Recently, a number of shareholders involved in listed companies have received the decision of administrative penalty issued by the CSRC one after another, all of which have paid the price of “real gold and silver” for their original illegal reduction.Among these tickets, a fine of one million yuan is the norm, and a fine of ten million yuan is not uncommon.
Reporter Zhao Yihui editor Qiu Jiang
With the Securities Regulatory Commission’s tickets for illegal share reduction falling to the ground one after another, the weight of punishment is gradually increasing.Recently, a number of shareholders involved in listed companies have received the decision of administrative penalty issued by the CSRC one after another, all of which have paid the price of “real gold and silver” for their original illegal reduction.Among these tickets, a fine of one million yuan is the norm, and a fine of ten million yuan is not uncommon.On November 9, jinxinnuo’s illegal shareholders were fined 21.4 million yuan.11月10日，美盈森涉事股东立即创下3040万元的最高纪录，这比此前的处罚力度明显加大。更值得关注的是，在美英森涉事股东的求情意见中，监管部门对非法减持的态度是不容容忍和严重的。一些所谓的“认知错误”或自证“免责”行为很难成为逃避处罚的借口。
In fact, according to the reporter’s preliminary statistics, since Guoxing real estate disclosed on October 22 that its shareholders had received 2.1 million tickets from the CSRC for illegal reduction, more than 10 companies have announced the punishment results of the CSRC for illegal reduction.Among them, shareholders of four companies were fined more than 10 million yuan.In addition to meiyingsen, shareholders of jinxinnuo, Jinyun laser and Xinwangda were fined 21.4 million yuan, 13.2 million yuan and 12.1 million yuan respectively.Among the other companies, shareholders of jinlitai, Hubei Jinhuan and Xinzhu Co., Ltd. were fined at the level of one million yuan, while those of Meijin energy and yimicang were fined several hundred thousand yuan.
From the perspective of the composition of the fine, the fine for the undisclosed behavior of over proportional reduction is relatively limited, which is usually reflected in hundreds of thousands of yuan.The key of the fine disparity is to limit the amount of reduction within the transfer period.For example, the amount of fines for the two major shareholders involved in the illegal holding reduction was RMB 128.08 billion, and the more fines for the two major shareholders involved in the illegal holding reduction were RMB 210.08 billion.
One background that we have to mention is that in the past, the punishment for illegal reduction of holdings basically stopped at the level of local securities regulatory bureaus and Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges, and mainly took administrative supervision measures.However, in the early stage of the stock market turmoil, the CSRC suddenly enhanced the supervision of illegal reduction, filed a number of related cases, and recently a series of tickets are the implementation of punishment for these cases.
With the release of these high fines, the punishment of illegal reduction gradually shows the trend of “admonishment penalty” and “property penalty” simultaneously, and the fine matches the scale of illegal reduction.With the opening of the era of “large ticket”, the cost of offenders is gradually rising, which makes those who want to try the law by example afraid.
It’s hard to find an excuse to evade punishment
This storm of illegal reduction is not only reflected in the “deterrence” of the amount of fines, but also put an end to the fluke mentality of the violators and all parties in the market.Looking at the announcements of meiyingsen, Xinwangda and other companies, they all disclosed the defense opinions put forward by the shareholders involved and the regulatory authorities’ reply to them one by one.It is obvious that the so-called misunderstanding and self justification can not be used as an excuse to evade punishment.
其次，很多违规股东认为“事后披露”可以逃避处罚，但这一点也被证明难以成立。以美盈森股东王海鹏等当事人非法减持为例，王海鹏于2015年3月31日代表“一致行动人”出具了股权变更报告，尽管其减持比例过高后解释为“不构成一致行动关系”。In his view, this action has represented that “concerted action” has fulfilled the disclosure obligation for the behavior of reducing more than 5%, and the regulatory authorities should not punish the “undisclosed excessive reduction”.However, in response to Wang Haipeng’s plea, the CSRC made it clear that the parties did not disclose relevant facts in accordance with the law at the time specified by the law, which is also in violation of the provisions of the securities law.
Third, even if the exchange or local regulatory authorities take administrative supervision measures because of illegal reduction, it does not mean that they can escape the follow-up supervision means.For example, in his defense, Wang Haipeng said that Shenzhen Securities Regulatory Bureau had issued a warning letter on the illegal reduction of meiyingsen, so he thought it should not be punished again.However, the CSRC pointed out that the warning letter is an administrative supervision measure for the parties and does not affect the subsequent administrative punishment.Further punishment of the parties does not violate the principle of “no two penalties for one event” in the administrative law.Similarly, Wang Mingwang, the controlling shareholder involved in xinwanda, has been taken regulatory measures by the exchange before, but still can not escape the punishment of the CSRC.
Fourth, whether the subsequent “remedial” holdings will help to “take things lightly” depends on the situation.Previously, the regulatory authorities have stated that if the parties involved in the case increase a considerable proportion of the shares they have reduced through various ways and means after the reduction of their holdings in excess of the proportion, the CSRC will give the parties involved a lighter punishment in terms of the amount of fines for illegal reduction without changing the identification of illegal acts.Based on this, many shareholders of listed companies have joined the ranks of “Redemption” holdings, but the actual effect of “Redemption” may not be able to achieve the expected.For example, Xinwangda said in its defense that after the illegal reduction, it increased its holding of 6.46 million shares of the company, with an increase of 150 million yuan, close to the corresponding amount of 190 million yuan of illegal reduction.However, considering the fact that Xinwangda has increased 15 shares for every 10 shares, the CSRC considers that the number of shares increased by the parties is small, which does not constitute a lighter or mitigated situation.Wang Haipeng, the shareholder of meiyingsen, also took the active increase of shares as one of the defense conditions.The SFC also believes that although the parties have increased shares, it is not enough to eliminate or mitigate the consequences of the illegal act.