Listed Companies Face Regulatory Storm: 18 Investigated at Year Start, Cases Double

Log in to Sina Finance App and search for [Information Disclosure] to see more evaluation levels

Reprinted from: Beike Finance

Recently, Xiangyou Technology announced that the company received a “Notice of Filing” from the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) due to suspected violations of information disclosure laws and regulations. The CSRC has decided to initiate an investigation against the company.

This is not an isolated case; similar announcements have been appearing frequently recently. According to incomplete statistics by Beike Finance reporters, since the beginning of the year, 18 A-share listed companies and 6 senior executives of listed companies have been investigated by the CSRC, more than doubling the number compared to the same period last year.

A “regulatory storm” has hit at the start of the year. What signals does this intensive investigation send?

18 listed companies have been filed for investigation at the start of the year, including Xiangyou Technology, Tianfeng Securities, and Tiansheng New Materials

On March 16, Xiangyou Technology disclosed that it was under investigation by the CSRC for suspected violations of information disclosure laws and regulations. On the same day, ST Keli Da also announced that the company and Chairman Gu Yiming had been filed for investigation for the same reason.

Wind data shows that as of now, 18 listed companies in 2026 have been investigated by the CSRC, including ST Keli Da, Xiangyou Technology, Lierda, Haitai Development, Shuangliang Energy Saving, Jierong Technology, ST Xinhua Jin, Tianfeng Securities, Yingji Xin, Tianji Shares, ST Cuihua, Tiansheng New Materials, Yahui Long, Baoxin Technology, Quanyin High-Tech, Rongbai Technology, Sunflower, and Tianpu Shares.

A total of 18 listed companies have been investigated by the CSRC in 2026. (Wind screenshot)

Nankai University finance professor Tian Lihui told Beike Finance that the sharp increase in investigations is an inevitable result of the new phase of securities enforcement in the capital market. From an economic perspective, this reflects the optimized allocation of regulatory resources and a systematic improvement in enforcement efficiency.

He further analyzed that behind the growth are two logics: first, expanding regulatory coverage to include non-traditional information disclosure behaviors that were previously outside regulatory scope, achieving comprehensive oversight; second, increasing the precision of enforcement, extending from simply holding companies accountable to targeting the “primary culprits,” namely actual controllers and senior executives, breaking the imbalance between illegal costs and benefits.

“This indicates that regulation is shifting from case-by-case enforcement to systematic governance, aiming to restore market trust through high-intensity law enforcement and laying a solid credit foundation for the registration-based IPO system,” Tian emphasized.

Jiang Han, senior researcher at Pangu Think Tank, believes that the significant increase in investigations is not accidental but a necessary result of the capital market entering a “strong regulation cycle.” This shows that regulators are turning policies into actions. Frequent investigations are actually building a deterrence mechanism that can be anticipated.

The increase in cases reflects the regulators’ high regard for the integrity of the capital market. Jiang pointed out that information disclosure is the “lifeline” of the capital market, and violations of disclosure rules are a “chronic disease” eroding market integrity. With the deepening of the comprehensive registration system, market access is becoming more relaxed, and supervision during and after the event must be strengthened simultaneously to prevent “bad money driving out good.”

In the past, regulation often focused on major risk events after they occurred. Now, a sustained high-pressure stance has formed. Jiang noted that this shift is conducive to stabilizing policy expectations and making listed companies realize that compliance is not a “multiple-choice” but a “must-answer” question. For investors, this is both a warning and a long-term benefit—a market characterized by integrity and transparency can truly protect the rights of small and medium investors.

Most investigations are due to violations of information disclosure, with “hot topic” related misleading statements becoming a new focus for regulators

Regarding the reasons for investigations, the vast majority point to “suspected violations of information disclosure laws and regulations.” Since the beginning of the year, several companies have been investigated by the CSRC for “riding the hot topic” and making misleading statements.

On January 9, the CSRC announced that Tianpu Shares experienced abnormal stock price fluctuations and that the CSRC had filed an investigation for suspected major omissions in the disclosure of abnormal trading. On January 14, Rongbai Technology disclosed a major contract in its daily operations, suspected of misleading statements.

Yahui Long’s administrative penalty decision issued on March 17 also shows that the company’s disclosure related to the strategic cooperation framework agreement with “Brain Machine Starlink” in January 2026 contained inaccurate and incomplete information, constituting misleading disclosure violations. The company and relevant responsible persons were fined a total of 7.5 million yuan.

Jiang Han pointed out that “riding the hot topic” misleading statements have become a new focus for regulation, reflecting an “upgrade” in the methods of violations by listed companies. Traditional disclosure violations mainly involved late reporting or omission, but now misleading statements are more covert and proactive. Some listed companies use market hot concepts, vague language, to guide investor expectations and influence stock prices. This “edge-ball” behavior is essentially a new form of market manipulation, with dangers comparable to traditional financial fraud.

Tian Lihui believes that major omissions and misleading statements during abnormal stock price fluctuations are new forms of market manipulation by listed companies exploiting information advantages. Compared to traditional financial fraud, this behavior is more covert and immediately harmful, directly damaging the price formation mechanism and leading to mispricing and resource misallocation.

“Regulatory intervention in such behaviors reflects a shift from focusing on the form of information disclosure to emphasizing the substantive fairness of information quality,” Tian emphasized. This signifies a deepening of enforcement concepts: any information that could influence investor decisions, whether in announcements or interactive platforms, should be strictly scrutinized to maintain market fairness.

He also stated that the linkage between abnormal stock price fluctuations and disclosure violations in investigations indicates that regulators are building a “dual-dimensional” supervision framework of “trading behavior + information disclosure.” In the past, these were often handled separately, but now it is recognized that abnormal price movements often involve information asymmetry. Integrating this regulatory approach can effectively close the arbitrage space of “timing gaps.”

“This concentrated exposure of phenomena precisely shows that regulation is moving into the ‘deep water’ area,” Jiang Han said. This “root cause tracing” enforcement approach can create a stronger deterrent effect. For listed companies, this means that compliance management must shift from “passive response” to “proactive prevention,” and establishing sound internal information control mechanisms is the long-term solution.

Beijing News Beike Finance Reporter Hu Meng Editor Chen Li Proofread Mu Xiangtong