⚖️ Guangdong Faniu Law Firm · 17F, Shangbu Building, Futian, Shenzhen · Director Attorney Li Maoshu📞 +86 186 6492 1865
Core Offense · Offering Fraud

IPO / Offering Fraud Defense in China

Criminal Law Article 160 · Registration-System Reforms · Fraud in Share & Bond Offerings · Full-Process Defense

Up to 15 yearsFine up to 20% of proceedsRegistration-system era
📊 Offering Fraud Enforcement
Offering fraud cases (2025)22
Avg. amount involvedRMB 850M
Referred to criminal system68%
Delisting rate45%
HomeSecurities CrimeIPO / Offering Fraud Defense

1. Overview: Offering Fraud Offense (Article 160)

The crime of fraudulent offering (欺诈发行证券罪) under Article 160 of the Chinese Criminal Law applies to concealing material facts or fabricating materially false content in offering documents — prospectuses, share subscription forms, and bond-raising measures — when issuing shares or corporate bonds, where the amounts are huge, consequences serious, or other aggravating circumstances exist. In 2025 the CSRC investigated 22 offering-fraud cases with a 68% criminal-referral rate — the highest conversion-to-criminal rate of any securities offense in China.

Under the full registration-based reform, offering review authority shifted from the CSRC to the stock exchanges, but disclosure requirements increased significantly. Registration does not mean no scrutiny — it means disclosure-centered scrutiny. Offering fraud now faces stricter regulatory review and a continued crackdown posture.

2. Elements of the Offense

🔴 Parties

Issuers: joint-stock companies, LLCs, enterprises
Liable persons: directly responsible supervisors (directors, senior management) + other directly responsible persons (CFOs, sponsor representatives)
Controlling shareholders / de facto controllers who organize or direct the fraud are pursued as co-perpetrators.

🔵 Conduct

Concealing material facts or fabricating materially false content in offering documents
Documents include: prospectuses, bond-raising measures, listing announcements
Forms: false statements, misleading statements, material omissions.

🟡 Mens Rea

Intentional offense — knowingly issuing with false content in the offering documents
Negligence does not constitute the crime
"Knowledge" is inferred from objective conduct such as signing the offering documents or attending review meetings.

🟠 Aggravating Circumstances

Huge amounts: proceeds ≥ RMB 10M
Serious consequences: delisting / suspension / major investor losses
Other aggravations: repeated fraudulent offerings, refusal to rectify, etc.

3. Sentencing Standards

Level
Applicable Conditions
Penalty
Huge amounts / serious consequences
Proceeds ≥ RMB 10M, or delisting / suspension ≥6 months
≤5 years + fine
Especially huge / especially serious
Proceeds ≥ RMB 50M, or termination of listing, or investor losses ≥ RMB 30M
5-15 years + fine

4. Core Defense Strategies

Acquittal route

Disclosure Deficiency ≠ Fraud

Distinguish "quantitative" from "qualitative" disclosure failures — accounting-estimate changes and error corrections are not fraud; prove the false content in the offering documents fails the materiality test.

Mitigation

Professional-Reliance Defense

Reasonable reliance on audited accounts and legal opinions. Directors who signed based on unqualified opinions from accountants and lawyers typically lack the intent to defraud.

Amount challenge

Actual Use of Proceeds

Demonstrate proceeds were actually deployed for the stated operations rather than diverted or dissipated; quantify the proportion of investor losses causally attributable to the alleged fraud.

Compliance defense

Offering-Stage Compliance Record

Prove the issuer had robust internal controls that were effectively implemented; sponsors and auditors performed required verification; and the exchange raised no questions during review.

5. Comparison: China Article 160 vs. U.S. Securities Act

Dimension
🇨🇳 PRC Art. 160
🇺🇸 Securities Act §11 / 17(a)
Nature
Criminal offense, up to 15 years
Civil + administrative; can be criminalized
Liable parties
Issuer + supervisors + controllers
Signers of registration statement, underwriters, accountants
Burden / defense
Prosecution must prove intent
§11 "due diligence" defense (reasonable investigation exculpates)

If the same offering fraud is investigated by the CSRC, the U.S. SEC, and/or the Hong Kong SFC at the same time, you face dual-enforcement risk: information you provide to one regulator may be shared with the others and used against you. Read more: Cross-Border Enforcement: SEC & CSRC →

📞 Facing offering fraud allegations? With a 68% criminal-referral rate, criminal defense must begin at the investigation stage. Contact Director Attorney Li Maoshu: +86 186 6492 1865 / WhatsApp / WeChat.
📞 +86 186 6492 1865

Li Maoshu — Director Attorney

18+ years practice · Securities crime defense specialist
Founder, Guangdong Faniu Law Firm

Contact Us

📍 17F, Shangbu Building, Futian District, Shenzhen
📞 +86 186 6492 1865
✉️ 417073692@qq.com
🕐 Mon-Sun 9:00-21:00 (GMT+8)

⚠️ Disclaimer

This page is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Outcomes vary by case. Please consult a qualified lawyer about your specific situation.

⚖️ Offering Fraud Defense · Free Consultation

Highest criminal-referral rate among securities offenses — contact Director Attorney Li Maoshu to secure the defense advantage.

📞 +86 186 6492 1865
📍 17F, Shangbu Building, Futian District, Shenzhen · 24h free consultation · English / 繁體 / 简体
📞Free ConsultTop
📞+86 186 6492 1865