Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Co (SPTJF) Risk Analysis

Starting in 2011, the Chinese affiliates of the "big four" accounting firms, including our independent registered public accounting firm, were affected by a conflict between the United States and Chinese law. Specifically, for certain United States listed companies operating and audited in mainland China, the SEC and the PCAOB sought to obtain from the Chinese accounting firms access to their audit work papers and related documents. The firms were, however, advised and directed that under Chinese law they could not respond directly to the United States regulators on those requests, and that requests by foreign regulators for access to such papers in China had to be channeled through the CSRC. In late 2012, this impasse led the SEC to commence administrative proceedings under Rule 102(e) of its Rules of Practice and also under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 against the Chinese accounting firms, including our independent registered public accounting firm. In January 2014, an administrative law judge reached an initial decision to impose penalties on the firms including a temporary suspension of their right to practice before the SEC. The accounting firms filed a petition for review of the initial decision. On February 6, 2015, before a review by the Commissioners of the SEC had taken place, the firms reached a settlement with the SEC. Under the settlement, the SEC accepts that future requests by the SEC for the production of documents will normally be made to the CSRC. The firms will receive matching requests, and are required to abide by a detailed set of procedures with respect to such requests, which in substance require them to facilitate production via the CSRC. If they fail to meet specified criteria, the SEC retains authority to impose a variety of additional remedial measures on the firms depending on the nature of the failure. Remedies for any future noncompliance could include, as appropriate, an automatic six-month bar on a single firm's performance of certain audit work, commencement of a new proceeding against a firm, or in extreme cases the resumption of the current proceeding against all four firms. Under the terms of the settlement, the underlying proceeding against the four China-based accounting firms was deemed dismissed with prejudice four years after entry of the settlement. The four-year mark occurred on February 6, 2019. In the event that the SEC brings new administrative proceedings, listed companies in the United States with major PRC operations may find it difficult or impossible to retain auditors in respect of their operations in the PRC, which could result in financial statements being determined to not be in compliance with the requirements of the Exchange Act. Moreover, any negative news about any such future proceedings against these audit firms may cause investor uncertainty regarding China-based, United States listed companies and the market price of the ADSs may be adversely affected. If our independent registered public accounting firm were denied, even temporarily, the ability to practice before the SEC and we were unable to timely find another registered public accounting firm to audit and issue an opinion on our consolidated financial statements, our consolidated financial statements could be determined not to be in compliance with the requirements of the Exchange Act. Such a determination could ultimately lead to the delisting of the ADSs from the NYSE or deregistration with the SEC, which would substantially reduce or effectively terminate the trading of the ADSs in the United States.

The Chinese legal system is based on statutory law. Under this system, prior court decisions may be cited as persuasive authority, but do not have the binding effect of precedents. Since 1979, the Chinese government has been developing a comprehensive system of commercial laws and considerable progress has been made in the promulgation of laws and regulations dealing with economic matters, such as corporate organization and governance, foreign investment, commerce, taxation and trade. Because these laws, regulations and legal requirements are relatively new or otherwise undeveloped and not all accessible to the public and because prior court decisions have little precedential value, the interpretation and enforcement of these laws, regulations and legal requirements involve greater uncertainty than in other jurisdictions.

The Chinese central and local governments continue to exercise a certain degree of control over the petrochemical industry in China by, among other things: -   mandating distribution channels for our fuel products;-   setting the allocations and pricing of certain resources, products and services;-   assessing taxes and fees payable;-   setting import and export quotas and procedures; and -   setting safety, environmental and quality standards. As a result, we may face significant constraints on our flexibility and ability to expand our business operations or to maximize our profitability. In the past, we have benefited from favorable regulatory policies that have, for example, reduced the competition we face from illegal imports of petroleum products. Existing policies that favor our industry may change in the future and our business could be adversely affected by any such changes.

The United States has adopted a number of measures since 1996 that provide for the possible imposition of sanctions against non-U.S. companies engaged in certain activities in and with Iran in the energy and other sectors, including, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 ("ITRSHRA") enacted August 10, 2012 and the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act ("IFCA") enacted January 2, 2013, Section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 ("NDAA") enacted December 31, 2011, and Executive Order 13846 of August 6, 2018 that was issued in connection with the termination of the participation by the United States in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, that became effective January 16, 2016, and resulted in the waiver of certain U.S. sanctions against non-U.S. persons engaging in certain transactions with Iran. The withdrawal was effected in two stages that resulted on November 5, 2018, in the complete re-imposition of the U.S. sanctions that were waived under the JCPOA. On November 5, 2018, the United States also granted a 180-day waiver (that is potentially renewable) under Section 1245 of the NDAA to China (and seven other countries) allowing for the purchase of petroleum from Iran under specified conditions. The NDAA waiver does not authorize transactions that remain prohibited under other U.S. sanctions laws. On April 22, 2019, the U.S. Secretary of State announced that the United States would not grant any further waivers under the NDAA. The sanctionable activities include certain investments, the provision of goods, services, technology, or support that could contribute to the development of petroleum and petrochemical resources or the production of refined petroleum products in Iran, the exportation of refined petroleum products to Iran, the transportation of crude oil from Iran, or the engagement in a significant transaction for the purchase or acquisition of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran, and the engagement in transactions with certain Iranian specially designated nationals and blocked persons ("SDNs") as identified and published by U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, the agency primarily responsible for administering U.S. sanctions and embargoes. We have sourced a small portion of our crude oil from Iran in the past through Sinopec Corp., our current controlling shareholder, and independent third parties, and Iran may continue to be the ultimate source of a small portion of our crude oil. In addition, Sinopec Corp. and Sinopec Group, the controlling shareholder of Sinopec Corp., have engaged in operations in or purchasing crude oil sourced from Iran and may continue to do so in the future. We have no control over the activities of Sinopec Group or Sinopec Corp. in connection with any activities that they may conduct in Iran. If our purchases of crude oil from Iran and transactions related thereto are determined to be sanctionable activities by the U.S. President and/or the relevant U.S. governmental authorities, we may be subject to five or more of the twelve sanctions options available under the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (as amended) ("ISA") and the ITRSHRA, which include restrictions on bank financing, outright blocking of the Company's property within any U.S. jurisdiction, under the control of U.S. persons anywhere in the world, and prohibition of U.S. persons from investing or purchasing a significant amount of equity or debt instruments of the Company. Similar sanctions may also be imposed under Executive Order 13846, the IFCA, and other U.S. laws. In addition, many states in the United States have adopted legislation requiring state pension funds to divest themselves of securities in any company with active business operations in Iran. We cannot assure that we or any of our affiliates will not be sanctioned by the U.S. President and/or the relevant U.S. governmental authorities in light of the activities by us or our affiliates in Iran. The imposition of any such sanctions on us or our affiliates will have a negative impact on our business, reputation or stock price. In addition, purchase of crude oil by Sinopec Corp. subsidiaries that supply us with raw materials may from time to time be sourced from National Iranian Oil Company. This entity has been identified by the U.S. government as an SDN and sanctioned under various laws, including for assisting the government of Iran to avoid sanction and for engaging in activities related to nuclear proliferation. Under Executive Order 13846, the U.S. President can sanction non-U.S. companies that engage in transactions with SDNs such as the National Iranian Oil Company. To the extent we indirectly (or directly) purchase raw materials from this entity, we risk potential U.S. government sanctions. Even absent any U.S. government sanctions, we risk adverse publicity in the world markets, which may impair our reputation and business.