This forced delisting first stock refused to accept the penalty and sued the Shenzhen stock exchange for losing the lawsuit.

category:Global click:918
 This forced delisting first stock refused to accept the penalty and sued the Shenzhen stock exchange for losing the lawsuit.


However, Wen Deyi was not convinced when he was forced to withdraw from the market. He told Xinhua reporters and other media reporters that he was not guilty to death.

I didnt even fake my business income, but I faked it on the running water, just like the original profit of 50,000 yuan, I put him down as 60,000 yuan.

Xintai electric, which is not convinced, has also sued the SFC and the Shenzhen Stock Exchange.

On March 26, 2018, the Beijing Higher Peoples Court made a final judgment on the case of Xintai Electric Company disobeying the administrative penalty of the SFC. The court dismissed the appeal and maintained the first instance decision.

On the evening of September 22, 2018, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange disclosed that the Shenzhen Intermediate Peoples Court made a first-instance judgment in the case of Dandong Xintai Electric Company refusing to accept the decision of Shenzhen Stock Exchange delisting, and rejected Xintai Electrics claim.

Suing the Shenzhen stock exchange for failing in first instance

On September 22nd, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange issued a statement on its official micro signal.

Recently, Shenzhen Intermediate Peoples Court (hereinafter referred to as Shenzhen Intermediate Court) on Dandong Xintai Electric Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xintai Electric) refused to accept the Shenzhen Stock Exchange delisting decision to make a first-instance judgment, rejected Xintai Electrics litigation request.

On July 5, 2016, Xintai Electric was punished by the SFC for fraudulent issuance, and Shenzhen Stock Exchange made a decision on its delisting. Xintai Electric filed an administrative lawsuit with the Shenzhen Intermediate Court on December 22, 2017, arguing that its fraudulent issuance occurred before the implementation of the GEM Stock Listing Rules (Revised in 2014). Shenzhen Stock Exchanges delisting decision violated the principle of law does not retroactivity. In April 13, 2018, the Shenzhen intermediate peoples Court opened a public hearing of the case.

The court held that the time when the SFC decided that Xintai Electric had committed fraudulent issuance and imposed administrative penalties was July 5, 2016, when the GEM Listing Rules (Revised in 2014) came into force. The Shenzhen Stock Exchange made a decision on its delisting according to the GEM Listing Rules (Revised in 2014). According to the decision, the lawsuit was refunded to Xin Tai Electric.

Next, under the leadership of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange will continue to conscientiously fulfill its first-line regulatory responsibilities, implement the concept of legal, comprehensive and strict supervision, strictly implement the responsibility of the delisting subject, resolutely safeguard the seriousness of the delisting system, never tolerate the illegal acts of fraudulent issuance, and achieve one emergence, one delisting. To fully safeguard the long-term healthy and stable development of the capital market.

He sued the SFC for a lawsuit.

Each editorial (ID: nbdnews) noted that Hintech Electric had previously sued the SFC, after the second instance, the final defeat.

In July 2016, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) imposed penalties on Xintai Electric Company according to law for fraudulent issuance and illegal disclosure of information.

In a fury, Xintai Electric filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing First Intermediate Peoples Court in January 2017, refusing to accept the punishment and reconsideration decision of the SFC. In May 2017, the first intermediate peoples Court of Beijing decided that the SFC won the lawsuit.

Xintai Electric appealed to the Beijing High Peoples Court (hereinafter referred to as the Beijing High Court) against the first instance decision.

In December 19, 2017, Xintai electric administrative litigation was heard in the second instance of Beijing high court. Huang Wei, member of the Party Committee of the SFC and assistant chairman of the SFC, appeared in court as the head of the SFC to respond to the case. This case is the first administrative litigation case caused by the delisting of fraudulent issuance. It is also the first case that the head of the central state organ appeared in court to respond to the case, causing widespread concern in society.

On March 26, 2018, the Beijing High Court made a final judgment that the defendants decision on punishment and the decision on reconsideration were legitimate and valid, and that the first-instance decision rejected the Xintai Electric Litigation Claim was correct and should be supported; Xintai Electric Appeal Claim could not be established and could not be supported. The court decided to reject the appeal and maintain the first instance decision.

Cash flow index fraud

As early as September 2009, Xintai Electric filed its IPO filing for the first time, but was rejected in March 2011 due to insufficient profitability of the assets acquired.

In June 2011, Xintai electric changed its sponsor agency to prepare for another rush. However, due to the pressure of operation, Xintai Electric relaxed the control of customers, more difficult customers to repay, cash flow once became negative.

The simulated financial statements at the end of 2011 even found that the company had negative operating cash flow and large balance of accounts receivable problems, which are crucial to IPO.

Liu Mingsheng, chief accountant of Xintai Electric, said that the financial data is difficult to meet the listing conditions and suggested to the chairman Wen Deyi that the receivables should be recovered fictionally. Eventually, Xintai Electric landed in March 2014 with a prospectus containing false data and raised more than 200 million yuan.

In addition to the companys own funds, Windrunk B himself to third-party companies and friends have made a lot of loans, and even without the customers account to achieve the transfer of funds. Investigators told Xinhua News Agency reporters.

Xintai electric makes false accounts mainly in two ways:

One method is to borrow money from others. Cashiers make cash withdrawals and cash payments at the bank counter at the same time. But when filling out the cash payment form, they fill in the name of the client company directly in the column of the payer, and calculate the accounts receivable paid by the customer to Xintai Electric. After the reporting period, the cashier goes to the bank for cash withdrawal and payment, and the money is returned to the borrower from Xintai Electric. Another way is that Wen Deyi borrows money from an external third party company and takes account through bank draft. Simply put, it is a bank draft drawn by a third party borrowed by Windsor B and endorsed to Hintech Electric by the customers seal, which is counted as receivable. After the reporting period, the bank draft will be drawn by Xintai Electric Company, endorsed by the customers seal, and transferred to a third party company. As a result, capital has been turned back. In order to hide, Xintai Electric try to spread the counterfeit part to different customers, the amount of each order is different, and there is zero integrity, true and false mix. Investigators said. Source: Daily Economic News Editor: Xu Meng _NN7485

One method is to borrow money from others. Cashiers make cash withdrawals and cash payments at the bank counter at the same time. But when filling out the cash payment form, they fill in the name of the client company directly in the column of the payer, and calculate the accounts receivable paid by the customer to Xintai Electric. After the reporting period, the cashier goes to the bank for cash withdrawal and payment, and the money is returned to the borrower from Xintai Electric.

Another way is that Wen Deyi borrows money from an external third party company and takes account through bank draft.

Simply put, it is a bank draft drawn by a third party borrowed by Windsor B and endorsed to Hintech Electric by the customers seal, which is counted as receivable. After the reporting period, the bank draft will be drawn by Xintai Electric Company, endorsed by the customers seal, and transferred to a third party company. As a result, capital has been turned back.

In order to hide, Xintai Electric try to spread the counterfeit part to different customers, the amount of each order is different, and there is zero integrity, true and false mix. Investigators said.