A few days ago, China judicial document network released a criminal judgment, which finally opened the interest chain of duty encroachment with a total amount of 274 million yuan behind Mas hasty exit.
The bond market elite
In December 2015, at the end of the year, Ma Mulun, a 15 year old general of China Merchants Securities and former general manager of fixed income headquarters, was suddenly exposed and arrested by the judicial authorities. Subsequently, China Merchants Securities replied to the media that Ma was arrested by the public security organ because he was suspected of violating national laws. China Merchants Securities will be expelled according to relevant regulations of the company.
Another media confirmed from the office of the board of directors of China Merchants Securities that Ma was investigated and punished after the 10th inspection group of the central committee went to China Merchants Group for inspection and found its problems. Because he was not a senior executive of China Merchants Securities, the details of his case were not disclosed.
China Merchants Securities is a subsidiary of China Merchants Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as China Merchants Group). During the two months from July 3 to September 2, 2015, the tenth inspection group of the Central Committee entered the China Merchants Group, and after the inspection, it put forward suggestions to the leading group of the China Merchants Group. One of them is to comprehensively investigate the securities and other areas with high integrity risks, strictly standardize the bidding procedures, and improve the internal supervision and restriction mechanism.
At that time, the stock market fell sharply at the end of 2015, and Mas sudden fall caused a lot of discussion in the whole market.
According to the resume, Ma has been working in China Merchants Securities since April 2000, and worked in the R & D Department of China Merchants Securities Shanghai regional headquarters for the next two and a half years; since December 2002, he has successively worked in the securities investment department, fixed income products department, fixed income department and bond sales and trading department.
Due to his outstanding achievements, Ma also won the title of the most influential sales elite in the capital market of the year in the bond market in 2008. Public information shows that in 2007 alone, Ma participated in the main underwriting projects of the second phase of Railway Bonds, 07 China film bonds, 07 Zhongguancun bonds, and several deputy main underwriting projects such as 07 Three Gorges bonds and Railway Bonds phase I, with a total sales volume of 7.817 billion yuan.
It is reported that Ma has successfully completed the sales of 07 China Film debt and 07 Zhongguancun bond through innovation and active expansion of sales means under the situation of severe market environment and withdrawal of underwriting group members at the end of that year. China Merchants Securities of the second phase of 07 Railway Bonds won the bid, and the cumulative sales share reached 39.01% of the total amount of 15 billion in the period; the total sales volume of the two phases of 07 railway bonds reached 6.962 billion yuan, and China Merchants Securities ranked No.4 in the market.
However, in the past five years, such an elite in bond sales has manipulated the trading of 29 inter-bank bonds by taking advantage of his position and delivered more than 200 million interests to class C companies.
274 million profit transfer in five years
According to the courts hearing, from November 2006 to may 2011, Ma and Wang used Ma as the head of the bond sales and Trading Department of China Merchants Securities, engaged in inter-bank bond trading business, mastering market resources, borrowing the credit of China Merchants Securities, etc., by means of deception, purchase and holding on behalf of others, Ma and Wang transferred the profits of 29 inter-bank bond transactions to six banks A total amount of 274 million yuan was obtained from class C companies.
Among them, the largest amount occurred in 2008, with a single profit of 22.06 million yuan.
On November 14, 2008, SAIC finance, in accordance with Mas instructions, sold back the 40 million denomination bonds held on behalf of China Merchants Securities, which bought and held them. On November 20 of the same year, Ma decided to sell China Merchants Securities to Minsheng Bank (the agent of langhuang company) at the full price of 101.8986 yuan / 100 yuan denomination on the ground that the bonds with denomination of 40 million yuan were held on behalf of the client of China Merchants Securities.
On that day, Wang entrusted Minsheng Bank to buy from China Merchants Securities according to the transaction elements provided by Ma. On that day, Wang sold the full price of 107.4286 yuan / 100 yuan denomination to the China Merchants Bank contacted by Ma. With one in and one out, the book profit of langhuang company was as high as 22.12 million yuan.
The court finally held that Ma and Wang took advantage of Mas position to occupy the companys property with a huge amount, and their behavior violated the criminal law and should be investigated for criminal responsibility for the crime of occupation. It is a joint crime. Among them, Ma is the principal offender and Wang is an accessory.
In view of Mas voluntary surrender after committing a crime and truthfully confessing his own crime, he should be given a lighter punishment according to law; Wangs assistance in capturing other criminal suspects is meritorious and should be given a lighter punishment according to law; Wangs truthful confession of his crime and refund of the stolen money obtained will be given a lighter punishment as appropriate; Mas residence under surveillance for 88 days is equivalent to 44 days imprisonment.
Finally, Ma was sentenced to five years imprisonment and 30 million yuan of property was confiscated (the term is calculated from the date of execution of the judgment, that is, from October 27, 2015 to September 12, 2020); Wang was sentenced to three years imprisonment with a four-year suspended sentence; Ma and Wang withdrew the stolen money of 62.3087 million yuan, which was returned Continue to recover the illegal gains of Ma and Wang, confiscate them according to law and turn them over to the state treasury.
The risk behind over the securities
In the judgment of the first instance of this case, the words holding on behalf of others and Guoquan appeared frequently. The risks and loopholes hidden behind various transactions have to be prevented.
Agency holding transaction is a kind of transaction mode spontaneously produced in the development process of Chinas inter-bank bond market. In practice, it is embodied in two cash bond transactions, that is, when the bondholder sells the bond to the bond purchaser, both parties agree that the bondholder will buy back the same amount of bonds of the same kind from the bond purchaser at the agreed price on a certain date in the future.
The main purpose of agency holding transaction is to realize short-term financing. Compared with the standardized financing form, the holding period is flexible, there are no restrictions on the counterparties, and it can quickly expand leverage and improve the return on investment, which is common in the fixed income business of securities companies. Generally speaking, the development of agency holding business is reasonable. As long as the securities company reasonably controls the business scale, includes the risk exposure, takes effective measures to ensure the fair transaction price, and strengthens the supervision and inspection, its business risk is controllable.
It is also a non-standard business, and the risk of securities passing is much greater than that of holding on behalf of others. The so-called securities trading refers to that in the inter-bank market, securities companies and other trading entities are entrusted by the third party, according to the arrangement of the third party, according to the specified transaction elements to complete the transaction of related varieties.
For a long time in the past, securities trading has been widespread in the inter-bank market. Quite a number of institutions regard the securities trading as matchmaking transaction, but there are essential differences between them.
First, the motives of trading are different. Matchmaking requires active contact between the buyer and the seller, giving full play to the normal intermediary function of securities companies, providing liquidity services for the market and earning reasonable market price difference; while the securities trading is only passively carried out according to the arrangement of the third party, helping others realize the transfer of bonds and transfer of interests in the form of transaction, so as to obtain the income arranged by the third party in advance.
Second, the price fairness is different. The transaction price of matching transaction will not deviate from the fair value of the market intentionally. However, the transaction price and other elements of the securities trading are determined by the third party arrangement. In order to realize the benefit transmission, there are generally transactions that deviate from the fair price obviously.
Third, the risks are different. The main risk of matchmaking is market risk. Securities companies mainly rely on professional ability to reasonably grasp the transaction price and market conditions to avoid risks. The main risk is the credit risk of the transaction arranger and related parties, and the policy and legal risk of helping others to transfer and transfer interests in the form of transaction.
Because of the above characteristics, although securities companies have been engaged in securities trading, they can obtain certain profits, but they have nothing to do with their own professional ability. They are not conducive to the organization to provide market liquidity, but more consciously or unconsciously assist the third party to realize the transfer of interests. Objectively, it provides convenience for a small number of trading personnel in the inter-bank market to engage in illegal acts such as occupation, and acts as interest transfer Platforms and tools.
Shenzhen Commissioners office of China Securities Regulatory Commission has previously published a signed article in the securities times, holding that securities companies should strengthen compliance review and risk management, take effective measures to distinguish matching trading and securities trading, and prohibit companies from engaging in securities trading business arranged by third parties and assisting third parties to realize benefit transfer and transfer.
Extend reading to uncover the secrets of paid internship interest chain: spend 2 omnipotence to go to the head of brokerage practice crazy gold breaking the 9-year record! Spot gold breaks through 1940 US dollars / oz, brothers join hands to do inside story! Lost more than 2 million, but also been punished. Source: Securities Companies in charge of China editor: Wang Xiaowu_ NF