The SEC has been holding Wang Yu Feng for almost four years: the Wao Xiao Electronics case has led to inter-provincial arrests and jurisdictional disputes.

On 18 September, the CSRC published the first 17 leads on futures violations of securities, including the disclosure of information on violations by Jilinhua Microelectronics Ltd. and Shanghai Peng Sein Industries Ltd. The CSRC stated that the relevant “sentry whistleblowers” could apply for an award from the China Securities Investor Protection Fund between 18 September and 18 December.XinhuaandKei XinThe list was reported.

However, in this case, Wang Woo Feng, one of the most concerned whistle-blowers, is currently unable to process his claim on his own.Investigation reporter Liu Hu's latest tracking release on September 29thWang Woo Feng was reportedly detained for almost four years since he was taken from Shanghai by the Jilin police in November

1. Wang Woo Feng was Chairman of the Board of Directors of Peng Seing in Shanghai and Vice-President of the Chinese Microelectronics.

This contrast has re-involved a criminal case that has been going on for many years: on the one hand, the securities regulator has included the report in the “sentry” incentive, and on the other hand, the whistleblower himself has been detained for prolonged periods and tried on charges of misappropriation of his or her duties, misappropriation of funds, false notes, etc.

107 days of trial and nearly four years of detention

According to Liu, the Wang Woo Feng case was officially opened in October 2025 and closed in first instance on 23 September 2026, with a cumulative total of 107 days and a trial transcript of 2,673 pages. According to Wang Woo Feng Advocate, the core of the case essentially involved disputes over equity, company operations and financial transactions between shareholders, and there was a major controversy as to the appropriateness of criminalization.

The defence also continued to challenge the jurisdiction of the case. Public sources indicate that in July 2024, the Prosecutor ' s Office of the Gao New Territories had prosecuted Wang Yu Feng for office misappropriation, misappropriation of funds, false VAT invoices, false bills and irregularities in the disclosure of important information. As the “crime of non-disclosure of material information” was legally under the jurisdiction of the Intermediate Court, the prosecution later withdrew the charge. The new District Court of Jilingo subsequently returned the case on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, but the case was re-opened to the Court after additional relevant jurisdictional evidence.

Counsel for Xiaonan argued that if the alleged appropriation or misappropriation was mainly directed at the property of the Shanghai Peng Sein registered in Shanghai, there should be a clearer legal and factual basis for the criminal jurisdiction of the Jilin Police and the Jilin Basic Court, based solely on Wang Yu Feng ' s former Vice-President of the Chinese Microelectronic, and the related pledge of equity that could affect the company ' s listing. The final legal judgement of the prosecution and the court still awaits judgement or public decision.

The same company case, with punishment and criminal prosecution

The SEC's public list confirmed.The Shangwei Electronics and Shanghai Peng Sein Information Disclosures of Violation of the Law are in the “Sentry Blower” Awards process. This means that the supervisory authority has established a formal administrative basis for handling the relevant information on the violations and the outcome of their cases. Financial reports indicate that the first 17 cases involved listed companies, private fundraising, intermediaries and individuals, with a single award of up to $1 million.

Whether Wang Woo Feng will eventually receive the award will depend on the review of eligibility, identity and materials by the CVM and the Insurance Fund; The CVM bulletin did not disclose the names of the individual reporting in each case, nor did it publicly state the individual ' s eligibility for the award. It is possible to confirm at this stage that the Wa Xiaoe Electronics and Shanghai Peng Sein cases are themselves included in the proposed award, while Liu's investigation links Wang Woo Feng to the reporting process in the case.

This is important because administrative penalties of the securities regulatory body cannot be simply equated with criminal cases. (a) The fact that the disclosure of information is unlawful does not automatically establish Wang Woo Feng ' s innocence in another criminal case; Conversely, Wang Woo Feng ' s prosecution cannot erase the fact that the Commission has found that the disclosure of the listed company information was unlawful. What is really to be examined is whether there is factual overlap between the two systems, a conflict of interest and whether the criminal justice process adequately responds to the relationship between reporting and a dispute over corporate control.

The chain itself has also created corruption.

The controversy surrounding the case also extended to the local security investigation system. Liu Hu has been following up the Wang Woo Feng case for several years and has alleged that several local officials who were involved in or were involved in the case were subsequently disciplined or criminal investigations. Part of the details are currently derived mainly from its series of investigative reports, and the public availability of official adjudicative instruments and disciplinary committee communications is incomplete, so that the cause-and-effect relationship between the amount of the specific bribe, the liability of the person and the case should remain in line with the formal judicial instruments.

This does not, however, affect a more basic procedural issue: the conditions under which a business interest and business dispute, which spans more than a decade, should be subject to criminal justice intervention; (b) How to re-indict for additional evidence once the case has been returned on jurisdictional grounds; (b) Whether prolonged detention and prolonged trials are sufficiently necessary. None of these issues should be excluded from public scrutiny because of the complexity of the cases.

The SEC launched the whistleblower award this time, which is intended to encourage insiders to expose securities violations and to commit to strict protection of whistleblower information. The Wang Woo Feng case is a highly contradictory reality: the reported offences committed by listed companies have been placed on the official reward list, and Liu Tiger believes that Wang Woo Feng himself is still awaiting the outcome of the criminal justice system.

The most critical next step in this case is not the slogan characterization of any party, but the disclosure of more verifiable material: the CVM's microelectronics, the identification process for reporting in the Shanghai Peng Sein case, the points of contention between the indictment and the trial in Wang Yufung, the legal basis for territorial jurisdiction in the Jilin judicial authority, and the individual response to the main objections of the defence to the final judgement. Only when these materials enter the public domain can the outside world judge whether this is a common case of economic crime or a dispute involving the criminalisation of corporate control and local jurisdiction.