Illegal rules and regulations in various forms

Illegal rules and regulations in various forms
For stocks, please read Jin Qilin analyst research report, authoritative, professional, timely, and comprehensive, to help you tap potential potential opportunities!  55 insider trading, 13 market ban decisions, 4 brokerages fined 1.5.0 billion… The SEC ‘s administrative performance “transcript” for 2019 comes from Source: Securities Times website Wang Junhui According to the official website of the Securities Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Futures Commission issued a total of 136 administrative penalties in 2019, an increase of 5 from the previous yearServing.Issued 13 market ban decisions.Among them, there were more than 55 cases involving insider trading, accounting for more than 40%; 29 cases involving violations of the letter piping, 14 cases of market manipulation, and 9 cases of employee stock speculation.It also involves illegal activities such as connected transactions, dissemination of false information, and illegal operation of securities investment consulting business.Ten intermediaries were sanctioned, involving four securities firms such as New Times Securities, Daxin, Zhonghua, Xinghua, and other accounting firms, and Bank Credit Evaluation and other asset evaluation agencies.  Insider trading and letter violations are still “heavy-hit areas” There have been 55 insider trading cases published in 2019, accounting for over 40% of all public cases, and most are related to mergers and acquisitions and reorganizations.The Securities Regulatory Commission stated that the planning period for M & A and reorganization matters is long, involves a wide range, and has a significant impact on the market. It is very easy to become a tool for wrongdoers to seek improper benefits.  Some cases with serious market impact received “sky price” tickets. In the case of Yang Xuechu’s insider trading in Shenzhen Zhongqingbao, Yang Xuechu was confiscated for illegal gains.US $ 9.7 billion, and a double fine was imposed, with a fine of nearly US $ 400 million.In some cases, which are related to the objective and present the characteristics of a “nest case”, the Securities and Futures Commission issued three fines in the case of sun trading, and confiscated 1104 copies of illegal proceeds from Wu Xuejun, Cheng Ling and Yu Sheng, respectively.50,000 yuan, 612.670,000, and fines were doubled respectively, and 3 people were confiscated for a total of 35.66 million for insider trading.  Sorting out the ticket, we can find that the formation of insider trading has several main points, including close relationships with insider insiders and replacement or suspicious contact before the insider information is made public. The point in time of the transaction coincides with the insider information contact time.The transaction time is basically the same as the inside information formation and disclosure process, and the transaction involves the funds of the inside information stock.Evidence-based defenses often focus on these areas as well.  For example, in the case of Yusheng’s insider trading of Sun Paper, Yu Sheng’s inquiry transcripts did not prove that before October 31, 2013, “Sun Paper” planned the relevant non-public offering of shares has entered the actual operation stage and had competition.Achievable.The preliminary CSRC detailed the relevant reasons in the violation.  Insider trading is often very hidden, and the CSRC has repeatedly warned insiders who are in an information advantage to exercise due diligence, and warned relevant entities not to be keen on the so-called “inside information”.Will be severely punished by law.  A total of 29 cases were sanctioned by the Securities and Futures Commission for violations of information disclosure. In addition, a total of 64 fines issued by the local securities regulatory bureau were the second largest “severe disaster areas”.Securities Times reporters sorted out the tickets and found that in the cases of violations of the letter, many cases involved a wide range of responsible persons, more than 10 people, and often the company and the responsible person were jointly recognized.For example, in the case of violation of the letter of Tianye Co., Ltd., the company has not disclosed major related party transactions in its periodic report, failed to disclose in a timely manner and failed to disclose the guarantee in its periodic report.In the report, 22 illegal employees and other illegal activities were involved, including the company’s chairman, general manager, deputy general manager, secretary of the board of directors, chief financial officer, and independent directors.Fushun Special Steel failed to disclose the 2017 annual report and 2018 first quarter report within the legal period, and the company and 17 responsible persons received fines.  A significant number of Xinpi violation cases involve multiple Xinpi violations. For example, in the New Green Food Xinpi violation, the illegal facts of the company announced by the administrative division include: the company’s application for the public listing of shares revealed that the documents are false.There are false records in the records and disclosure documents, which inflated the main business income.250,000 yuan, concealed related transactions in the reporting accounting period, did not truthfully disclose the company’s major internal control deficiencies, the actual controller disclosed falsely, and the disclosure of the gambling agreement was false; the 2015 annual report contains false records; the temporary reports found contain false records;The disclosure of information on the pledge of equity by major shareholders was required. The company was punished by a bill of 600,000 yuan, and 14 responsible persons were punished by bills ranging from 3 to 30 times.  The truthfulness, accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of information disclosure are an important foundation for the healthy operation of the capital market and a statutory requirement to fully protect investors’ right to know.The new “Securities Law” has substantially increased the crackdown on violations of information disclosure laws and regulations. If the obligor for information disclosure fails to provide relevant reports or other information disclosure obligations in accordance with regulations, it shall be ordered to give a warning and be punished by more than 50 million.A fine of less than 5 million yuan shall be given to the person in charge directly responsible and other directly responsible persons, and a fee of more than 200,000 yuan shall be imposed.If the report or information disclosed by the obligor of information disclosure has false statements, misleading statements or major omissions, the liability order shall be corrected, warnings shall be given, and the scale of 1 million to 10 million shall be imposed.  Through strict law enforcement, the CSRC supervised and urged issuers, listed companies and their major shareholders, actual controllers, and high-level responsible entities such as Dong Jian to fulfill their information disclosure obligations in accordance with the law, and continually consolidated the foundation of the healthy development of the capital market.  Four securities firms were confiscated1.11 US $ 0.5 billion intermediary agencies were involved in 11 illegal cases involving New Securities, Debon Securities, Jinyuan Securities, and Huaxin Securities.0.5 billion.Involving Daxin, Zhonghua, Xinghua, three law firms, Dacheng law firm, a law firm, involving three asset appraisal agencies, including China Enterprise Asset Appraisal, Yinxin Asset Appraisal, and China Guangxin Asset Appraisal.In addition, more than a dozen brokerage firms were issued regulatory warnings or responsibility orders for rectification by the local securities regulatory bureau.  Among the brokers who received the bills, New Times Securities and Jinyuan Securities did not perform their due diligence as financial advisors, and the documents issued by them contained misleading statements and false records, respectively, and the total fines were more than 40 million yuan.Debang Securities was confiscated by the Securities and Futures Commission for illegal income in the first fraudulent issuance case of the bond market-Wuyang Bond Default case, due to insufficient inspection of Wuyang Construction’s receivables and investment real estate.440,000, and in the name of 550,000, was fined 1912 in total.440,000 yuan.Watson Securities provided financing for shareholders and its related parties, revoked business licenses, and was fined 1.2 million yuan.  According to YCY’s accounting industry observation statistics, the 2019 China Securities Regulatory Commission and its affiliates involved financial accounting, auditing, and evaluation administrative disputes of 50 times, which is equivalent to one less in 2018.The total amount of fines and forfeitures was 79.83 million yuan, a decrease of 45% compared with 2018.Among them, the administrative law enforcement in 2019 involved 5 accounting firms and 3 evaluation agencies, totaling 9 administrative interventions.The fines of accounting firms and appraisal agencies were 19.6 million yuan, an increase of 19% compared to 2018.  Daxin, Zhonghua, and Xinghua, as the relevant business audit institutions of listed companies, failed to perform due diligence in their audit procedures, which led to false statements in the relevant audit reports, which were breached by the Securities and Futures Commission according to law.As a related business evaluation agency, CITIC Asset Appraisal and China Guangxin Asset Appraisal did not perform their due diligence during the evaluation practice. The “Assessment Report” issued by them contained false records or misleading statements and was punished by the 佛山桑拿网 Securities and Futures Commission according to law.  Securities companies, accounting firms and other intermediaries play the role of “gatekeepers” in the market. It is also obvious that the CSRC intermediaries are not diligent in their due diligence. For those intermediaries that have not dutifully and dutifully performed securities business around listed companies, the CSRCIt will insist on double investigations in one case, and illegal listed companies will provide evidence with bad intermediaries, strictly abide by them, and will not tolerate them. It will force intermediaries to be honest and trustworthy and diligent and responsible.  There are various forms of violations of laws and regulations. In addition to the violations in the above fields, there are certain types of market manipulation, use of undisclosed information 厦门夜网 to trade stocks, dissemination of false information, and stock speculation by employees, and many other cases have been tied to sky-high prices.Ticket.It is worth noting that the new “Securities Law” has significantly increased the punishment for illegal acts such as insider trading and information disclosure. Therefore, the implementation of the new “Securities Law” on March 1 this year will effectively increase the cost of violations and violations of laws.Violations are a powerful deterrent.  On January 18 last year, the Securities and Futures Commission issued four fines in one day, all directed at the manipulation of the ETF market, with a total of 1910 fines.550,000 yuan, of which the transactions involved in two cases are overlapping.The ticket with the highest confiscated amount was issued to a “post-80s”-Feudal Hua.From August 11th to September 8th, 2015, Feudal Hua traded 9 ETF products in a single account under its control, which affected the trading volume of 9 products, and disguised the corresponding ETFs and corresponding odd stocks.Revolve transactions within the day to gain illegal benefits.There are a total of 19 trading days during the manipulation period, totaling transactions within a single account8.4.7 billion shares with a turnover of 17.8.7 billion, 501 illegal gains.97 thousand yuan.Feudal Hua was eventually confiscated 501.970,000 yuan and 501.970,000 notes.  The case of Shenzhen Datong (right protection) violent resistance to the law was seriously affected, attracted much attention, and was eventually severely punished.On the afternoon of May 22, 2019, during the process of serving the investigative notice by the investigators at the Shenzhen office, the employees of Shendatong resisted the investigation by using violent methods such as shoving, grabbing investigators, snatching, and smashing law enforcement equipment.The soft tissue was damaged, the arm was scratched, and some parts of the law enforcement recorder were damaged.In addition, during the Air Force investigation, Shenzhen Chase and related personnel refused to sign the investigation notice, refused to check, the investigators entered the office, refused to accept the inquiry, refused to sign the inquiry record, refused to provide relevant documents such as meeting records, and forcibly broke into.Inquiry place, inquiring, forcibly removing the person being interviewed, abusing, threatening inspection, investigator, etc. refusing, obstructing inspection and investigation.In the end, Shenzhen Chase was sentenced to 600,000 votes, and 5 people including the company’s actual controller and director were sentenced to 5-10 years of market ban.  On the whole, administrative law enforcement in 2019 has maintained a consistent high-pressure situation, with a stable rhythm and a variety of cases.Urge issuers, listed companies and their major shareholders and other responsible entities to strengthen their trustworthiness to improve the quality of listed companies; crack down on insider trading, market manipulation and other actions to purify the market environment;Duty of Consensus.It can be expected that the strength of supervision and law enforcement will escort the creation of a standardized, transparent, open, dynamic, and capitalized capital market.