China Cases Insight™ No. 4: Guiding Case No. 61: Clarifying the Sentencing Levels of the “Crime of Using Nonpublic Information for Trading” and Its Significance

China Cases Insight™ No. 4: Guiding Case No. 61: Clarifying the Sentencing Levels of the “Crime of Using Nonpublic Information for Trading” and Its Significance

Date of Publication:
2018/06/15
Author(s):
  • LIU Minghe, Winner of the China Guiding Cases Project’s 2017 China Cases Insights™ Writing Contest; Assistant to Mr. ZHANG Qingsong, a senior lawyer of Beijing Shangquan Law Office and deputy secretary general of the Criminal Professional Committee of the All China Lawyers Association.
Related:

Commentary

To purchase a PDF file of this piece, please use the above “PURCHASE THIS ARTICLE” button.
The full text of this piece is available for free via e-China Law Connect. Please click here:


abased asdfa

China Cases InsightsTM aims at providing legal and business professionals with concise and practical information, as well as insightful analyses and indispensable takeaways, about cases in or related to China to help these professionals in their practice of law and business.

 


THE TAKEAWAY

With the rapid development of China’s economy, financial crimes are increasingly serious, and deficiencies in relevant legislation are becoming more apparent.  In the retrial judgment of MA Le, A Case About Using Nonpublic Information for Trading (“MA Le”), [1] the Supreme People’s Court (the “SPC”) used a flexible method of legal interpretation to interpret the “crime of using nonpublic information for trading” provided for in Article 180 Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China [2] (the “Criminal Law”) as including situations which “circumstances are particularly serious”.  The selection of MA Le as Guiding Case No. 61 not only has guiding effect on the adjudication of similar subsequent cases, but also will likely guide courts to use similar methods for interpreting other provisions where statutory sentences are cited.

THE RUNDOWN

From March 9, 2011, to May 30, 2013, MA Le used nonpublic information that he acquired as an investment manager to buy and sell shares of stock.  [These illegal transactions] had a cumulative trading amount of more than RMB 1.05 billion and [MA Le] illegally derived benefits of RMB 19,120,246.98. [3]  On July 17, 2013, MA Le surrendered.

In the first-instance judgment, the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen Municipality opined that MA Le’s acts constituted the “crime of using nonpublic information for trading” provided for in Article 180 Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Law.  However, Paragraph 4 does not explicitly mention the phrase “circumstances are particularly serious”.  Therefore, [the court] could only determine that MA Le’s acts [constituted a situation where] “circumstances are serious” and sentenced MA Le to a limited-term imprisonment of three years with a five-year suspension of sentence.

The people’s procuratorate of the same level lodged a protest, arguing that MA Le’s acts should be determined, with reference to Article 180 Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law, to be a commission of a crime under circumstances that were particularly serious (see Sidebar 1). In the second-instance ruling, the High People’s Court of Guangdong Province, based on the same reasons as those used in the first-instance judgment, upheld the original judgment. [4]

China Cases <em>Insight</em> No. 4: Guiding Case No. 61: Clarifying the Sentencing Levels of the “Crime of Using Nonpublic Information for Trading” and Its Significance 3

After the second-instance ruling’s coming into legal effect, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (the “SPP”) lodged a protest with the SPC.  The SPP’s main reasons were: (1) Article 180 Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Law [shows] a situation where statutory sentences are cited and [the citation] should [be considered as] a citation to all of the provisions regarding punishment [stated] in Paragraph 1; (2) the degrees of illegality and liability for the “crime of using nonpublic information for trading” and for the “crime of insider trading or divulging inside information” are more-or-less equivalent and thus [their] statutory sentences should be more-or-less equivalent; (3) MA Le’s acts should be determined to be a commission of a crime where the “circumstances were particularly serious”, and the suspension of his sentence was manifestly improper.

On November 23, 2015, the SPC rendered the retrial judgment, in which it basically accepted the SPP’s protest opinions and opined that in the first-instance judgment and the second-instance ruling, the conviction was accurate but the sentencing was improper and that MA Le’s acts [constituted a situation where] circumstances were particularly serious.  [The SPC] revoked the suspension of sentence [stated in] the original judgment and ruling. [5]  On June 30, 2016, the Adjudication Committee of the SPC discussed and agreed to select the case as Guiding Case No. 61. [6]

THE BREAKDOWN

There was little dispute about the determination of facts in MA Le.  The focal point of the dispute was in interpretation of legal provisions: does [the expression] “circumstances are serious” in Article 180 Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Law (1) only serve as a conviction provision, thus citing the two sentencing levels in [Article 180] Paragraph 1, [namely,] “circumstances are serious” and “circumstances are particularly serious”, or (2) also serve as a sentencing provision, thus only citing the sentencing level “circumstances are serious” in [Article 180] Paragraph 1?

The Reasoning of the SPC in the MA Le Case

MA Le is the first economic crime case against which the SPP has lodged a protest, and this reflects the importance of this case.  In this case, the SPP claimed that legislation should strive to reduce repetition in legal rules.  The purpose of citing provisions is to make [legal] expressions more concise, and therefore not all the sentencing levels need to be repeated.  The SPP elaborated on this by using Article 285 Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Law as an example.  Similar to Article 180 Paragraph 4, Article 285 Paragraph 3 merely uses [the expression] “where […] the circumstances are serious, [the person] shall be punished in accordance with the preceding paragraph” to cite to the sentencing provision in the preceding paragraph.  Through a judicial interpretation, the SPC and the SPP have clearly pointed out that Article 285 Paragraph 3 contains two sentencing levels, namely, “circumstances are serious” and “circumstances are particularly serious” (see Sidebar 2). [7] By analogy, the SPP opined that [the phrase] “circumstances are serious” in Article 180 Paragraph 4 should be regarded as a conviction provision.

China Cases <em>Insight</em> No. 4: Guiding Case No. 61: Clarifying the Sentencing Levels of the “Crime of Using Nonpublic Information for Trading” and Its Significance 2

The SPC not only adopted this viewpoint, but also pointed out that in the articles of the Criminal Law where [the expression] “circumstances are serious” also serves as a sentencing provision, the expression, without exception, is followed by a specific statutory sentence.  [This observation] supports [the viewpoint] that [the expression] “circumstances are serious” in Article 180 Paragraph 4 (which is not followed by a specific statutory sentence) should only be considered as a conviction provision.  On this basis, the retrial judgment, referring to the sentencing standards of the “crime of insider trading” (see Sidebar 3), [8] confirmed that MA Le’s acts of using nonpublic information for trading involved circumstances that were particularly serious and a statutory sentence of a limited-term imprisonment of five to ten years was applicable.

China Cases <em>Insight</em> No. 4: Guiding Case No. 61: Clarifying the Sentencing Levels of the “Crime of Using Nonpublic Information for Trading” and Its Significance

Reservations About the Retrial Judgment of the MA Le Case

While the reasons of the SPC in MA Le are, to a certain extent, consistent with legal reasoning, the author believes that this interpretation method has some problems.

First, the two [identical] phrases, “circumstances are serious”, in Article 180 Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Criminal Law are given different meanings—[the phrase] in Paragraph 1 is a sentencing provision, pointing to one sentencing level, while [the phrase] in Paragraph 4 is a conviction provision, pointing to two sentencing levels. [9] Will this “identical expressions, different meanings” interpretation method “inspire” other cases to use a similar interpretation method to construe other expressions, thus bringing greater uncertainty to the Criminal Law?

Second, the interpretation method that the SPC used in MA Le makes the expression “where […] the circumstances are serious” in Article 180 Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Law appear to be slightly redundant.  It is worth noting that other conviction provisions in the Criminal Law that cite to [sentencing provisions] do not need to use such an expression explicitly.  For instance, Article 265 of the Criminal Law, when citing Article 264, does not explicitly use expressions such as “a relatively large amount” (see Sidebar 4).  Doesn’t the expression “where […] the circumstances are serious” in Article 180 Paragraph 4 indicate that it has a special function —it serves as a sentencing provision?

Third, from a macro perspective, [the court rendering] the retrial judgment of this case, where there was a dispute about legal interpretation, did not choose an interpretation method which would have benefited the defendant.  [This choice] did not satisfy the requirement, advocated by some scholars, of interpreting laws “in favor of the defendant when in doubt”. [10]  Therefore, there is room for more discussion from [the perspective of] academic theory.

China Cases <em>Insight</em> No. 4: Guiding Case No. 61: Clarifying the Sentencing Levels of the “Crime of Using Nonpublic Information for Trading” and Its Significance 1

The retrial judgment of MA Le has another limitation.  The judgment determined an important point: the degrees of illegality and liability for the “crime of using nonpublic information for trading” and for the “crime of insider trading or divulging inside information” are more-or-less equivalent and thus [their] statutory sentences should be more-or-less equivalent.  However, with regard to the determination of relevant information, which is the key constitutive element of the crimes here, the standards used for the “crime of insider trading” and the “crime of divulging inside information” are stricter than those for the “crime of using nonpublic information for trading”.  In particular, “nonpublic information” is defined as information other than “inside information”. [11]

To put it simply, inside information and nonpublic information are different in nature, and insider trading and use of nonpublic information for trading are also different in nature.  Inside information is often directly related to company operations and closely linked to the price of securities and futures.  More importantly, there is a significant difference between the subject entities of insider trading and those of using nonpublic information for trading: the subject entities of the former are primarily directors, supervisors, and senior management personnel of companies, while the subject entities of the latter are primarily employees of security funds.  Shareholders of a company have a higher degree of trust in directors, supervisors, and senior management personnel than in employees of security funds.  Therefore, insider trading is a serious crime involving breach of trust.  The subjective malice of using nonpublic information for trading should, in criminal law, be considered weaker than that of insider trading.

Therefore, the author believes that although the “crime of using nonpublic information for trading” applies the same two levels of statutory sentences as the “crime of insider trading”, the specific thresholds of the sentencing standards used for the former should be slightly higher.  Specifically, according to the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Insider Trading or Divulging Inside Information, [in order to] determine that the “circumstances are serious” and the “circumstances are particularly serious”, the turnover of the securities trading needs to be at least RMB 500,000 and RMB 2.5 million, respectively; the amount of margin used for the futures trading needs to be at least RMB 300,000 and RMB 1.5 million, respectively; the amount of benefits derived or losses avoided needs to be at least RMB 150,00 and RMB 750,000, respectively.  In comparison, the respective statutory sentences [above] cannot be directly applied if circumstances in the “crime of using nonpublic information for trading” only meet the above standards.  Instead, they need to meet standards significantly higher than those of the “crime of insider trading” and then the two respective levels of statutory sentences can be applied.

The retrial judgment of MA Le, however, did not provide further analysis on the differences discussed above.  Instead, it emphasized the harm of using nonpublic information for trading.  Evidently, the judgment was influenced by certain policy orientations and reflected the attitude of the harsh crackdown which targeted the “rat trading” that had been occurring frequently in China’s fund industry—in particular, [after] the “Fall of Thousands of Shares” in 2015. [12]

In fact, the judgment has significantly increased the sentences for the “crime of using nonpublic information for trading”.  For example, before the retrial [of MA Le], the amounts of money involved in The Jing’an District People’s Procuratorate of Shanghai Municipality v. XU Chunmao, A Case About Using Nonpublic Information for Trading [13] in October 2011 and The Case About ZHANG Dunyong’s Crime of Using Nonpublic Information for Trading [14] in February 2015 were over RMB 90 million and over RMB 150 million, respectively, but both defendants were only sentenced to suspended sentences because they surrendered themselves.  After the retrial judgment of MA Le, however, LI Jianchao, A Case About Using Nonpublic Information for Trading in April 2016 was determined [to involve] “circumstances [that] are particularly serious”. [15]  Despite the fact that LI Jianchao also surrendered himself, he was sentenced to a limited-term imprisonment of three years without a suspension of sentence.

Guiding Case No. 61 and Its Impact

Despite the above-mentioned issues, MA Le became Guiding Case No. 61.  The most direct significance is that where a subsequent cases is, “in terms of the basic facts and application of law”, similar to Guiding Case No. 61, the deciding court “should refer to” the “Main Points of the Adjudication” of the Guiding Case to “render its ruling or judgment”. [16] The “Main Points of the Adjudication” section of Guiding Case No. 61 is:

The citation of statutory sentences for the crime of using nonpublic information for trading provided for in Article 180 Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Law should be [considered as] the citation of all statutory sentences for the crime of insider trading or divulging inside information [provided for] in Paragraph 1. This means that the crime of using nonpublic information for trading should have two types of situations—where “circumstances are serious” and where “circumstances are particularly serious”—and two [corresponding] sentencing levels.

According to China Judgments Online, a website maintained by the SPC, these Main Points of the Adjudication have already been applied in two subsequent cases. In both The Second-Instance Criminal Judgment of a Case of LI Tao’s Use of Nonpublic Information for Trading [17] and An Appeal Case About LUO Zeping et al.’s Crime of Using Nonpublic Information for Trading, [18] the collegial panels referred to Guiding Case No. 61 as part of their reasons for adjudication to support [the finding] that the “crime of using nonpublic information for trading” was committed in a situation where “circumstances are particularly serious” and the corresponding sentencing level [was applied].

It is worth noting that the guiding effect of Guiding Case No. 61 suggests that the interpretation method of the SPP and the SPC will likely be considered as the preferred method [used to address] similar issues.  In the current [version of] the Criminal Law, however, apart from Article 180, only a few provisions use expressions like “where the circumstances/consequences are serious, the [case] shall be handled in accordance with the preceding paragraph” to cite to [sentencing] provisions that explicitly state multiple sentencing levels for different situations, including “where the circumstances/consequences are serious” and “where the circumstances/consequences are particularly serious”.  [Two examples are:] Article 285 Paragraph 3 (citing the statutory sentences provided for in Paragraph 2 of that article) and Article 286 Paragraphs 2 and 3 (citing the statutory sentences provided for in Paragraph 1 of that article).

In other words, only the aforementioned articles may give rise to disputes over “whether one or all of the sentencing levels provided for in the preceding paragraph are cited”.  Among these articles, Article 285 has already been given an unambiguous interpretation. [19] Therefore, the interpretation method confirmed in Guiding Case No. 61 will have almost no direct impact on the interpretation of other provisions in the current [version of the] Criminal Law.  Of course, if future amendments to the Criminal Law add provisions that use this type of citing method, the interpretation method established by Guiding Case No. 61 will likely be referenced.

THE CONCLUSION

The significance of the SPC’s retrial judgment in MA Le is that it not only has clarified that the “crime of using nonpublic information for trading” has two sentencing levels, [namely,] “circumstances are serious” and “circumstances are particularly serious”, but also has changed prior judicial practices of handling the crime leniently. Considering that the subjective malice of using nonpublic information for trading is weaker than that of insider trading, the author believes that the specific thresholds of sentencing standards for the former crime should be slightly higher than those for the latter.

Although the method of legal interpretation applied in the retrial judgment has certain flaws, the [fact that] MA Le became Guiding Case No. 61 suggests that this interpretation method will likely be an important method for interpreting current and future rules in the Criminal Law where statutory sentences are cited [by other provisions in the legislation].  This demonstrates the ability of the SPC to guide criminal adjudication through Guiding Cases and reflects the feature of having more flexibility in releasing Guiding Cases than releasing judicial interpretations.  With rapid economic and social development in China, the flexibility of Guiding Cases allows judicial organs to agilely adjudicate cases of economic crimes so as to facilitate changes in economic policy.


Author Bio

Minghe Liu is a winner of the China Guiding Cases Project’s 2017 China Cases InsightsTM Writing Contest and an assistant to Mr. ZHANG Qingsong, a senior lawyer of Beijing Shangquan Law Office and deputy secretary general of the Criminal Professional Committee of the All China Lawyers Association. Mr. Liu specializes in criminal defense and has worked on a number of cases, including a bribery case involving the chairman of a trust company in a city of Jiangsu Province and an abuse of authority case involving the head of the management committee of a state-level development zone in northern China. He received from Peking University Law School a bachelor’s degree in law and the award “Outstanding Graduate of Peking University”.

Endnotes

*           The citation of this China Cases InsightTM is: Minghe Liu, Guiding Case No. 61: Clarifying the Sentencing Levels of the “Crime of Using Nonpublic Information for Trading” and Its Significance, 1 China Law Connect 37 (June 2018), also available at Stanford Law School China Guiding Cases Project, China Cases InsightsTM, June 2018, http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/commentaries/clc-1-201806-insights-4-minghe-liu.

The original, Chinese version of this China Cases InsightTM was edited by Sean Webb, YING Yun, and Dr. Mei Gechlik.  The English version was prepared by Sean Webb, YING Yun, and the author, and was finalized by Sean Webb, Dimitri Phillips, and Dr. Mei Gechlik.  The information and views set out in this China Cases InsightTM are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the work or views of the China Guiding Cases Project.

[1]           《原审被告人马乐利用未公开信息交易案再审刑事判决书》 (The Retrial Criminal Judgment of a Case About Defendant MA Le’s Use of Nonpublic Information for Trading) (2015)刑抗字第1号刑事判决 ((2015) Xing Kang Zi No. 1 Criminal Judgment), rendered by the Supreme People’s Court on Nov. 23, 2015, full text available on the Stanford Law School China Guiding Cases Project’s website, at https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/judgments/spc-2015-xing-kang-zi-1-criminal-judgment.

[2]           《中华人民共和国刑法》(Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China), passed on July 1, 1979, issued on July 6, 1979, effective as of Jan. 1, 1980, revised on Mar. 14, 1997, effective as of Oct. 1, 1997, amended ten times, most recently on Nov. 4, 2017, effective as of Nov. 4, 2017, http://www.pkulaw.cn/fulltext_form.aspx?Db=chl&Gid=703dba7964330b85bdfb.

The current form of Article 180 came into effect in February 2009, when the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China was amended for the seventh time.  See 《中华人民共和国刑法修正案(七)》(Amendment (VII) to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China), passed on, issued on, and effective as of Feb. 28, 2009, http://www.gov.cn/flfg/2009-02/28/content_1246438.htm.

[3]           The amount was determined to be RMB 18,833,374.74 in the first-instance judgment.  However, this calculation was found to be erroneous and the amount was corrected to RMB 19,120,246.98 in the retrial judgment.  See《马某利用未公开信息交易罪一审刑事判决书》 (The First-Instance Criminal Judgment of MA X’s Crime of Using Nonpublic Information for Trading) (2014)深中法刑二初字第27号刑事判决 ((2014) Shen Zhong Fa Xing Er Chu Zi No. 27 Criminal Judgment), rendered by the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen Municipality, Guangdong Province, on Mar. 24, 2014, full text available on the Stanford Law School China Guiding Cases Project’s website, at https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/judgments/guangdong-2014-shen-zhong-fa-xing-er-chu-zi-27-criminal-judgment.

[4]           《马乐利用未公开信息交易二审刑事裁定书》 (The Second-Instance Criminal Ruling of MA Le’s Use of Nonpublic Information for Trading) (2014)粤高法刑二终字第137号刑事裁定((2014) Yue Gao Fa Xing Er Zhong Zi No. 137 Criminal Ruling), rendered by the High People’s Court of Guangdong Province on Oct. 20, 2014, full text available on the Stanford Law School China Guiding Cases Project’s website, at https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/judgments/guangdong-2014-yue-gao-fa-xing-er-zhong-zi-137-criminal-ruling.

[5]           See《原审被告人马乐利用未公开信息交易案再审刑事判决书》 (The Retrial Criminal Judgment of a Case About Defendant MA Le’s Use of Nonpublic Information for Trading) (2015)刑抗字第1号刑事判决 ((2015) Xing Kang Zi No. 1 Criminal Judgment), supra note 1.

[6]           《马乐利用未公开信息交易案》 (MA Le, A Case About Using Nonpublic Information for Trading), Stanford Law School China Guiding Cases Project, English Guiding Case (EGC61), May 8, 2018 Edition, http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases/guiding-case-61.

[7]           《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理危害计算机信息系统安全刑事案件应用法律若干问题的解释》 (Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Endangering the Security of Computer Information Systems), passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on June 20, 2011, and by the Procuratorial Committee of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on July 11, 2011, issued on Aug. 1, 2011, effective as of Sept. 1, 2011, http://sxlyfy.chinacourt.org/public/detail.php?id=247.

[8]           《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理内幕交易、泄露内幕信息刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》 (Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Insider Trading or Divulging Inside Information), passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on Oct. 31, 2011, and by the Procuratorial Committee of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Feb. 27, 2012, issued on Mar. 29, 2012, effective as of June 1, 2012, http://www.csrc.gov.cn/pub/newsite/flb/flfg/sfjs_8249/201312/t20131205_239352.html.

[9]           This was also the defense of the lawyer and the main opinion in the argument of the defense’s expert in the retrial of MA Le.

[10]           See, e.g., 邢馨宇 (XING Xinyu), 有利被告的定位 (Adopting a Position That Benefits the Defendant), 《法学》 (Law Science), Issue 2 (2012); 张建军 (ZHANG Jianjun), 立法意旨不明才可作有利于被告人解释 (Only When Legislative Intent Is Unclear Can It Be Interpreted to the Benefit of the Defendant), 《检察日报》 (Procuratorate Daily), May 7, 2014, p. 3.

[11]           《中华人民共和国刑法》(Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China), supra note 2, Article 180 Paragraph 4.  For more discussion of this topic, see 陈兴良 (CHEN Xingliang), 《规范刑法学》 (Standardizing Criminal Law) (Remin University of China Press, 2nd ed., 2013), pp. 633–634.

[12]           See 2015年,我们所经历的千股跌停 (The Fall of Thousands of Shares that We Experienced in 2015), 《证券时报网》 (Securities Times Online), Aug. 24, 2015, http://kuaixun.stcn.com/2015/0824/12424778.shtml.  Editors’ note: at that time, the market price of over two thousand companies’ shares fell by 10% in a single day.

[13]           《上海市静安区人民检察院诉许春茂利用未公开信息交易案》 (The Jing’an District People’s Procuratorate of Shanghai Municipality v. XU Chunmao, A Case About Using Nonpublic Information for Trading), rendered by the Jing’an District People’s Court of Shanghai Municipality on Oct. 14, 2011,《最高人民法院公报》 (Gazette of the Supreme People’s Court), Issue No. 10 (2012) (Overall Issue No. 192); 孙玮、魏凯 (SUN Wei & WEI Kai), 许春茂利用未公开信息交易案——利用未公开信息交易罪的司法认定 (XU Chunmao, A Case About Using Nonpublic Information for Trading—Judicial Determination of the Crime of Using Nonpublic Information for Trading),《人民司法·案例》 (People’s Judicature – Cases), Issue No. 4 (2013).

[14]           《诉张敦勇利用未公开信息交易罪一案一审刑事判决书》 (The First-Instance Criminal Judgment of a Case About ZHANG Dunyong’s Crime of Using Nonpublic Information for Trading)(2015)沪一中刑初字第26号刑事判决 ((2015) Hu Yi Zhong Xing Chu Zi No. 26 Criminal Judgment), rendered by the No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court of Shanghai Municipality on Feb. 28, 2015, http://wenshu.court.gov.cn/content/content?DocID=bdae8ee3-e189-49b3-bdba-7971582287a2.

[15]           《厉建超利用未公开信息交易案》 (LI Jianchao, A Case About Using Nonpublic Information for Trading)(2016)鲁刑终146号刑事判决 ((2016) Lu Xing Zhong No. 146 Criminal Judgment), rendered by the High People’s Court of Guangdong Province on Apr. 15, 2016, wenshu.court.gov.cn/content/content?DocID=cc295ba4-19b7-4996-9163-292e363a1a77.

[16]           《〈最高人民法院关于案例指导工作的规定〉实施细则》(Detailed Implementing Rules on the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Work on Case Guidance”), Article 9, passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on Apr. 27, 2015, issued on and effective as of May 13, 2015, Stanford Law School China Guiding Cases Project, English Guiding Cases Rules, June 12, 2015 Edition, http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases-rules/20150513-english.

[17]           《李涛利用未公开信息交易案二审刑事判决书》 (The Second-Instance Criminal Judgment of a Case of LI Tao’s Use of Nonpublic Information for Trading)(2017)京刑终153号刑事判决((2017) Jing Xing Zhong No. 153 Criminal Judgment), rendered by the High People’s Court of Beijing Municipality on Sept. 28, 2017, http://wenshu.court.gov.cn/content/content?DocID=a7b615f2-c7b4-4aa5-bccf-a8130010c609.

[18]           《罗泽萍等利用未公开信息交易罪上诉一案》 (An Appeal Case About LUO Zeping et al.’s Crime of Using Nonpublic Information for Trading)(2016)京刑终60号刑事判决 ((2016) Jing Xing Zhong No. 60 Criminal Judgment), rendered by the High People’s Court of Beijing Municipality on Aug. 26, 2016, http://wenshu.court.gov.cn/content/content?DocID=28f52d7b-5d9e-443a-9414-c8d592a044fc.

[19]           《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理危害计算机信息系统安全刑事案件应用法律若干问题的解释》 (Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Endangering the Security of Computer Information Systems), supra note 7.