Core Viewpoint - Fangsheng Pharmaceutical's controlling shareholder Zhang Qinghua has been placed under residential surveillance due to past insider trading activities, which resulted in losses exceeding 6 million yuan. The company asserts that this matter only pertains to Zhang personally and will not affect its daily operations or financial status [2][3]. Company Overview - Fangsheng Pharmaceutical focuses on innovative traditional Chinese medicine and was listed in 2014. Its core products address various medical fields, including cardiovascular, pediatric, musculoskeletal, gynecological, respiratory, and anti-infection treatments [3]. Insider Trading Details - Zhang Qinghua received a notice from the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) regarding insider trading in June 2019, followed by an administrative penalty in January 2021. The insider trading was linked to a significant asset restructuring involving Haikou Qili Pharmaceutical Co., which occurred between December 2017 and February 2018 [3][4]. - During the sensitive period, Zhang and others executed trades that led to a total loss of approximately 629.95 thousand yuan, with Zhang facing a fine of 600 thousand yuan [4]. Shareholding Structure - As of the end of 2024, Zhang Qinghua directly holds 35.53% of Fangsheng Pharmaceutical's shares, while his controlled company holds an additional 2.08% [5]. Recent Financial Performance - In 2024, Fangsheng Pharmaceutical reported a revenue of 1.777 billion yuan, marking a year-on-year increase of 9.15%, and a net profit of 255 million yuan, up 36.61%. In the first quarter of 2025, the company generated 418 million yuan in revenue, a decrease of 4.6%, but the net profit rose by 25.74% to 88 million yuan [5].

记者丨崔文静 编辑丨黄剑 据科创板上市公司力源科技7月29日晚间公告，其实控人沈万中因犯违规披露重要信息罪被判 处有期徒刑1年，缓刑1年6个月，并处罚金330万元。 力源科技财务造假出现在2021年，当年年报虚增营业收入1.04亿元、虚增利润总额0.27亿元。 同年半年报、三季报亦存在业绩虚增行为。 造假仅持续一年，源于监管发现问题及时。从力源科技2022年4月第一次披露存在虚假记载的 2021年年报到浙江证监局向其下发警示函，只有5个月。次年1月，证监会即正式对其展开立案 调查，并于5个月后作出行政处罚。 监管高效、行政刑事双重严惩，是力源科技案的两大特点。当前，行政处罚在前、刑事处罚紧 随其后、民事赔偿随之而至，已经成为造假上市公司的严惩"标配"。"首恶"被追究刑事责任的 比例有所提升，行政、刑事处罚间隔时间也进一步缩短，这是严监管力度加大与执法效率提升 的重要体现。 判刑1年，罚金3 3 0万元 7月29日晚间，力源科技发布公告称，实控人沈万中因犯违规披露重要信息罪，被上海市第二 中级人民法院判处有期徒刑1年，缓刑1年6个月，并处罚金330万元。同时，沈万中已辞去力源 科技董事长、董事职务，也不再担任这 ...

Core Viewpoint - Liyuan Technology has become the sixth listed company this year to face criminal charges due to financial fraud, highlighting the effectiveness of regulatory measures and the dual punishment system in place for financial misconduct [1][10]. Group 1: Company Overview - Liyuan Technology, established in 1999, specializes in aluminum alloy precision die-casting products and was listed on May 13, 2021 [5]. - The company's actual controller, Shen Wanzhong, was sentenced to one year in prison with a probation period of one and a half years and fined 3.3 million yuan for the crime of disclosing important information in violation of regulations [2][3]. Group 2: Financial Fraud Details - The financial fraud at Liyuan Technology occurred in 2021, where the annual report inflated operating income by 104 million yuan and total profit by 27 million yuan, representing 24.71% and 68.23% of the disclosed amounts, respectively [2][5]. - The fraud was identified within a year, with the Zhejiang Securities Regulatory Bureau issuing a warning letter just five months after the company disclosed its fraudulent annual report [1][5]. Group 3: Regulatory Response - The regulatory response to Liyuan Technology's fraud was characterized by swift administrative and criminal penalties, with the administrative punishment occurring first, followed by criminal charges [1][10]. - The efficiency of the investigation and the timely discovery of the fraud were crucial factors in the short duration of the fraudulent activities, which lasted only one year [5][6]. Group 4: Industry Implications - Liyuan Technology's case is part of a broader trend, as it is the sixth company in July alone to face criminal charges for financial misconduct, indicating a tightening regulatory environment [8][9]. - The regulatory authorities are enhancing the connection between administrative investigations and criminal prosecutions, leading to an increase in the proportion of criminal charges against the primary offenders in financial fraud cases [10].

Core Viewpoint - The recent criminal enforcement actions against executives of Ruiskanda highlight a significant shift in regulatory practices in China's capital markets, emphasizing a trend towards harsher penalties for serious violations, including criminal charges for corporate misconduct [2][3][6]. Group 1: Regulatory Changes - The introduction of the new "National Nine Articles" in April 2024 has led to a notable increase in criminal enforcement actions against listed companies for severe violations [2][7]. - The regulatory framework now emphasizes a "three-punishment linkage" approach, combining administrative, civil, and criminal penalties for serious offenders [3][6]. Group 2: Case of Ruiskanda - Ruiskanda's chairman and a director have been subjected to criminal coercive measures due to allegations of violating disclosure laws, marking a significant escalation from previous administrative penalties [3][5]. - The company was previously fined 7.7 million yuan for inflating its financial performance through fraudulent practices between 2019 and 2020, including a reported revenue inflation of 351 million yuan in 2019 and 281 million yuan in 2020 [4][6]. Group 3: Broader Implications - The trend of criminal penalties for corporate misconduct is becoming more common, with several other companies facing similar actions, indicating a zero-tolerance policy from regulators [6][8]. - The criminal penalties are expected to have a stronger deterrent effect compared to administrative fines, as they can significantly impact the reputation and future opportunities of the offenders [8][10]. Group 4: Recommendations for Future Actions - Experts suggest increasing the severity of criminal penalties, particularly targeting key corporate figures such as controlling shareholders and executives, to ensure accountability [10]. - There is a call for stricter regulations on information disclosure to enhance transparency and protect investors, including the establishment of a credit evaluation system for listed companies [10].

Group 1 - The article discusses the implementation of a service-oriented law enforcement model by market regulatory authorities, focusing on prevention, light penalties for minor violations, and strict penalties for serious violations [1] - The model aims to unify discretion and ensure proportional penalties, enhancing political, legal, and social outcomes [1] Group 2 - The case of Shandong Mimeng Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd. involved the illegal bundling of a paid service with charging fees for electric bicycles, resulting in a total illegal revenue of approximately 105.35 thousand yuan from 1,170,572 transactions [2] - The company voluntarily ceased the default bundling practice and refunded all collected fees, benefiting over 150,000 consumers [3] Group 3 - The case of Qingdao Lilang Wine Co., Ltd. involved the production of sparkling wine labeled with "CHAMPAGNE," leading to the seizure of 129 boxes of infringing products and a fine of 20,000 yuan [4][6] - The enforcement agency provided guidance for the company to apply for its own trademarks, resulting in the successful registration of five trademarks [5][6] Group 4 - The case of a candy stall in Liuzhou, Guangxi, highlighted the importance of compliance with food safety regulations, where the stall was found selling bulk food without a license but was not penalized due to the minor nature of the violation [7][8] - The regulatory body provided educational support and guidance for the stall to obtain the necessary food business license [8] Group 5 - The case in Dazhou, Sichuan, involved a significant crackdown on illegal meat products, leading to the seizure of approximately 8 tons of unlicensed frozen meat valued at around 600,000 yuan [9][10] - The operation resulted in the arrest of 15 suspects and the dismantling of two cold storage warehouses, with the case now in prosecution [9][10]