运用。 证监会：特别代表人诉讼制度有力威慑潜在违法行为 证监会有关部门负责人答记者问时表示，金通灵案是继康美药业案、泽达易盛案后又一单适用特别代表人诉讼程序作出实体 审判结果的证券虚假陈述责任纠纷案件。 该负责人强调，有关案件有效发挥了特别代表人诉讼以"明示退出、默示加入"的方式，一揽子代表广大投资者低成本集约化 维护权益、化解矛盾纠纷的制度功能，也使特别代表人诉讼制度成为证券行政监管和 ...

备受关注的金通灵证券虚假陈述责任纠纷特别代表人诉讼案迎来一审判决。 2025年12月31日，光大证券披露重大诉讼进展公告，公司牵涉的金通灵证券虚假陈述责任纠纷案一审判决，南京中院判决金通灵公司向 4.33万余名投资者赔偿近7.75亿元损失，并承担相关律师费、案件受理费等。 该负责人强调，有关案件有效发挥了特别代表人诉讼以"明示退出、默示加入"的方式，一揽子代表广大投资者低成本集约化维护权益、化解 矛盾纠纷的制度功能，也使特别代表人诉讼制度成为证券行政监管和司法审判协同治理、有力威慑证券市场潜在违法违规行为的重要法律方 式。 此外，证监会还就广道数字虚假陈述案的先行赔付进展作出回应。 公告同时提及，对光大证券等其他25名被告承担民事赔偿责任的诉讼请求将继续审理，法院将另行制作裁判文书。鉴于案件后续审理存在不 确定性，光大证券表示暂无法判断该案对公司本期利润或期后利润的影响。 此外， 据了解，与金通灵案同步启动的美尚生态案特别代表人诉讼的审判工作，也在有序推进中。两案的推进标志标志着特别代表人诉讼 适用力度持续加大，并从试点探索逐步走向常态化运用。 证监会：特别代表人诉讼制度有力威慑潜在违法行为 证监会有关部门负 ...

下一步，中国证监会将继续支持中证中小投资者服务中心依法履行好支持、代表投资者民事诉讼维权的 法定公益服务职能，支持司法机关依法适用代表人诉讼程序开展审判工作，通过监管与司法协同共治， 更好维护投资者特别是广大中小投资者合法权益，维护良好市场生态，促进市场高质量发展。 问：近日，南京中院就金通灵证券虚假陈述特别代表人诉讼案件依法作出一审先行判决。作为监管机 构，如何看待这次诉讼？ 答：金通灵案是继康美药业案、泽达易盛案后又一单适用特别代表人诉讼程序作出实体审判结果的证券 虚假陈述责任纠纷案件。有关案件有效发挥了特别代表人诉讼以"明示退出、默示加入"的方式，一揽子 代表广大投资者低成本集约化维护权益、化解矛盾纠纷的制度功能，也使特别代表人诉讼制度成为证券 行政监管和司法审判协同治理、有力威慑证券市场潜在违法违规行为的重要法律方式。 问：我们还关注到，沈阳中院于12月19日发布公告，就锦州港证券虚假陈述责任纠纷案件适用特别代表 人诉讼程序审理。对此如何评价？ 答：锦州港的虚假陈述等证券违法行为，严重扰乱证券市场秩序，损害广大投资者合法权益，中国证监 会已依法进行了行政处罚。相关人民法院依法受理投资者起诉，投资者保护 ...

证监会有关部门负责人答记者问。记者问：近日，南京中院就金通灵证券虚假陈述特别代表人诉讼案件 依法作出一审先行判决。作为监管机构，如何看待这次诉讼？证监会答：金通灵案是继康美药业案、泽 达易盛案后又一单适用特别代表人诉讼程序作出实体审判结果的证券虚假陈述责任纠纷案件。有关案件 有效发挥了特别代表人诉讼以"明示退出、默示加入"的方式，一揽子代表广大投资者低成本集约化维护 权益、化解矛盾纠纷的制度功能，也使特别代表人诉讼制度成为证券行政监管和司法审判协同治理、有 力威慑证券市场潜在违法违规行为的重要法律方式。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has released the "Several Opinions on Strengthening the Protection of Small and Medium Investors in the Capital Market," proposing 23 specific measures across eight areas to enhance the investor protection framework and boost market confidence [1][2][3]. Group 1: Key Measures - The opinions focus on strengthening the protection of small and medium investors during the issuance and listing process, creating a fair trading environment, and holding operating institutions accountable for investor protection [2][4]. - Emphasis is placed on the importance of the special representative litigation system in safeguarding investor rights, with support for courts to enhance its application [4][5]. - The opinions outline measures to protect investors during the delisting process, including continuous monitoring of companies at risk of delisting and ensuring compensation for investors affected by major violations [5][6]. Group 2: Implementation and Coordination - The CSRC aims to implement these measures in coordination with relevant parties to ensure effective protection of investors, particularly small and medium investors [3]. - The opinions stress the need for operating institutions to take responsibility for investor education and complaint handling, enhancing service quality and internal control systems [4][5]. - The establishment of a diversified dispute resolution mechanism for securities and futures is highlighted, focusing on mediation, civil litigation, and advance compensation systems [5][6].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the ongoing efforts by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) to enhance investor protection through stricter regulations and innovative measures aimed at addressing capital market irregularities and safeguarding investor rights [1][2][3]. Regulatory Actions - In 2024, the CSRC investigated 739 cases of securities and futures violations, resulting in 592 penalties, a 10% increase year-on-year. The number of responsible parties penalized rose by 24% to 1,327, and 118 individuals were banned from the market, up 15% [1]. - The CSRC has implemented measures to address the long-standing issue of major shareholders misappropriating company funds, with companies facing delisting risks if they fail to return misappropriated funds in a timely manner [1][5]. Investor Protection Initiatives - The introduction of the special representative litigation system has been expanded, with successful applications in the Jin Tong Ling and Mei Shang Ecology cases in 2024, aimed at efficiently resolving collective disputes [6]. - The Investor Protection Center (IPC) has publicly nominated independent directors for listed companies, with the first successful case being First Pharmaceutical, where 99.99% of voting shares supported the nomination [3][4]. Legal Developments - The IPC's lawsuit against Tai'an Tui for the recovery of misappropriated funds resulted in a full recovery of 572 million yuan through a judicial mediation process, marking a significant achievement in shareholder litigation [4][5]. - The IPC's efforts led to the successful recovery of 5.34 billion yuan in misappropriated funds from *ST Xintong, which faced delisting risks due to non-compliance with fund recovery mandates [5]. Anti-Fraud Measures - A new anti-fraud mechanism has been established in collaboration with local police to combat investment-related scams, resulting in the prevention of 732 fraud cases and the recovery of 19.265 million yuan [7][8].

Core Points - Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court has ruled that 33,324 investors are qualified plaintiffs in a securities false statement liability dispute involving Meishang Ecological Landscape Co., Ltd. This marks the first time a court has confirmed qualified plaintiffs through a hearing process in a special representative lawsuit [1] - The lawsuit was initiated by the Investor Protection Agency under the China Securities Regulatory Commission, representing investors in a collective action. The court announced the rights registration for special representative lawsuits on December 31, 2024, and the Investor Protection Agency submitted the list of rights holders to the court [1] - On April 28, 2025, the court held a public hearing to determine whether disputed investors were qualified plaintiffs. It concluded that professional institutional investors do not fall under the special protection of the representative lawsuit system and are not qualified plaintiffs [2] Summary by Sections Legal Proceedings - The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court confirmed the qualification of 33,324 investors as plaintiffs in a special representative lawsuit against Meishang Ecological Landscape Co., Ltd. This decision was made through a hearing process, which is a first in this context [1] - The court's ruling fills a procedural gap in the special representative lawsuit system, establishing a standard that excludes professional institutional investors from being qualified plaintiffs, thereby focusing on the protection of retail investors' rights [2] Institutional Involvement - The lawsuit is backed by the Investor Protection Agency, which represents investors in collective actions. The agency has been proactive in identifying rights holders and submitting their information to the court [1] - The court's decision to exclude professional institutional investors from the qualified plaintiff list emphasizes the need for a clear distinction between retail and institutional investors in the context of investor protection [2]