Data map of Li Zhiying being detained in a prison car

Li Zhiying was charged with three counts in this case.Among them, charged with Collusion with foreign countries or foreign forces to endanger national security , Means that it requests foreign or overseas institutions, organizations, and personnel to impose sanctions, blockades or other hostile acts against the People’s Republic of China or the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region during the period from July 1 to December 1, 2020.

Accused Crime of conspiring to collude with foreign countries or foreign forces to endanger national security According to Li Zhiying, between July 1, 2020 and February 15, 2021, in Hong Kong, he conspired with Chen Zihua, Mark Herman Simon, Li Yuxuan, Liu Zudi and others to request foreign or overseas institutions, organizations, and personnel to implement Sanctions and blockades of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region or Mainland China.

And charged The crime of conspiracy to commit one or a series of acts that tend to obstruct justice It is alleged that Li Zhiying conspired with Li Yuxuan, Chen Zihua and others in Hong Kong between July 2020 and August 23, 2020 with intent to obstruct justice, that is, assisted him to leave Hong Kong after Li Yuxuan was arrested. Prior to this, the case of Li and Chen will be handed over to the High Court for trial, and Su Huide has decided to adjourn the case again, and the case will be retrial on July 7.

Economic Observer reporter Liang Ji The criminal detention did not delay the reduction of holdings. This operation by Pan Xianwen, the actual controller of Sansheng Co., Ltd. (002742.SZ), has aroused widespread suspicion, including the supervisory authorities.

On the evening of June 6, Sansheng shares announced that its controlling shareholder and actual controller Pan Xianwen was taken criminal detention by the public security authorities on June 1 for being suspected of manipulating the securities market. It is worth noting that on June 2, Pan Xianwen reduced his holdings of 150,000 shares of the company; his son Pan Chenggong also reduced his holdings of company shares from May 31 to June 2.

Investors in the secondary market “fried the pot”: Why did they make an announcement only 5 days after being detained? Why can the share reduction operation be completed during the period of criminal detention?

On June 7, Sansheng shares opened the limit lower. The Shenzhen Stock Exchange hurriedly issued a letter of concern on the above-mentioned matters on the same day. Sansheng Co., Ltd. stated in its reply announcement on June 10 that the relevant information disclosure obligors did not violate the relevant regulations on timeliness, and the aforementioned reduction was caused by the forced liquidation of the pledged stocks of the parties.

In fact, since June 2020, Pan Xianwen, the actual controller of Sansheng Co., Ltd., and those acting in concert have entered the fast lane of shareholding reduction. At the same time, Pan Xianwen and those acting in concert also had a high percentage of pledged shares held by them, and they were forced to liquidate their positions by institutions many times.

Since 2019, Sansheng shares have included a total of 16 violations involving short-term transactions by supervisors, criminal detention of the actual controller, and investigations by the Securities Regulatory Commission for violations of the company’s letter disclosure. Sansheng also stated in the announcement that the company does have internal control problems such as the actual controller overriding internal control.

In addition to the criminal detention of the actual controller, Sansheng also disclosed on June 10 that some of the company’s shares held by the actual controllers Pan Xianwen and Zhou Tinge were frozen by the judicial system; in addition, it also announced the chairman and general manager on June 1. Due to Pan Chenggong’s triggering of the default clause agreed in the Zheshang Securities Agreement, the stock may be subject to the risk of forced liquidation again, and Sansheng shares are still facing uncertainty in the future.

The actual accused triggered three consecutive questions after being detained

On June 6, Sansheng announced that the company received a notice from the family of Pan Xianwen, the controlling shareholder and actual controller of the company, that Pan Xianwen was taken criminal detention by the Chongqing Public Security Bureau on June 1 for suspected manipulation of the securities market.

Outsiders questioned the five-day time difference between Pan Xianwen’s Xingwen’s detention and the announcement of Sansheng shares.

Prior to June 3, Sansheng shares announced that Pan Xianwen reduced his holdings of 150,000 shares of the company on June 2, the day after he was detained; Pan Chenggong also added up from May 31 to June 2. Reduced holdings of approximately 2,799,500 shares, including approximately 1,905,500 shares that were liquidated.

According to the 2021 quarterly report of Sansheng Shares, among the top 10 shareholders of the company, the largest shareholder Pan Xianwen and the second largest shareholder Zhou Ting’e are husband and wife and the actual controller of the company. The third largest shareholder Pan Chenggong is the son of the two; the sixth largest shareholder Pan Xiandong He is the younger brother of Pan Xianwen, and Zhou Tingguo, the seventh largest shareholder, is the younger brother of Zhou Ting’e; the above-mentioned five persons constitute connected relationships or persons acting in concert, with a total shareholding ratio of 54.87%. As a listed company with a “family business” color, Sansheng shares are not unexpectedly questioned by investors whether the family intends to delay time in order to “precisely reduce their holdings.”

On June 7, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange issued a letter of concern, throwing out “three consecutive questions”: whether Pan Xianwen’s compulsory criminal detention measures violated the timeliness of information disclosure; Pan Xianwen was detained, and Pan Chenggong’s decision to reduce holdings In the process, whether there is a situation of “precise reduction of holdings” using undisclosed information in relevant sensitive period transactions and constitutes insider trading; whether the actual controller and persons acting in concert, directors, supervisors, and relevant insider information insiders have insider trading.

Attorney Xu Feng from Shanghai Jiucheng Law Firm told reporters that according to Article 85 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the public security organs shall, within 24 hours after detention, except for circumstances that cannot be notified or may hinder investigations. The family members of the detainee shall be notified; and after the situation that hinders the investigation disappears, the family members of the detainee shall be notified immediately.

Sansheng shares stated in a reply letter issued on the 10th that Pan Xianwen’s wife Zhou Ting’e had obtained the detention notice on June 1. However, due to his “lack of understanding of the nature of the matter and legal significance, and unwilling to increase the psychological burden of relatives” Inform others; after consulting with a lawyer, he informed his son Pan Chenggong on the evening of June 3rd. As the chairman of the company, Pan Chenggong held a senior management meeting in the morning of June 4th (Friday) to inform relevant matters. Obtained on June 6th (Sunday) The notification document was submitted to the company’s securities department for information disclosure. The company believes that the relevant letter disclosure obligor does not violate the relevant regulations on timeliness.

The announcement also stated that the aforementioned reduction was caused by the securities companies’ voluntary liquidation of certain company stocks pledged by the parties to AVIC Securities and Zheshang Securities due to the triggering of the default clauses agreed in the agreement in the pledge special transaction unit. The self-dealing behavior of the securities firm that occurred due to the breach of contract is purely passive reduction of holdings for the parties concerned, and the amount involved is relatively small, and there is no “precise reduction of holdings” using undisclosed information and constitutes insider trading.

Sansheng shares also stated that the company’s current operating conditions are normal and the governance structure is stable. The company’s board of directors and management will ensure the normal operation of the company’s business activities and continue to promote the company’s sound development in accordance with the established strategy and business plan.

“The actual controller overrides the internal control”

The reason why Pan Xianwen is suspected of manipulating the securities market is not yet known. What is certain is that over the years, Pan Xianwen and those acting in concert have gradually fallen into a situation of pledged shares, occupied funds, and reduced their holdings.

Public information shows that Pan Xianwen served as the director of Chongqing Jiangbei Gypsum Plant and Jiangbei Special Building Materials Plant from 1995 to 2002. Jiangbei Special Materials (the predecessor of Sansheng Co., Ltd.) founded by him was established in May 2002 and restructured into a joint-stock company in March 2010. It started with the development and manufacturing of gypsum resources, focusing on concrete-based building materials business, and in 2015 Landed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange in February. However, since 2016, Sansheng has started the cross-border pharmaceutical industry. In 2016, Sansheng Co., Ltd. spent 258 million yuan to acquire 100% of Baikang Pharmaceutical; in 2017, it again spent 538 million yuan to acquire 60% of Chunrui Pharmaceutical.

Sansheng shares were listed on February 17, 2015. Soon after, Pan Xianwen started its pledge. Multiple announcements show that as early as May 2017, the pledge ratio of Pan Xianwen’s shares has reached 94.56%; the quarterly report of 2021 shows that the pledge ratio of Pan Xianwen, Zhou Ting’e and Pan Chenggong reached 97.66%, 83.98% and 100%, respectively.

When the road to pledge financing almost hit the ceiling, Pan Xianwen began to occupy the funds of the listed company.

In March 2019, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange issued a letter of concern to Sansheng shares, requesting the latter to check whether its prepayment balance increased significantly compared with the beginning of 2018 whether it was related to the occupation of funds by related parties. Sansheng shares replied that the company did use its suppliers to pay approximately 449 million yuan in advance to Qingfeng Health, which is controlled by Pan Xianwen, which constituted a capital occupation by related parties. As of April 2019, Qingfeng Health has returned all the principal and interest of the occupied funds.

In September 2019, the Chongqing Securities Regulatory Bureau issued an “Administrative Penalty Decision”, giving Pan Xianwen a warning and fined 900,000 yuan; in addition, Sansheng and its senior executives were fined 30,000 to 900,000 yuan respectively. Sansheng shares once said that the company and related parties will learn lessons and take this as a warning to take concrete measures to prevent this kind of situation from happening again.

However, Sansheng’s funds were occupied by the actual controller twice afterwards. In 2020, Pan Xianwen and his controlling company occupied a total of 188 million yuan of funds of Sansheng Co., Ltd.; in the first quarter of 2021, Pan Xianwen and his controlling company occupied a total of 89.1 million yuan of funds of Sansheng Co., Ltd. For such matters, Sansheng’s 2020 annual report was issued by an accounting firm with an unqualified opinion with an emphasis on the matter.

Sansheng shares stated that the above-mentioned capital occupation is that the actual controller is above the internal control of the company and transfers the funds to the company controlled by the actual controller. The company has not fulfilled the decision-making process of the board of directors and the general meeting of shareholders. The relevant person in charge of the Ministry conducted an internal notification of criticism and fines.

The reporter noticed that in the 2020 internal control self-evaluation report issued by Sansheng on April 28, according to relevant standards, the company has the defect that the actual controller overrides the internal control, which causes the actual controller to pass the supplier And related parties as a capital channel to occupy the company’s non-operating funds.

Senior investment banker Wang Jiyue told the Economic Observer that the actual controllers of listed companies override internal control and illegal occupation of company funds. This is actually a stubborn illness in the securities market, and it is also a problem that the China Securities Regulatory Commission has been focusing on and monitoring. However, at the operational level, the frequent occurrence of such problems is not necessarily caused by the imperfection of the relevant system, but the implementation of the system needs to be carried out by people, but the actual controller often lacks supervision in the company, resulting in the failure of internal control. .

Pledge of equity and illegal appropriation of funds are unsustainable, and Pan Xianwen and those acting in concert have also embarked on the path of reduction.

At the end of June 2020, Sansheng shares announced that Pan Xianwen intends to reduce the company’s shares by no more than 25.92 million shares, and the proposed reduction will not exceed 6% of the company’s total share capital. The reason for the reduction is personal funding needs. At the end of July of the same year, Sansheng shares announced that Pan Xianwen planned to transfer 21.6 million shares of the company at a price of 138 million yuan, accounting for 5% of the company’s total share capital.

In March 2021, Sansheng shares once again disclosed the share reduction plan of Pan Xianwen and his concerted person Zhou Ting’e. The two men calculated that they would reduce their holdings by no more than 25.92 million shares, and the proposed reduction would not exceed 6% of the company’s total share capital.

On June 10, Sansheng shares announced that some of the company’s shares held by the actual controllers Pan Xianwen and Zhou Ting’e were judicially frozen on June 9, 2021. 3,273,800 shares.

Regarding the above matters, the reporter called Sansheng shares, but the other party said that the company is now in a sensitive period and refused to be interviewed by the media.

On June 7th, the share price of Sansheng shares fluctuated and consolidated after closing the limit at 4.62 yuan. It closed at 4.76 yuan on June 11, a 28.7% drop from the April high of 6.68 yuan.

Supervise the rain

In recent days, Pan Xianwen is not alone in the actual controller of a listed company that has been subject to criminal detention measures. On June 7, Hongda shares announced that the company received a letter from the controlling shareholder Hongda Industrial that the actual controller of the company, Liu Canglong, was taken criminal detention by the Chengdu Public Security Bureau on suspicion of breaching trust and using entrusted property. In addition, Fucheng shares, known as the “first funeral and funeral share” of A-shares, in fact, the controller Li Fucheng was investigated by the China Securities Regulatory Commission for suspected short-term trading; Shao Kai, the director and general manager of China Holding Co., Ltd., who had left his post only three days, was suspected Insider trading has also been investigated by the Securities Regulatory Commission.

A senior investment banker of a large Shanghai securities firm told the Economic Observer that if the actual controller of a listed company is subject to criminal detention and compulsory measures, it should be because the circumstances are bad and the amount involved is huge, and the criminal liability stipulated by the criminal law has been violated. At the level of administrative penalties imposed by the China Securities Regulatory Commission.

Wang Jiyue believes that the above phenomenon on the one hand shows that the supervision and law enforcement agencies are increasing their crackdowns on the illegal activities of listed companies. On the other hand, it also shows that the actual controllers of listed companies still have more violations of laws and regulations. Some may be the malicious behavior of deliberately hollowing out listed companies, and some may also be due to the limited channels for major shareholders to reduce their holdings in order to solve the debt crisis or capital chain problems to quench their thirst. In fact, the actual controller’s occupation of listed companies’ funds was once alleviated, but this round of high incidence, he believes that the restrictions on holdings reduction rules and the background of the overall financial system to reduce leverage are also important inducing factors.

Zhou Maohua, a financial analyst at China Everbright Bank, told reporters that, judging from some cases in recent years, it is true that some listed companies have insufficient internal management systems, insufficient internal governance, and internal executive restraint and supervision. Some listed companies have “insiders”. “Illegal behaviors that damage the legitimate rights and interests of shareholders and investors are not conducive to the long-term and healthy development of the company, and are incompatible with domestic high-quality development requirements. However, for listed companies, market financing channels are unobstructed and diversified, and violations of actual controllers are more inclined to lack of corporate internal governance and fundamental issues of company development.

Zhou Maohua said that in recent years, China has deepened financial supply-side reforms, accelerated the completion of legal shortcomings in the regulatory system, promoted the sound management system of listed companies, improved corporate governance, and promoted the high-quality development of listed companies. Strict supervision and tightening of financial institution policies are forcing listed companies to regulate their operations, strengthen their main businesses, improve quality and efficiency, and achieve high-quality development.

During the “two sessions” this year, a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference put forward the “Proposal on Further Improving and Clarifying the Scope of Legal Liability of Actual Controllers under Chinese Law to Increase Foreign Investment Confidence.” The China Securities Regulatory Commission stated that the next step will focus on continuing to cooperate with the legislature in making amendments, further improving the criminal liability provisions of the actual controller and cooperating with the revision of the “Company Law”, clarifying the actual controller’s fiduciary duty, and further improving the law on the actual controller. Responsibility regulations and other aspects were improved.

Wang Jiyue believes that the solution to such problems is that the annual audit accountant’s report and disclosure are required; the second is that if there is refinancing, the sponsor will focus on it; and the third is that local securities regulatory bureaus and exchanges will conduct routine inspections and concerns. Problems are found at multiple levels and punished promptly. However, he also said that it is still quite difficult to put an end to this situation.

Qubit Report | Public Account QbitAI

Just because he looked like a thief, he was “caught” by facial recognition and sent to jail for 30 hours.

The basis of the face recognition system is only a driver’s license photo.

This happened in 2019. The wrongly arrested object was a black man named Robert Williams. He was released on bail after paying $1,000.

According to a report in Wired magazine, this may be the first known case of its kind.

And until now, this case has not been formally filed with the federal government.

The first case of face recognition error

Things have to start three years ago.

In 2018, a thief stole a few famous watches in a Shinola retail store and was photographed by the store surveillance.

The image captured by the surveillance was very blurry, and the thief did not look up at the surveillance during the entire process.

In this case, the police used facial recognition technology and locked 42-year-old Robert Williams with only a driver’s license photo.

In 2019, the police asked a security guard in the store with his photo. The latter confirmed it was him, but the security guard did not actually witness the incident.

At the time of his arrest, Robert Williams had just returned home from get off work and was taken away by the police in front of his wife and daughter. During this time, he was not asked if he had an alibi.

Afterwards, he lay on the dirty concrete floor in the prison for 30 hours.

Robert Williams was not released until he paid a bail of $1,000.

Now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the University of Michigan School of Law formally file a federal lawsuit on behalf of Robert Williams.

Judging from the litigation documents, this is the first case of illegal arrest in the United States due to incorrect facial recognition.

But what Robert Williams wants is more than just compensation.

He hopes that this case can modify the relevant policies to stop the abuse of facial recognition technology.

Robert Williams himself stated:

Just because of the problem of the machine algorithm, he was arrested in front of his wife and daughter, hoping that this kind of thing will not happen to other people again.

More than one similar case

But in fact, face recognition “caught” the wrong person several times after that.

The second cause of wrongful arrest due to facial recognition was also a black man, Michael Oliver, who sued the police department last year.

According to NJ Advance Media, the same thing happened in New Jersey. After the police arrested a black man named Nijeer Parks with facial recognition, he was detained in jail for 10 days before they found out that the wrong person was caught.

During this period, the police did not test fingerprints, did not test DNA, only relying on the face recognition system to lock the suspect.

Currently, Nijeer Parks is still appealing, and New Jersey has also banned the use of this software.

However, it is understood that thousands of law enforcement agencies are already using facial recognition technology to find criminals.

Face recognition systems are often not so reliable.

In the 2017 UEFA Champions League, the British police adopted a facial recognition system and issued a total of 2470 alarms with an error rate of 92%.

The facial recognition software used by the US police usually only relies on billions of social media photos to identify criminal suspects.

Technically speaking, people cannot determine the uniqueness of a suspect from face recognition.

Should I use face recognition?

Face recognition technology has been adopted by the US police for more than 20 years.

But researchers from MIT and NIST found that this technology is relatively better for white male recognition, which is also related to the number of samples in the face recognition data set.

For other races, the recognition effect trained on this type of data set is often not ideal.

More than just data sets.

Another problem with face recognition is that surveillance cameras compress video images, causing patterns such as skin, veins, and moles used to distinguish suspects to be removed, damaged, or deformed.

In fact, due to the different lighting conditions of the captured video, some artifacts may be mistaken for one of the facial features (such as moles).

The most important thing is that the AI ​​model algorithm used in face recognition is very poor in interpretability and lacks empirical data to support forensic opinions.

Currently, Internet giants such as Microsoft, IBM and Amazon have pledged not to sell facial recognition systems to the police.

But the face recognition technology itself is in a somewhat awkward position.

On the one hand, the privacy and accuracy issues associated with technology, on the other hand, are the convenience and commercial benefits it brings.

Even the cameras of the domestic sales department have been aimed at passers-by for “identification”.

Where and how to use face recognition is still open for discussion.