On January 10, 2022, the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province made a final ruling on the case of Ma Xingtian, the former chairman of Kangmei Pharmaceutical's manipulation of the securities market, dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
On November 17, 2021, the Intermediate People's Court of Foshan City, Guangdong Province sentenced Ma Xingtian to 12 years in prison and a fine of 1.2 million yuan for the crime of manipulating the securities market, illegal disclosure, non-disclosure of important information, and unit bribery. 11 other defendants, including Xu Dongjin, vice chairman of Yeyuan, were sentenced to six to six months in prison and fined.
The court heard and found that: From 2015 to 2018, Ma Xingtian, together with others, raised a large amount of funds in violation of regulations, used the stock trading account he actually controlled to buy and sell, and continuously traded, and manipulated the stock price and trading volume of Kangmei Pharmaceutical, resulting in a total of 20 times. The cumulative trading volume for 10 consecutive trading days has reached more than 30% of the total trading volume of the security in the same period, and the cumulative trading volume for 10 consecutive trading days has reached more than 50% of the total trading volume of the security in the same period.
Ma Xingtian also organized, planned, and directed the company's relevant personnel to conduct financial fraud and disclose false business information to the company's shareholders and the public; deliberately concealed the controlling shareholder, and related parties occupied more than 11.6 billion yuan of non-operating funds without disclosure.
In addition, from 2005 to 2012, Ma Xingtian sought illegitimate interests for Kangmei Pharmaceutical, and paid a total of HKD 7.9 million and RMB 600,000 to a number of state officials. Both Kangmei Pharmaceutical and Ma Xingtian constituted unit bribery.
The second-instance court held that the first-instance verdict found that the facts were clear, the evidence was reliable and sufficient, the conviction was accurate, the sentencing was appropriate, and the trial procedure was legal, and thus made the above-mentioned ruling.
【Reporter】Du Weigan