|
|
發表於 2012-9-3 13:47:43
|
顯示全部樓層
phantomyaim2001 發表於 2012-8-29 18:31
Personally, I believed SFC has no right unless if they have reasons to believe that public interes ...
I think we understand the hurdle that the SFC has to overcome in particular different jurisdictions are involved (國家機密is a concept based on the laws of the PRC). Taking another perspective, if the company is allowed to be listed on the Stock Exchange in Hong Kong, the SFC and the Stock Exchange have a duty to protect the interest of the investing public. The regulators are encouraging adequate and timely disclosure to the public. But when the regulators ask for information that they consider are relevant and important to the investors, the professional (accountants) responded that we did not have the information or such information was under the control of their business partner and was protected under 國家機密. The professional must make sure such response is not misleading or false (in particular the offense under section 384 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance - not to provide false or misleading information). At least the present case sends a message to the public that they should not casually use 國家機密 as a tool for concealing information. I do understand there is secrecy provision in China but the company must evaluate if their business substantially involving 國家機密, they should seek professional advice (say from sponsor) whether their company is suitable for listing in Hong Kong. |
|
在線雷達
發表於 2012-8-28 22:16:10
廣播
置頂
推舊帖
收嗲鳥
油顏色
發表於 2012-8-29 08:01:25
師兄對事件有什麼看法
你真是很憎恨他....
公司做生意, 都是看風險跟回報, 他們可能沒有想到, 今次證監有這麼大的決心去處理國家機密這個灰色地帶
"最近知道香港證監代美國SEC取證", 這兩三年國家機密法的加強執行, 不就是早前的類似案件, 觸動國定神經
