Fushi Holdings (stock code 300071), a Shenzhen-listed company once billed as a player in the “metaverse” and marketing-technology space, disclosed that its actual controller, chairman and general manager Chen Yongliang was placed under liuzhi (retention) by a national supervisory commission on February 1. The company said it has not been asked to assist any investigation, that corporate control remains unchanged, and that other directors and senior managers are continuing to perform their duties, while production and operations are running normally.
The notice is terse on specifics: Fushi’s public filing does not state the reasons for Chen’s retention or any expected timeline for the probe. Chinese supervisory commissions use liuzhi as an investigatory tool that can hold individuals while inquiries proceed; it is separate from criminal detention and often appears in anti-corruption or official-conduct investigations. The company pledged to follow relevant laws and listing rules and to disclose further developments promptly.
Fushi entered the metaverse narrative in 2021, announcing a “metaverse + new-energy vehicle” cooperation and positioning itself as a full-chain marketing technology group. Chen, born in 1976 and a former lawyer, has held several roles in related asset-management firms and has been paid increasingly higher compensation in recent years, according to market-data provider Tonghuashun. Those compensation figures stand in stark contrast to Fushi’s recent financial performance: the firm posted consecutive net losses attributable to shareholders in the last two reported years and forecasted a further loss for 2025, albeit smaller than the prior year.
The combination of a senior executive’s retention and a history of losses creates immediate risks for the company’s shareholders and for other Chinese companies pitched to investors as speculative “concept” plays. Markets tend to punish uncertainty: an announcement of regulatory action against a top executive can prompt liquidity pressures, margin calls and scrutiny of related-party transactions or accounting practices. For regulators, striking at a high-profile chairman of a weakly performing listed company sends a signal about enforcement appetite and underscores ongoing efforts to police market misconduct and protect minority investors.