He made 85,000 yuan using AI and was fined 485,000 yuan

From 8:06:30 pm to 8:48:33 pm on November 30, 2023, forty-two minutes, a hundred accounts posted 13 articles in a row.

An average of three minutes per article.

These 13 articles, plus the other 4 published two days ago, make a total of 17 articles. They talk about an accident in the same soda ash company: first, the production boiler failed, the production line was stagnant, and it was repaired for at least half a year. Then, the Alxa earthquake damaged the factory.

It's all fake.

While publishing these articles, he was also making soda ash futures himself. After deducting the handling fee, the actual profit was 85,028.85 yuan.

Eighty-five thousand is not a small amount for a person born in 1997.

On July 28 this year, the Sichuan Securities Regulatory Bureau issued a penalty decision: confiscation of illegal income of 85,028.85 yuan and a fine of 400,000 yuan, totaling 485,000 yuan.

Spit out all the 85,000 yuan he earned and posted another 400,000 yuan.

When I saw this case, my first reaction was not whether the penalty was heavy, but that I had read more.

Those 17 articles were viewed 8794 times in total.

I write my own public account and read 3814 with the best score. In other words, he worked hard for two nights and wrote 17 articles, with a total reading of less than two of my articles.

This amount is 485,000.

!

What did he do?

The decision is written in detail, down to seconds.

The first batch was from 16:05:11 to 18:07:20 on November 28, 2023. There were 4 articles with similar content, saying that the soda ash production boiler of A joint-stock company had failed. As of the next day, these four articles had been read a total of 2061 times, including one 1749 times.

The second batch was the first 42-minute 13 articles, saying that the Alxa earthquake caused damage to the factory. As of December 1, a total of 6733 readings have been read, including 2219 entries.

Here is a detail that I think is the most important sentence in the entire decision:

These articles were generated by him using AI tools based on rumored reports about this company on the Internet.

In other words, he was not sitting in front of a computer and making up an earthquake out of thin air. He saw that people were already spreading rumors about this company on the Internet, so he threw these rumors to AI, asked AI to expand them into articles one by one, and then post them in batches.

If you are also writing using AI, you should feel a little uncomfortable reading this sentence. Because this action is too common to "find a few online statements and let AI expand them into articles."

The supervision's determination is: This is called fabrication.

has five defenses, but none of them stops

He pleaded with five reasons, all of which were listed in the decision. I singled out these five articles and said them separately, because these five articles basically cover all the excuses ordinary people would think of when encountering such a thing.

!

Article 1: The illegal act is significantly minor, does not cause harmful consequences, and has no substantial impact on the market.

This is actually the point I noticed at the beginning: there were only 8794 readings in total. Not accepted.

Second, there is no subjective fault.

The supervision's response was that the parties concerned fabricated and publicly disseminated multiple articles containing false information without verification, with obvious subjective intention.

This sentence is worth reading slowly. The qualitative term is not "he knows it is fake", but "has not been verified."

Your failure to verify is the basis for determining subjective intention. "I thought it was true" and "everyone said so on the Internet" is not a reason for exemption in this framework, but a reason for being held accountable.

Article 3, transaction profits are not based on false information, and illegal income is calculated in an unfair manner.

What he means is that I earned the 85,000 yuan from my own trading level and has nothing to do with publishing articles. Why should I confiscate it all?

It was not adopted on the grounds that the calculation of illegal income complied with unified law enforcement standards.

Translation: The money you earn on the relevant varieties during the fabrication and dissemination of false information is illegal income. There is no need to prove one by one which profit is caused by the false news.

Article 4: If you have suffered from mental illness for a long time, you have corrected it as soon as possible and actively cooperated with the investigation, and the punishment will be excessive.

It was not accepted because the party concerned failed to provide evidence to prove it.

Article 5: The investigation and handling seriously exceeded the legal case handling time limit.

Nor was it adopted. Here is a time account worth counting: the article was published in November 2023, the notice of filing the case was January 22, 2026, and the decision was July 28, 2026.

From the issuance of the document to the punishment, it took nearly two years and eight months.

Two and a half years ago, someone did the same thing

The most valuable thing about this case is that it is not an isolated case. Two and a half years ago, there was an almost identical case with the same species: soda ash.

At 9:55 a.m. on January 13, 2023, a person registered an account with Oriental Fortune. 17 minutes later, he posted a post at the soda bar, saying that the National Development and Reform Commission had a meeting to study strengthening soda price supervision.

This news was that he replaced the word "iron ore" with "soda ash" in a public report.

One word. A post.

The post was deleted by the platform at around 6 p.m. that day. It survived for more than eight hours. It was viewed 2080 times, with 24 comments and forwarded 3 times.

During the same period, he was also trading soda ash futures.

But he lost money.

The Gansu Securities Regulatory Bureau fined him 200,000 yuan. Because there is no illegal income to be confiscated, it is a pure fine of 200,000 yuan.

!

Only by looking at these two cases together can we see clearly what AI has changed in this incident.

Handicraft Era: Change a word, write a post, browse 2080, but I still lose money, and I will be fined 200,000 yuan.

AI era: 13 articles in 42 minutes, 17 articles read a total of 8794, earning 85,000 yuan and fined 485,000 yuan.

The applicable laws in both cases are exactly the same, both of which are Article 16, paragraph 1, and Article 127, paragraph 1, of the Futures and Derivatives Law.

AI has increased the speed of fabrication by more than ten times, and has not changed a word of responsibility identification.

There is a colder one: if you lose, you will still be punished. Whether you can make money from this is two different things than whether you want to be fined. If you earn it, you will confiscate it.

What is the line for people who use AI to write?

I use AI to write every day, so this case is not news to me, but a reminder. I have sorted out the judgment criteria that can be refined in the decision letter into several items, all of which have clear basis, not my speculation.

First, whether it has been verified is much more important than whether it was written by AI.

In the entire decision, AI is just a tool description, and the characterization relies on the four words "unverified". On the other hand, if you type it yourself word by word, it will still be fabricated without verification; if you verify it one by one, it is another matter.

Second, expanding one incident into multiple articles and publishing them in batches is to aggravate the plot.

The numbers of 4 and 13 are written into illegal facts as they are in the decision letter, not to make up the number of words. Batch size itself proves the subjective state. Batch is exactly what AI is best at. When you press Enter, it will give you ten articles.

Third, do you have an interest in what you write?

This is the hardest thing in this case. What was really fatal for him was not publishing articles, but that he was making that variety while publishing articles. If you have positions, transactions, business relationships, and you write about related things, the risk levels are completely different.

Fourth, a small amount of reading is not a talisman.

8794, and 2080. These two numbers are not large, and both have been fined.

Fifth, the timeline is longer than you think.

For the article published in November 2023, the penalty announcement was only seen in August 2026. Nearly three years in the middle. Just because it was calm and calm on the day after it was posted does not mean that this matter has passed.

QKPFX4 How did I handle it myself

Be specific.

All the numbers in this article, the precise time of publication, the amount of reading, the amount of fine to two decimal places, and the number of the legal articles, are all from the original text of the administrative penalty decision published by the Sichuan Securities Regulatory Bureau. I checked them one by one. The 2023 case being compared came from the public penalty information from the Gansu Securities Regulatory Bureau.

I also use AI, which helps me organize the timeline, arithmetic, and typesetting. Everything that "so-and-so said","said" and "passed on the Internet" either finds its origin or does not write it.

One more point: The company in the decision letter wrote "A Joint Stock Company" from beginning to end and treated it anonymously. I'm not going to find out who it is. It is the injured party in this case, so there is no need to be called out again for an article about someone else breaking the law.

These things are not difficult to do, just take some time. The price given in this case is that the time saved can be as high as 485,000 yuan.

few sentences boundary

This article is about the information order of the futures market, and the Futures and Derivatives Law applies. You write about food, games, and life. It is not within the scope of this law. Don't take the lead and panic.

However, those two identification logics are universal: unverified is equivalent to fabrication, and mass dissemination aggravates the circumstances. In other fields, what may correspond to reputation rights, false advertising, and disruption of public order. The laws and regulations are different and logically similar.

I am not a lawyer. The above are compiled by reading the public decision and do not constitute legal opinions. If you really encounter a problem, find a professional person.

The source of the materials is the Sichuan Securities Regulatory Bureau [2026] No. 2 Administrative Penalty Decision and the Gansu Securities Regulatory Bureau's public penalty information in 2023. The original text can be found on the website of the China Securities Regulatory Commission system.