登录新浪财经APP 搜索【信披】查看更多考评等级 ■ 吴晓璐 近日，3家退市公司被行政处罚，引发市场关注。此前因触及交易类退市指标先后摘牌退市的泰禾集 团、华铁股份、美尚生态，由于在上市期间存在信披违法违规行为，退市约1年或2年后仍被地方证监局 行政处罚，3家公司及相关责任人均被重罚。 这充分说明，上市公司不管因何种原因退市，监管部门依旧会紧追不放，一查到底，决不允许"金蝉脱 壳""一退了之"。退市违法必究已成常态。 目前，法律之网越织越密，对退市公司的行、民、刑立体化追责，正在重塑市场生态。证券监管部门加 大行政处罚，2024年以来，证监会已经查处了64家退市公司的违法行为，其中对44家已作出最终行政处 罚决定，处罚覆盖负有责任的公司实际控制人、董事长、财务总监等"关键少数"。 退市后，公司因上市时存在虚假陈述等行为给投资者造成损失的，需要承担赔偿责任。目前，证券纠纷 代表人诉讼、先行赔付、支持诉讼、行政执法当事人承诺、示范判决、专业调解等多种维权渠道畅通， 且有泽达易盛、紫晶存储、太安堂等系列相关案例落地，为投资者获得赔偿救济提供有力支持。同时， 证监会加大对"首恶""帮凶"的刑事移送力度，2024年以来 ...

8月21日、22日，退市公司广东华铁通达高铁装备股份有限公司(以下简称"华铁股份")、泰禾集团股份 有限公司(以下简称"泰禾集团")先后发布公司收到行政处罚(或事先告知书)的公告。 华铁股份于去年8月份被实施面值退市，退市后至今，公司已经收到广东证监局两份行政处罚罚单；泰 禾集团因触及面值退市指标，于2023年8月份摘牌退市，此次因信披违法违规被福建证监局行政处罚。 接连两天两家退市公司收到监管罚单，传递出监管部门"严格执法、敢于亮剑、一追到底"的监管态度。 彰显"一追到底"决心 2024年7月25日，华铁股份因股票连续20个交易日收盘价低于1元，触及面值类退市指标。2024年8月27 日，公司股票摘牌。 在退市前，华铁股份涉及未披露大额资金占用、财务造假等严重信息披露违规问题，被广东证监局行政 处罚。2024年5月份，广东证监局对华铁股份及相关责任人员下发行政处罚及市场禁入决定书，对公司 及14名相关责任人员处以罚款合计2620万元，对公司实际控制人宣瑞国实施终身市场禁入。 退市后，监管部门依然紧追不放，华铁股份已收到两份罚单。2024年12月5日，华铁股份公告称，公司 收到广东证监局行政处罚决定书。针对华 ...

2024年7月25日，华铁股份因股票连续20个交易日收盘价低于1元，触及面值类退市指标。2024年8月27 日，公司股票摘牌。 在退市前，华铁股份涉及未披露大额资金占用、财务造假等严重信息披露违规问题，被广东证监局行政 处罚。2024年5月份，广东证监局对华铁股份及相关责任人员下发行政处罚及市场禁入决定书，对公司 及14名相关责任人员处以罚款合计2620万元，对公司实际控制人宣瑞国实施终身市场禁入。 本报记者 吴晓璐 8月21日、22日，退市公司广东华铁通达高铁装备股份有限公司（以下简称"华铁股份"）、泰禾集团股 份有限公司（以下简称"泰禾集团"）先后发布公司收到行政处罚（或事先告知书）的公告。 华铁股份于去年8月份被实施面值退市，退市后至今，公司已经收到广东证监局两份行政处罚罚单；泰 禾集团因触及面值退市指标，于2023年8月份摘牌退市，此次因信披违法违规被福建证监局行政处罚。 接连两天两家退市公司收到监管罚单，传递出监管部门"严格执法、敢于亮剑、一追到底"的监管态度。 彰显"一追到底"决心 法成本。这一持续追责的监管态度会对仍在市场中的"关键少数"形成持续威慑，有利于净化市场环境。 退市后，监管部门依然紧 ...

本报记者 吴晓璐 8月21日、22日，退市公司广东华铁通达高铁装备股份有限公司（以下简称"华铁股份"）、泰禾集团股份有限公司（以下 简称"泰禾集团"）先后发布公司收到行政处罚（或事先告知书）的公告。 华铁股份于去年8月份被实施面值退市，退市后至今，公司已经收到广东证监局两份行政处罚罚单；泰禾集团因触及面值 退市指标，于2023年8月份摘牌退市，此次因信披违法违规被福建证监局行政处罚。 接连两天两家退市公司收到监管罚单，传递出监管部门"严格执法、敢于亮剑、一追到底"的监管态度。 彰显"一追到底"决心 2024年7月25日，华铁股份因股票连续20个交易日收盘价低于1元，触及面值类退市指标。2024年8月27日，公司股票摘 牌。 在退市前，华铁股份涉及未披露大额资金占用、财务造假等严重信息披露违规问题，被广东证监局行政处罚。2024年5月 份，广东证监局对华铁股份及相关责任人员下发行政处罚及市场禁入决定书，对公司及14名相关责任人员处以罚款合计2620万 元，对公司实际控制人宣瑞国实施终身市场禁入。 退市后，监管部门依然紧追不放，华铁股份已收到两份罚单。2024年12月5日，华铁股份公告称，公司收到广东证监局行 政 ...

Core Viewpoint - Sichuang Medical Technology Co., Ltd. is under investigation for suspected fraudulent issuance of securities, with the case currently in the police investigation stage [1] Group 1: Investigation and Legal Issues - The investigation is closely related to previous financial fraud cases, where Sichuang Medical inflated revenue by 34.93 million yuan and profits by 33.02 million yuan in 2019, and inflated revenue by 60.96 million yuan and profits by 52.37 million yuan in 2020, accounting for 20.03% and 56.81% of the respective profits [2] - The fraudulent data was included in the annual reports for 2019 and 2020, which were used as important evidence for the issuance of 817 million yuan in convertible bonds in 2021 [3] - The company has faced significant penalties, including a fine of 85.7 million yuan and a 10-year market ban for the former chairman [3] Group 2: Corporate Restructuring - In response to regulatory pressure, the company has made significant adjustments to its ownership structure and business layout, including the resignation of the former chairman and the transfer of control to the Cangnan County Finance Bureau [3] - The company has also divested its subsidiary, Medical Technology Co., which was the main platform for the financial fraud, and has shifted its focus to the Internet of Things sector [4] Group 3: Financial Performance - The company has reported continuous losses, with net profits of -878 million yuan, -874 million yuan, -502 million yuan, and -19.56 million yuan for the years 2022 to 2025 Q1, with a 71.14% reduction in losses for Q1 2025 compared to the same period last year [4] - The company claims that its financial situation has improved since the entry of state-owned capital, with a reduction in losses since 2024 [4] Group 4: Regulatory Environment - The capital market has intensified its crackdown on financial fraud and fraudulent issuance, with a focus on establishing a comprehensive accountability mechanism involving administrative, civil, and criminal responsibilities [5][6] - The ongoing investigation into Sichuang Medical is closely monitored by investors, with the company actively cooperating with the police and preparing compensation plans for affected investors [6]

Core Viewpoint - The case of Liyuan Technology highlights the increasing severity of penalties for financial fraud in China's capital markets, reflecting a new enforcement trend that emphasizes criminal accountability for key perpetrators [1][2][4]. Group 1: Case Overview - Liyuan Technology's actual controller, Shen Wanzhong, was sentenced for the crime of illegally disclosing important information, marking the sixth listed company involved in financial fraud this year [1]. - The financial fraud lasted only one year before being addressed, contrasting with traditional cases that often take three to five years to resolve [2]. - Shen Wanzhong faced an administrative penalty of 3.3 million yuan and a criminal sentence of one year in prison, with a probation period of one and a half years [2]. Group 2: Regulatory Environment - The new securities law has increased the maximum fine for information disclosure violations from 600,000 yuan to 10 million yuan, introducing harsher penalties for controlling shareholders and actual controllers who organize or instruct fraud [3]. - The establishment of a comprehensive accountability system combining civil compensation, administrative penalties, and criminal accountability is being accelerated through policy coordination between the Supreme People's Court and the China Securities Regulatory Commission [3]. Group 3: Challenges and Recommendations - Despite intensified regulation, some actual controllers of listed companies still take risks due to unchanged profit-driven mechanisms, ineffective corporate governance, and failures of intermediary institutions [3]. - To combat financial fraud, a market ecosystem that discourages such behavior is needed, including a rapid response mechanism from the regulatory body to law enforcement [4]. - Enhancing corporate governance structures, granting substantial supervisory powers to audit committees, and establishing a lifetime accountability system for intermediary institutions are recommended [4].