炒股就看金麒麟分析师研报，权威，专业，及时，全面，助您挖掘潜力主题机会！ 来源 | 《财经》杂志 作者 | 《财经》记者 张欣培 编辑 | 郭楠 陆玲 某券商研究所原电子行业首席分析师邹某、原电新行业高级分析师程某，犯非国家工作人员受贿罪，分 别被判处有期徒刑十个月、八个月，缓刑一年，并处罚金10万元 一条完整的利益输送链条，被法院的刑事判决书完整揭示：从上市公司支付好处费，到券商分析师出 具"量身定制"的研究报告推高市场预期，再到股价在概念炒作下短期大涨，最终大股东在高点精准减持 套现。 该券商另一名前分析师程某，因在此事中沟通联络及转送现金，收取好处费5万元，犯非国家工作人员 受贿罪，被判处有期徒刑八个月，缓刑一年，并处罚金10万元。 判决书显示，被告人邹某和程某原均就职于东方某有限公司研究所。被告人邹某，男，1988年11月29日 出生于山东省德州市，博士研究生文化，原系东方某有限公司研究所电子行业首席分析师；被告人程 某，男，1987年8月13日出生于湖北省嘉鱼县，硕士研究生文化，原系东方某公司研究所电新行业高级 分析师。 2023年4月，邹某、程某接受宋某甲请托，利用邹某时任东方某有限公司研究所电子 ...

炒股就看金麒麟分析师研报，权威，专业，及时，全面，助您挖掘潜力主题机会！ 12月11日，金城医药（300233.SZ）连发两则公告，宣告实控人赵叶青因操纵公司股票被证监会处以150 万元罚款，并采取4年市场禁入措施。处罚落地当日，这位曾被称为"A股最年轻董事长"的掌舵人辞去 所有职务。 颇具戏剧性的是，这场始于2017年、动用104个账户、累计买入金额超21亿元的股价操纵行为，不仅未 能获利，反而以亏损739万元告终。早在2024年8月，因涉嫌操纵证券市场，证监会决定对赵叶青立案。 2025年12月10日，处罚决定正式落地，整个调查、听证周期历时一年多。 北京京师律师事务所许浩律师表示，此案严格遵循法不溯及既往原则，赵叶青等人的操纵行为发生在 2017 - 2020 年，新《证券法》无法约束其生效前行为，且该行为连续，从整体性和稳定性考虑，适用 行为发生时有效的 2005 年《证券法》更合理。在处罚金额方面，依据 2005 年《证券法》无违法所得处 30 - 300 万罚款，三人合计罚 300 万，赵叶青承担 150 万，若用新法罚款将大幅提高；性质认定上，新 旧法均认定操纵证券市场，但旧法定性条款更贴合本案 ...

Group 1 - The core issue involves the manipulation of Jincheng Pharmaceutical's stock by its actual controller Zhao Yeqing and two others, leading to penalties from the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) [1][16][20] - Zhao Yeqing, Wang Zhen, and Liu Feng were fined a total of 3 million yuan, with Zhao receiving a 4-year market ban, Wang a 3-year ban, and Liu a 30-month ban [1][20] - During the manipulation period from August 18, 2017, to February 10, 2020, the trio opened 104 accounts, trading a total of 2.134 billion yuan, resulting in a loss of 7.39 million yuan [2][19][20] Group 2 - The stock manipulation involved 595 trading days, with the accounts participating in trading on 502 days, buying 119 million shares for 2.134 billion yuan and selling 107 million shares for 1.87 billion yuan [3][19] - The stock price increased by 21.3% during the first phase of manipulation (August 2017 to June 2018), while the second phase (June 2018 to February 2020) saw a modest increase of 2.02% [4][19] - The company stated that the penalties only affect Zhao Yeqing personally and do not impact the company's operations, which continue to run normally [20][25] Group 3 - Zhao Yeqing resigned from his positions as chairman and director of Jincheng Pharmaceutical on the same day the CSRC announced the penalties, citing personal reasons [2][5][23] - As of December 11, Zhao directly held 722,750 shares, accounting for 1.88% of the total share capital, and indirectly held an additional 1.00% through Jinan Jincheng Industrial Investment Co., Ltd. [8][24] - The company has been facing challenges, with its latest financial report indicating a significant decline in revenue and net profit, marking the worst quarterly performance in eight years [14][31]

21亿资金疯狂砸入，本想操纵股价收割股民，结果不仅没捞到一分钱，反而血亏739万，还丢了董事长 职位、遭4年市场禁入，这荒诞又解气的一幕，就发生在金城医药原董事长赵叶青身上。 小李实在没想到，身为上市公司掌舵人，竟会耗尽心机用百余个账户暗箱操作，靠"对倒"交易扭曲股 价，把普通投资者当韭菜。 他这番操作到底坑了多少无辜股民？明明手握资金和持股优势，为何精心策划的操纵大计最终会彻底翻 车？这背后不仅是一场违背市场规则的闹剧，更藏着资本市场最该警惕的风险。 荒诞闹剧 小李认为，资本市场从不缺投机者，但像金城医药实控人赵叶青这样"赔了夫人又折兵"的操纵者，令人 唏嘘。 12月11日，随着两份公告落地，这起隐藏近三年的股价操纵案终于尘埃落定。 当事人赵叶青不仅收到中国证监会行政处罚书，还同步递交辞职报告，从一手打造的上市公司董事长位 置上黯然离场。 没人能想到，这场动用百余个账户、横跨近600个交易日的操纵行动，最终会以"亏损"收场。 据监管查明，2017年至2020年间，赵叶青牵头，联合王震、刘峰两人构建包含104个账户的庞大交易网 络，在595个交易日里有502天都在频繁操作。 三人凭借资金和持股优势，一边在二级 ...

据每日经济新闻报道，根据当事人自认、资金往来记录及交易流水等证据，赵叶青等人控制使用了包含 104个账户的账户组进行交易。经监管部门测算，该账户组在操纵期间累计竞价买入金额约21.34亿元， 卖出金额约18.70亿元，最终实际亏损739.20万元。面对监管层的调查，当事人关于"无操纵主观故意"的 申辩被悉数驳回。最终，赵叶青被处以150万元罚款及4年市场禁入措施，并辞去公司董事长职务。 12月11日晚间，金城医药(300233.SZ)发布两则公告：一份关于公司董事长赵叶青提交书面辞职，另一 份则关于他收到中国证监会《行政处罚决定书》。经查明，2017年8月18日至2020年2月10日期间，赵叶 青作为决策者，与王震（主要实施者）、刘峰（次要实施者）共同操纵了"金城医药"股票。 ...

被立案调查一年多后，金城医药（SZ300233，股价15.23元，市值58.46亿元）实控人的调查结果与辞职同日落地。 为了实施这一计划，三人构建了一个庞大的账户网络。根据当事人自认、资金往来记录及交易流水等证据，赵叶青等人控制使用了包含104个账户的账户 组进行交易。 公告显示，在操纵期间的595个交易日里，该账户组有502天参与了交易。他们利用集中的资金优势和持股优势，不仅在二级市场连续买卖，更在自己实际 控制的账户之间进行"对倒"交易，严重影响了股票的交易价格和交易量。 数据显示，该账户组在操纵期间日均持有"金城医药"1858.33万股，占公司流通股本的5.68%，最高持股量甚至达到了3209.48万股，占流通股本的比例高达 9.04%。 这种操纵行为在特定时间段内对股价产生了显著影响。例如，在2018年2月1日至4月26日期间，账户组展现了极强的买入意愿，申买量占市场同期申买量 的17.29%，竞价买入成交量占市场同期成交量的23.02%。在这一波操作下，金城医药股价期间涨幅达到21.30%，而同期创业板综指涨幅仅为2.90%。 更为夸张的是其"自买自卖"的行为。操纵期间，账户组共有214天在自己实际 ...

Core Viewpoint - *ST亚振 has experienced a dramatic stock price increase, rising from 4.45 CNY per share to 48.55 CNY per share, marking a staggering increase of 9.91 times, despite ongoing financial struggles and a risk of delisting [3][8][12]. Group 1: Stock Performance - On November 5, *ST亚振 closed at 46.77 CNY per share, with a daily increase of 5.01% and a significant volume of trading [2]. - The stock has been classified as a "10-bagger" alongside 上纬新材, despite facing regulatory scrutiny [3]. - The stock price surged significantly after a change in control, with the new owner, 吴涛, acquiring 50.47% of the company for approximately 7.61 billion CNY [4][11]. Group 2: Financial Performance - *ST亚振 has reported continuous losses from 2021 to 2024, with a loss of approximately 314.1 million CNY in the first three quarters of 2025, although this represents a reduction in losses compared to previous years [4][12]. - The company’s revenue has remained around 2 billion CNY, with a slight increase to 1.58 billion CNY in the first three quarters of 2025, reflecting a year-on-year growth of 4.20% [12]. Group 3: Ownership Changes and Market Behavior - The stock exhibited unusual ownership concentration prior to the price surge, with the number of shareholders dropping from 25,200 in March 2024 to 7,286 by June 2025, a decrease of 49.47% [10]. - Following the price increase, the number of shareholders rose again to 10,200 by September 2025, indicating a potential distribution of shares after the price spike [10]. - The stock price increase is attributed to two main catalysts: the change in control and asset acquisitions, including a recent purchase of 51% of 广西锆业 for 55.44 million CNY [11].

Core Viewpoint - The stock price of Sanhua Intelligent Control experienced significant fluctuations due to rumors of securing a 5 billion yuan order from Tesla, leading the company to issue a clarification announcement regarding the false information [1] Group 1: Market Dynamics - The fluctuation in Sanhua Intelligent Control's stock price was part of a closed-loop chain involving "fabrication of false information - dissemination via social media - endorsement by AI models - triggering quantitative strategies - resonance of market sentiment" [1] - Other companies, such as 360 and Cixing, have also been affected by similar market rumors this year, indicating a trend where false information disrupts stock prices [1] Group 2: Technological Influence - The high frequency of social media and self-media appearances has facilitated the cross-border spread of misinformation [1] - The application of AI technology has amplified the spillover effects of such misinformation, leading to "corpus pollution" that disrupts stock prices [1] Group 3: Market Concerns - There is growing concern in the market regarding whether this phenomenon has evolved into a new type of "hat-snatching" trading, potentially indicating the existence of a stock price manipulation industry chain [1]

Core Viewpoint - The recent trading activity of Yaojie Ankang-B (02617) has exhibited extreme volatility, characterized by a rapid price surge followed by a significant decline, indicating a potential manipulation of stock prices by major players in the market [1]. Group 1: Price Surge Phase - From September 5 to September 15, 2025, the stock experienced a staggering increase of 593.40% with a volatility of 620.72%, marked by a high turnover rate of 14.78% and a dominant bullish trend with 6 up days against 1 down day [2][3]. - The total trading volume during this period reached 44.58 million shares, with a total transaction value of 7.763 billion [3]. - Major funds aggressively bought shares, creating a "star stock" effect to attract attention and speculative trading, while also facilitating a redistribution of shares from weaker hands to stronger ones [4]. Group 2: Distribution Phase - From September 16 to October 15, 2025, the stock price plummeted from a high of 679.50 to a low of 111.00, reflecting a maximum decline of over 72% [7][8]. - The trading volume during this period was 59.19 million shares, with a total value of 13.0581 billion, and a predominance of bearish trading days (13 down days vs. 6 up days) [8]. - The selling pressure was primarily driven by the deep stock connect funds, which significantly reduced their holdings, while the Shanghai stock connect funds attempted to stabilize the price through selective buying [9]. Group 3: Short-term Rebound - A brief rebound occurred on October 16 and 17, 2025, with a two-day increase of 78.85% and a volatility of 98.50%, indicating a classic "dead cat bounce" pattern [10][11]. - The total trading volume for this rebound was 22.76 million shares, all of which were bullish, suggesting that new buying interest emerged from international short-term traders [10][12]. - The rebound was not supported by the original major holders, who instead viewed it as an opportunity to reduce their positions, indicating a lack of confidence in a sustained recovery [14].

Core Viewpoint - The case of Hainan Huate (603300.SH) highlights significant issues related to information disclosure and potential market manipulation, following the abrupt termination of a 3.69 billion yuan contract that had previously driven the company's stock price up nearly threefold [1][2][3]. Group 1: Contract and Financial Implications - Hainan Huate announced a 5-year contract worth 3.69 billion yuan for computing power services, which represented 71% of the company's projected revenue for 2024 [1][2]. - The stock price surged from 4.76 yuan to 13.25 yuan after the announcement, marking an increase of nearly 300% [3]. - The contract was terminated on September 30, 2025, due to "significant changes in market conditions and supply-demand situations," with no actual orders placed during the seven months since the contract was signed [3][4]. Group 2: Regulatory Response - The Shanghai Stock Exchange issued a regulatory letter on the same night the contract was terminated, and the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) announced an investigation on October 16, 2025 [4][11]. - The rapid regulatory response indicates a heightened focus on potential misleading disclosures and stock price manipulation [11]. Group 3: Contract Validity and Market Concerns - The identity of the contracting party, referred to as "Hangzhou X Company," remains undisclosed, raising questions about the contract's legitimacy [5][6]. - The mysterious company, established less than a year ago with a registered capital of only 50 million yuan, appears incapable of handling a contract worth nearly 3.7 billion yuan [6]. - The contract lacked essential terms such as prepayment mechanisms, GPU specifications, and delivery timelines, resembling more of a non-binding "letter of intent" than a solid business agreement [6]. Group 4: Shareholder Behavior and Market Manipulation Allegations - Following the contract announcement, the second-largest shareholder, Hu Danfeng, initially planned to sell 44.23 million shares but reversed this decision to increase his holdings after the contract was terminated [7][8]. - The timing of stock movements and shareholder actions raises suspicions of potential market manipulation, particularly with the involvement of a notable investor who strategically entered and exited positions in alignment with the contract announcement [8]. Group 5: Historical Context and Company Risks - Hainan Huate has faced previous allegations of financial misconduct, including a 2021 report of serious financial fraud and disclosure violations [10]. - The company's rapid transition from equipment leasing to computing power services within a short timeframe raises concerns about the authenticity of its business model and operational capabilities [10]. Group 6: Investor Insights - The case serves as a cautionary tale for investors regarding the authenticity of cross-industry ventures and the importance of scrutinizing companies that claim substantial contracts without a solid technological foundation [11][12]. - Investors are advised to be wary of vague disclosures regarding counterparties and key contract terms, as well as to monitor shareholder activities in relation to positive announcements [12][13].