The presiding member of Xintai Electric Case of Administrative Punishment Committee of China Securities Regulatory Commission said after the trial that the court decision provided judicial support for the CSRC to punish the actual controllers of listed companies for instigating financial fraud, which could greatly deter fraudulent issuance, help the CSRC to severely punish fraudulent issuance, purify the capital market environment and give full play to the resource allocation function of the capital market.
Xintai Electric is the first listed company in the A-share market to be delisted due to fraudulent issuance. 2065438+In July 2006, Xintai Electric was punished by China Securities Regulatory Commission for fraudulent issuance and illegal information disclosure. Wen Deyi, the former chairman and actual controller of Xintai Electric, was also given a warning by the CSRC, and was fined 8.92 million yuan to take measures to ban the securities market for life. Wen Deyi refused to accept this part of the administrative punishment decision and the market ban decision, and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court.
Because the facts of the case are related to the administrative punishment case of Xintai Electric v. China Securities Regulatory Commission, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court decided to suspend the trial of Wen Deyi v. China Securities Regulatory Commission. 2065438+On March 26th, 2008, Beijing Higher People's Court made a final judgment on the case of Xintai Electric v. China Securities Regulatory Commission, and upheld the first-instance judgment of Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court rejecting Xintai Electric's claim. After the case came into effect, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court resumed hearing the case of Wen Deyi.
Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court believes that Xintai Electric does have the following behaviors: First, there are false records in the relevant financial data in the IPO application documents; Second, there are false records and major omissions in the periodic reports disclosed after listing. At the same time, Wen Deyi, as the actual controller, instructed Xintai Electric to carry out relevant illegal acts.
According to the relevant provisions of the Administrative Punishment Law, as long as the illegal act is single, the punishment organ shall not impose an administrative penalty of more than two fines on the party concerned. In the case that the unit violates the law, the judgment of personal responsibility should first be based on personal behavior, and then combined with whether his personal behavior can be concealed by the collective will of the unit to comprehensively judge the singleness of his behavior. In this case, Wen Deyi, as the actual controller, is independent of the collective will of the company and should bear corresponding legal responsibilities for several acts.
The court held that the decision to ban the defendant had factual and legal basis. As the actual controller, Wen Deyi instructed Xintai Electric to commit illegal acts of fraudulent issuance and information disclosure. Among them, the illegal acts of fraudulent issuance led Xintai Electric to obtain issuance approval and listing without meeting the issuance conditions. Wen Deyi planned and implemented a major illegal act, which seriously disrupted the order of the securities market and caused serious social impact. The circumstances are particularly serious, and all of them obviously belong to the relevant circumstances that should be banned from the life-long market as stipulated in Article 5 of the Regulations on Prohibition of Securities Market (Order No.33 of China Securities Regulatory Commission). The defendant's decision to ban the plaintiff from the securities market for life did not violate the relevant provisions of Article 5 of the original Regulations on Prohibition of Securities Market, and the discretion was not obviously inappropriate.