《实施办法》共二十五条，主要内容包括：一是明确监管措施的种类。列出责令改正、监管谈话、出具 警示函、责令定期报告等十四类比较常用的措施，并将"法律、行政法规、中国证监会规章规定的其他 监督管理措施"作为兜底规定。二是明确监管措施的实施原则。实施监管措施，应当遵循依法、效率、 公正原则，应当符合法律、行政法规、中国证监会规章规定的程序，应当及时矫正违法行为，防范风险 蔓延与危害后果扩散，坚持风险防控与教育相结合，应当以事实为依据，与行为的性质、情节、危害程 度以及风险大小相当。三是明确实施监管措施的程序要求。包括监管措施的取证、决定、送达、现场执 法、回避、法制审核等一般程序要求，事先告知等特别程序要求，以及紧急情况下的快速处置机制。四 是明确监管措施决定的作出及执行要求。包括监管措施决定书应当载明的事项、公开要求、送达程序 等。 （来源：衢州日报） 转自：衢州日报 为进一步规范证券期货市场监督管理措施（以下简称监管措施）的实施程序，证监会日前正式发布《证 券期货市场监督管理措施实施办法》（以下简称《实施办法》），自2026年6月30日起施行。业内人士 指出，《实施办法》明确了监管措施的种类和实施程序，充分保障 ...

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has officially released the "Implementation Measures for Supervision and Administration of Securities and Futures Markets," which will take effect on June 30, 2026, aiming to standardize the implementation procedures of regulatory measures and enhance the rule of law in capital markets [1]. Group 1: Overview of the Implementation Measures - The "Implementation Measures" consists of 25 articles, outlining 14 common types of regulatory measures, including orders for correction, regulatory talks, warning letters, and orders for regular reporting, with a catch-all provision for other supervisory measures [2]. - The measures emphasize principles of legality, efficiency, and fairness, ensuring that regulatory actions are timely, fact-based, and proportionate to the nature and severity of the violations [2]. - The procedures for implementing regulatory measures include requirements for evidence collection, decision-making, delivery, on-site enforcement, and legal review, along with a rapid response mechanism for emergencies [2]. Group 2: Context and Rationale - Regulatory measures are a type of administrative action independent of administrative penalties and are crucial for financial regulation. The CSRC previously issued a trial version in 2008, which has since revealed issues in implementation, such as inadequate procedural rights for parties involved [3]. - The new "Implementation Measures" introduces additional procedural requirements compared to the 2008 version, including implementation timelines, prior notifications, and legal reviews, enhancing transparency and strictness in regulatory enforcement [3]. - The measures aim to improve the standardization of regulatory enforcement, ensuring that the legal rights of administrative counterparts are adequately protected and reinforcing the legal foundation for the CSRC's administrative actions [3].

Core Viewpoint - The recent court ruling on the fraud case involving Shenzhen Tefa Information Co., Ltd. marks a significant milestone in the legal process surrounding financial fraud in the capital market, highlighting the importance of regulatory oversight and the consequences of corporate misconduct [1][2]. Case Background - The fraud case began with a 2015 acquisition agreement where Tefa Information agreed to purchase 100% of Tefa Dongzhi Technology Co., Ltd. for 190 million yuan, with aggressive profit commitments made by the sellers [3][20]. - The sellers promised net profits of at least 37.5 million, 46.88 million, and 58.6 million yuan for the years 2015 to 2017, totaling over 143 million yuan, and further commitments for 2018 to 2020, leading to a total profit commitment of 319 million yuan [3][20]. - To meet these unrealistic commitments, Tefa Dongzhi engaged in systematic financial fraud from 2015 to 2019, inflating revenues and manipulating costs [3][20]. Ruling Results - The court found four individuals guilty of contract fraud and two guilty of embezzlement, ordering the recovery of approximately 173 million yuan in criminal proceeds to be returned to Tefa Information [5][22]. - The ruling included the recovery of 145 million yuan in cash and stocks from the main perpetrator, Chen Chuanrong, after deducting compensation payments [6][23][24]. - Additional recoveries included amounts from other defendants, with the court allowing offsets against Chen's total recoveries [7][26]. Fraud Details - The fraudulent activities included underreporting or delaying the recognition of costs and fabricating business transactions, resulting in a total inflated profit of 149 million yuan over five years [9][27]. - Specific fraudulent actions included the creation of fake sales with major companies, leading to inflated revenues of 328 million yuan and costs of 284 million yuan in 2019 alone [10][27]. - The financial misconduct led to Tefa Information being placed under risk warnings and a name change to "ST Tefaxin" due to the fraudulent activities [11][28]. Company Impact - The fraud case severely impacted Tefa Information's financial performance, resulting in consecutive losses of 272 million yuan and 403 million yuan in 2023 and 2024, respectively [12][29]. - Despite the downturn, there were signs of recovery in 2025, with a slight profit of 799.61 million yuan in the first three quarters, indicating a potential turnaround [12][29]. - Following the announcement of the ruling, Tefa Information's stock experienced volatility, with a notable drop of 9.97% on the first trading day after the ruling [12][29]. Industry Implications - The case serves as a critical warning regarding the risks associated with mergers and acquisitions in the capital market, emphasizing the need for thorough due diligence and regulatory scrutiny [14][31]. - It reflects the judicial system's commitment to combating financial misconduct and underscores the "zero tolerance" approach towards violations in the capital market [14][31]. - The outcome of this case may influence future corporate governance practices and investor awareness regarding financial risks in acquisition activities [15][32].

Core Viewpoint - The introduction of the "Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Listed Companies" marks a significant reform in China's capital market, emphasizing risk prevention, strong regulation, and development promotion, thereby enhancing the legal framework for listed companies [1] Group 1: Regulatory Framework - The new regulations establish a comprehensive regulatory framework covering the entire lifecycle of listed companies, from governance to delisting, addressing issues like financial fraud with strict auditing requirements and penalties for major shareholders [3][7] - The regulations enhance preemptive measures, real-time interventions, and post-event accountability, including protections for dissenting shareholders during delisting processes [3] Group 2: Corporate Governance - The regulations specifically address corporate governance by defining the boundaries of behavior for controlling shareholders and executives, mandating that independent directors constitute a majority on audit committees [4] - This initiative aims to curb the "one-man rule" phenomenon and promote transparency in decision-making processes [4] Group 3: Mergers and Acquisitions - The regulations improve the rules surrounding major asset restructurings, emphasizing the independence of financial advisors and focusing on industrial integration to protect minority shareholders [5] - By standardizing acquisition criteria and enhancing information disclosure, the regulations aim to prevent misleading restructurings [5] Group 4: Investor Protection - A dedicated chapter on investor protection mandates listed companies to establish regular dividend mechanisms and incorporate share buybacks into their internal policies [6] - The regulations also require proactive delisting companies to offer protection plans for dissenting shareholders, addressing loopholes that allow for malicious avoidance of delisting [6] Group 5: Combating Illegal Activities - The regulations implement a "source prevention, process monitoring, and post-event accountability" mechanism to tackle issues like financial fraud and illegal guarantees, significantly increasing penalties for violations [7] - This approach aims to dismantle the ecosystem of fraud and purify the market environment, shifting the focus from expansion to quality improvement in the capital market [7]

Group 1 - The core issue revolves around the administrative penalties and market bans imposed on Lifan Shuke Co., Ltd. for falsifying financial data in its periodic reports, leading to a proposed fine of 10 million yuan for the company and 30 million yuan for 10 responsible individuals [1][2] - Lifan Shuke has inflated its revenue and costs for three consecutive years, with a total of 638 million yuan in inflated revenue and 628 million yuan in inflated costs from 2021 to 2023, prompting the Shenzhen Stock Exchange to initiate delisting procedures [2][5] - The case highlights a significant shift in regulatory enforcement, moving from reactive measures to proactive governance, with a comprehensive approach that includes administrative penalties, market bans, criminal referrals, and accountability for intermediaries [1][6] Group 2 - The involvement of Zhongxing Caiguanghua Accounting Firm in the case indicates a broader crackdown on financial fraud, as the firm has faced multiple penalties for failing to fulfill its responsibilities in previous audits [3][4] - The number of companies facing mandatory delisting due to financial fraud has reached a record high this year, reflecting stricter regulations and a zero-tolerance stance from regulatory authorities [5] - There is a growing emphasis on a multi-layered accountability system in the capital market, which includes administrative, civil, and criminal penalties for both the perpetrators of fraud and the intermediaries that facilitate such actions [6][7]

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the importance of judicial and administrative collaboration to support the high-quality development of the capital market, highlighting the need for improved investor protection and regulatory frameworks [3][4]. Group 1: Overall Requirements - The guiding ideology is based on Xi Jinping's thoughts, focusing on the implementation of the 20th National Congress decisions regarding financial and capital market construction [4]. - The goal is to enhance the collaborative role of judicial adjudication and securities regulation, improving the judicial protection mechanism and regulatory capabilities [4][5]. Group 2: Investor Protection - There is a strong focus on protecting investor rights, particularly for small and medium investors, ensuring their rights to information, participation in governance, and fair market participation [5][8]. - The article calls for the establishment of a robust judicial environment for long-term investments, promoting a healthy market ecosystem [8][9]. Group 3: Judicial Rule Improvement - The need for continuous improvement of judicial rules to adapt to changing market conditions is highlighted, including the development of judicial interpretations for insider trading and market manipulation [6][10]. - The article stresses the importance of high-quality adjudication in enhancing the capital market's development [6][10]. Group 4: Regulatory Collaboration - The establishment of a multi-faceted dispute resolution mechanism is proposed to facilitate non-litigation methods for resolving securities disputes [21][22]. - Strengthening information sharing and collaboration between judicial and regulatory bodies is emphasized to enhance risk prevention and response capabilities [23][24]. Group 5: Market Participant Regulation - The article outlines the need for strict regulation of securities, futures, and fund management institutions to ensure their stable operation and protect investor interests [15][16]. - It emphasizes the importance of adhering to appropriate management responsibilities and ensuring compliance with legal standards in financial transactions [15][16]. Group 6: Enhancing Judicial and Regulatory Capacity - The article calls for strengthening the training and professional development of financial judges and regulatory personnel to improve their understanding of financial markets and legal frameworks [26]. - It highlights the importance of maintaining a clean and accountable judicial and regulatory environment to ensure fair enforcement of laws [26].