Original title: rules of real name system behind exemption from punishment for suspected stock manipulation cases in Huang Xiaoming's account
According to the case, the reason why Huang's account was managed by Gao Yong was that Zhang, the original manager of the account and his mother, introduced him through Lu.
Lu is Lu Lei, partner of Beijing moat investment. According to the rumor, further investigation found that Lu Lei and Zhang Suxia, the mother of Huang Xiaoming, had no business contacts, but Huang Xiaoming and Lu Lei had indirect connections.
According to the details of the case of the release of the punishment decision, Huang Xiaoming and the 14 natural person account holders entrusted to Gao Yong for 'management' are not involved in the illegal identification, nor are they required to bear the relevant responsibilities in the case.
Our reporter Li Wei reports from Beijing
Another dispute surrounding the high-level case is whether the possible illegal gains in the accounts of Huang and others will be confiscated together after the CSRC makes a decision to confiscate up to 1.8 billion yuan. The lawyer said that the illegal income is the income generated by the illegal act. No matter which carrier the income is transferred or not, it will be recovered accordingly.
In August 10th, the SFC announced that it had punished Gao Yong for manipulating the essence of 002349.SZ, confiscated 897 million yuan of illegal gains from Gao Yong and imposed a fine of 897 million yuan.
In the process of manipulating essence pharmaceuticals, Gao Yong used several accounts of natural persons to conduct agency transactions, including "Huang Mou Ming". According to the case, Huang Mouming account was managed by Gao Yong, and the account manager and his mother Zhang Mouxia introduced him through "Lu Mou".
After the disclosure of the case, Huang and his mother Zhang were also speculated to be the movie star Huang Xiaoming and her mother Zhang Suxia due to the similarity of their names.
Key questions to be avoided
According to the decision on administrative penalty issued by the Securities Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the penalty decision), Gao Yong used his actual control account group. From January 12, 2015 to July 22nd, he concentrated on the advantage of capital, and manipulated the "essence pharmaceutical" stock price illegally for 897 million yuan by continuous trading and large scale closure. The above account group consists of two trust sub accounts and 14 natural person accounts including Huang.
It is the description of the details of Huang's account involved in the punishment decision that arouses public attention.
'Huang's account will be managed and used by his mother Zhang after opening. According to Lu, Zhang entrusts Gao Yong to manage part of Huang's securities account, which is involved in transactions made by Gao Yong. 'the punishment decision is introduced.
On August 11, Huang Xiaoming's studio issued a statement saying that Huang Xiaoming did not know Gao, nor participated in any stock manipulation, and "has not been punished or involved in any stock related investigation".
However, the 21st century economic news reporter found that Huang Xiaoming's statement just showed that Huang Xiaoming did not participate in the stock manipulation, accept the investigation and be punished, but he chose to avoid the key information in the administrative punishment letter, that is, whether Huang is exactly Huang Xiaoming..
'the content denied by Huang Xiaoming's studio was not mentioned in the punishment book, because the & lsquo; Huang Mingming & rsquo; in the punishment book did not participate in stock manipulation or was punished, but his mother entrusted the account to Gao Yong for management. "A lawyer from BOC law firm who paid close attention to the case said frankly," but I don't see any denial from the studio about the question that (Huang Xiaoming) is & lsquo; Huang ". '
According to the 21st century economic news reporter, who was close to the regulators, Huang and Zhang were indeed two of them.
It is worth mentioning that according to the punishment decision, the 'Lumou' in the process of Huang Xiaoming's account entrusted to Gao Yong's management is the introducer between Zhang Suxia, his mother, and Gao Yong. According to the verification of 21st century economic report, Lumou is Lu Lei, the partner of Beijing moat investment. According to the rumor, further investigation found that Lu Lei and Zhang Suxia, the mother of Huang Xiaoming, had no business contacts, but Huang Xiaoming and Lu Lei had indirect connections.
Tianyancha information shows that Lulei, Wang Ning, the actual controller of Shenzhou Taiyue (300002. SZ), and Beijing Shanju Investment Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shanju investment) initiated by the company's senior management team jointly invested in Beijing Zhongguan Yueying culture and Media Co., Ltd., while Shanju investment also co invested in Shenzhen Fengnian interactive culture and Technology Co., Ltd. through a partnership fund and Huang Xiaoming Star Zhang Ziyi also shares in the company.
'good third party'
Although Huang Xiaoming's account was involved in the manipulation of essence pharmaceuticals, according to the twenty-first Century economic report reporter's interview, judging from the details of the release of the penalty decision, Huang Xiaoming and the 14 natural person accounts holders entrusted to Gao Yong 'management did not involve illegal identification, nor did they have to bear the relevant responsibilities in the case.
The relationship between Huang, Zhang and Gao Yong is the act of securities exchange agency, that is to say, Gao Yong is entrusted to take care of the account, while Gao Yong violates the law in the process of taking care of the account, but Huang and Zhang do not know about it, which belongs to the situation of the third person in good faith in securities exchange agency. According to the lawyer, Huang and Zhang could not predict or know that Gao Yong might engage in illegal activities when entrusting his account to Gao Yong for management. '
'neither Huang nor Zhang will be held responsible. In such cases, the pursuit is mainly aimed at the illegal subject, that is, the actual maker of the transaction, while the nominal holder of the account illegally used usually does not bear the responsibility, and the person responsible in this case is clearly Gao Yong. "A person close to the case confirmed to reporters.
However, another dispute surrounding the case is whether the illegal income that may exist in the accounts of Huang Xiaoming and others will be confiscated together after the CSRC makes a decision to confiscate up to 1.8 billion yuan. According to the CSRC, Gao Yong's profit carrier is reflected in the account group, i.e. part of the illegal income will be in the securities accounts including Huang Xiaoming and others.
'illegal income is the income generated by illegal acts. No matter which carrier the income is on or whether it is transferred, it will be recovered accordingly. 'said the lawyer.
In addition, although the act of entrusting a lender's account to another person to trade as an agent does not constitute an administrative violation, it is still a "cross-border" requirement of the real name system of the account in the securities law.
As early as June 15 this year, China Clearing issued the notice on strengthening the self-discipline management of the violation of the real name system of accounts in securities illegal cases (hereinafter referred to as the notice), which is called further strengthening the account management. The relevant parties who violate the real name system of accounts in securities illegal cases will be subject to a certain period of time in addition to taking measures such as canceling accounts, restricting the use, etc Make new accounts and list them as key objects of concern.
According to the notice, for the subject of "borrowing other's securities account and lending one's own securities account" in the case where the CSRC has made the decision of administrative penalty, CSDCC will take the measures of restricting the opening of new securities account for a period of six months. Within 12 months after the expiration of the measures of restricting the opening of new securities account, the subject involved in the case who applies for the opening of new securities account shall go to the temporary counter of securities company for handling. At the same time, securities companies should strictly review and prudently open accounts. And Huang Xiaoming and other 14 natural persons clearly meet this situation in the case.
A private placement person close to the regulator said that since Huang Xiaoming, as a public figure, the 'demonstration effect' of his leaving securities accounts to others for management and ultimately being used for market manipulation is likely to have a relatively bad social impact, so the regulator should not impose administrative penalties on him, but should still take corresponding disciplinary measures such as self-regulation.