As an analyst who deals with high-risk assets over the long term, I recently came across a shocking private equity scam case, which unfortunately reflects some systemic issues within the industry.

The basic outline of the incident is as follows: a subsidiary of a listed company invested 60 million yuan into a private placement product, ultimately losing 46.92 million yuan, with a loss rate of 81.54%. At first glance, it seems like an investment failure story, but a deeper investigation reveals that this is not simply market volatility, but a serious illegal and fraudulent scheme.

The most heartbreaking part lies in the contract design. The private placement clearly states in the product prospectus: the investment in a single asset should not exceed 25% to diversify risk; monthly net value disclosures and quarterly detailed investment portfolios ensure transparency; a stop-loss mechanism is triggered if the net value drops below 0.7 yuan. It sounds like a robust risk control system, even with an additional commitment letter issued by the private placement institution. But all of this—are just paper tigers.

What actually happened? Between December 4 and 11, in just 7 days, the net value plummeted from 0.9215 yuan to 0.2596 yuan, a drop of over 70%. To put it another way, 60 million yuan was evaporating at nearly 6 million yuan per day. Even more outrageous is the information disclosure process: the listed company requested redemption and the latest net value on December 9, but only received the data on the 12th. What was this gap? Most likely, the private placement was forging net value information to buy time.

Subsequently, it was confirmed that a certain private placement institution not only exceeded its authority to conduct trading operations but also directly forged net value data. The so-called risk control measures and information transparency were all just for show.

What lessons does this incident offer to high-risk asset investors? No matter how beautiful the contract or how comprehensive the promises, the ultimate test is the reality of execution. Especially for institutional investors, regular independent audits and third-party custody supervision are not optional—they are mandatory. The same risks exist in the crypto market—risk parameters and liquidity guarantees of certain DeFi protocols ultimately need to be verified through real market performance. To survive in high-risk assets, the importance of information verification and risk monitoring cannot be overstated.