Nanfang Share Financial Fraud Case Is Very Bad.

A quarterly report of Nanfang shares made a summary of the litigation involving the securities claims of the shareholders.

At the end of the first quarter, a total of 121 listed companies had received false claims from the listed companies. The total amount involved was about 18 million 977 thousand and 200 yuan. Of them, 72 has been closed, 13 cases have been tried, and 36 cases have not yet been tried.

Due to the expiration of the limitation of action on the 17 day of the false statement, although there are still ten days to go, it means that there are not many investors to sue.

Nanfang Textile Co., Ltd.

The nature of the case is very bad.

The regulatory authorities found that the listed companies had made financial fraud for five consecutive years.

From 2006 to ~2010, Nanfang shares respectively made 31 million 91 thousand and 500 yuan, 42 million 233 thousand and 300 yuan, 151 million 998 thousand and 300 yuan, 60 million 531 thousand and 800 yuan and 58 million 641 thousand and 200 yuan, respectively, accounting for 127.39%, 151.22%, 962.40%, 382.43% and 5590.73% of their profits.

If the fictitious profit is deducted, Nanfang shares will lose five consecutive years from ~2010 in 2006.

If the relevant provisions of the delisting system, Nanfang shares as early as 2010 has been swept away by the capital market.

But because of financial fraud, Nanfang shares are still "active" in the capital market.

Because of financial fraud, the success of "Bao Bao", Nanfang shares can be called A share market "a wonderful flower".

Through retrospective adjustment, the listed company suffered losses for five consecutive years from 2006 to 2010.

However, after the "time passed", the regulatory authorities did not really take the initiative. In fact, it also led to the absence of the delisting system, and its seriousness was also severely discounted.

Another example is the low cost of violation.

Nanfang shares were fined 500 thousand yuan by the securities and Futures Commission. Compared with the highest 600 thousand yuan, Nanfang shares were almost "top level" penalties, and the heaviest punishment for the responsible personnel is the prohibition of life market entry.

Such punishment can not achieve the purpose of severely punishing offenders, nor can it warn the latecomers.

Another aspect of financial fraud is the phenomenon of investors abandoning their rights.

Statistics show that in 2012, the number of shareholders at the end of the first quarter of Nanfang shares exceeded sixteen thousand.

Assuming that this is the average level of shareholders in Nanfang stock group for many years, less than 1% of investors are now advocating rights protection, and the proportion is very wide.

On the other hand, even before May 17th, investors still joined the ranks of safeguarding rights, and the amount involved was only about twenty million yuan, which once again highlighted the low cost of violation.

On the other hand, even if the current lawsuit investor wins the lawsuit, the compensation fund comes from the listed company.

The listed company's compensation rights investors are actually equivalent to the current shareholders of Nanfang share, who are paying for the irregularities of the listed companies, but these investors are innocent.

Is such a compensation way fair to the incumbent shareholders? The answer is obviously negative.

The draft amendment to the securities law has passed the first instance to introduce representative litigation system. Compared with individual litigation, representative litigation is undoubtedly a great progress, but the short board of representative litigation is also obvious.

In fact, China's capital market needs the class action system more.

The class action system can not only solve the problem of investor rights protection, but also really punish the offenders.

But there has been no sign of such a system that has been appealed for many years.

Why is it so difficult to introduce a class action system?

After many years, more than 99% of the investors gave up their rights protection. In addition to some investors at the end of the information chain and not knowing the relevant news, the essence behind them is that it is difficult to safeguard their rights.

There is no doubt that investors who are in the capital market are unwilling to see their interests being infringed, and no one is willing to give up their rights.

But if the cost of safeguarding rights is high and the time span is relatively long, giving up rights protection may be a helpless choice.