Guiding Case No. 61

Original Judgment(s) leading up to this Guiding Case

Full Text of the Guiding Case

Keyword(s)

Main Points of the Adjudication

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.

Article 180 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China [1]

Basic Facts of the Case

From March 9, 2011, to May 30, 2013, defendant MA Le served as a manager of the Bosera Select Equity Securities Investment [Fund] [2] of Bosera Asset Management Co., Ltd., [3] had full authority and responsibility for investing the investment funds in the stock market, and was well informed about nonpublic information concerning the underlying stock traded by Bosera Select Equity Securities Investment Fund, trading times, and trading volume. During his [4] tenure, MA Le used the above-mentioned nonpublic information that he controlled to engage in securities trading activities related to this information.

[MA Le] operated three stock accounts[, which were registered under the names of] “a certain JIN”, “YAN X A”, and “YAN X B”, that he personally controlled to buy or sell the same 76 shares of stock [traded by him] for the “Bosera Select” fund account(s) that he managed. The orders [for these transactions] were placed, through a Shenzhouxing phone card [5] that had been purchased anonymously for temporary [use], before (one to five trading days), at the same time as, or slightly (one to two trading days) after [the transactions that MA Le made for the “Bosera Select” fund account(s)]. [These illegal transactions] had a cumulative trading amount of more than RMB 1.05 billion and [MA Le] illegally derived benefits of RMB 18,833,374.74.

On July 17, 2013, MA Le took the initiative to go to the Public Security Bureau of Shenzhen Municipality and turn himself in. After [reporting] to [the authorities handling] the case, [6] he gave true accounts of the facts of [his] crime; this was [a type of] surrender. MA Le confessed [his] crime with a good attitude, [his] unlawful gains could be returned in full from [his] distrained and frozen property, and the fine imposed on him could be paid in full.

Results of the Adjudication

In the (2014) Shen Zhong Fa Xing Er Chu Zi No. 27 Criminal Judgment, the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen Municipality, Guangdong Province, opined: [7]  defendant MA Le’s acts constituted the crime of using nonpublic information for trading. However, the Criminal Law [of the People’s Republic of China] does not provide for a situation where “circumstances are particularly serious” in the crime of using nonpublic information for trading. Therefore, [the court] could only determine that MA Le’s acts [constituted a situation where] “circumstances are serious”. MA Le surrendered and [his] punishment could [therefore] be reduced in accordance with law.  MA Le confessed [his] crime with a good attitude, [his] unlawful gains could be returned in full, [his] fine could be paid in full, and he indeed demonstrated [his] repentance.

In addition, the Community Correction, Settlement, Assistance, and Education Division of the Futian District Justice Bureau of Shenzhen Municipality [8] conducted an investigation and assessed that the pronouncement of MA Le’s suspension of sentence would not have major adverse effects on the community in which he resided and[, therefore,] the conditions for the application of suspension of sentence were satisfied. [9] Thereupon, for the crime of using nonpublic information for trading, [the court] sentenced MA Le to a limited-term imprisonment of three years with a five-year suspension of sentence and fined [him] RMB 18.84 million. [The court also ordered that his] unlawful gains of RMB 18,833,374.74 be recovered in accordance with law and turned over to the State Treasury.

After the judgment was pronounced, the People’s Procuratorate of Shenzhen Municipality lodged a protest, arguing that defendant MA Le’s acts should be determined to be a commission of a crime under circumstances that were particularly serious [and that he should be] punished according to the “circumstances are particularly serious” sentencing level. The first-instance judgment [was based on] erroneous application of law, the sentencing was manifestly improper, and [the judgment] should be amended in accordance with law.

In the (2014) Yue Gao Fa Xing Er Zhong Zi No. 137 Criminal Ruling, the High People’s Court of Guangdong Province opined:[10] Article 180 Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Law provides that where [a person] used nonpublic information for trading and the “circumstances are serious, [the person] shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 1”. [Paragraph 4] does not provide for a situation where the “circumstances are particularly serious” for the crime of using nonpublic information for trading. Furthermore, according to Article 180 Paragraph 1:

Where [a person has committed a crime covered by the provision], and the circumstances are serious, [the person] shall be sentenced to a limited-term imprisonment or detention of no more than five years and in addition or as sole [punishment] shall be fined one to five times [his] unlawful gains.

Therefore, MA Le’s use of nonpublic information for trading was a type of commission of crime under circumstances that were serious, and [he] should be sentenced to a punishment within this range of the sentencing level. The sentencing in the original judgment was proper and the grounds for protest of the protesting organ could not stand and were not accepted. Thereupon, [the court] ruled to reject the protest and to uphold the original judgment.

After the second-instance ruling’s coming into effect, the People’s Procuratorate of Guangdong Province requested that the Supreme People’s Procuratorate lodge a protest with the Supreme People’s Court in accordance with adjudication supervision procedures.

The Supreme People’s Procuratorate protested: 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.  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.  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 the grounds that Article 180 Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Law does not provide for [a situation where] the “circumstances are particularly serious” for the crime of using nonpublic information for trading, the final ruling of this case assessed MA Le’s criminal acts to be of a lower degree.  This was an error in the application of law, resulted in improper sentencing, and should be corrected in accordance with law.

The Supreme People’s Court formed a collegial panel in accordance with law to directly conduct a retrial of the case and to hold a public hearing to adjudicate it.  The facts ascertained during the retrial were basically the same as those [ascertained] during the original adjudication.  Defendant MA Le’s illegally derived benefits were determined during the original adjudication to be RMB 18,833,374.74.  There was an error in the calculation; the amount actually should be RMB 19,120,246.98 and should be corrected in accordance with law.

In the (2015) Xing Kang Zi No. 1 Criminal Judgment, the Supreme People’s Court opined:[11] defendant MA Le’s acts constituted the crime of using nonpublic information for trading. MA Le used nonpublic information for trading 76 shares of stock, accruing a trading amount of over RMB 1.05 billion and having illegally derived benefits of over RMB 19,120,000. These were particularly serious circumstances.

MA Le took the initiative to return from abroad to turn himself in and surrender; these were statutory circumstances for reducing sentencing and punishment. [At a time when] he was still not under [any authority’s] control, [MA Le] converted the shares into cash to deposit into the three accounts involved in the case and then took the initiative to explain the situation to the China Securities Regulatory Commission,[12] returned all of [his] unlawful gains, and confessed [his] crime and repented with a good attitude. [Furthermore,] the illicit funds were not squandered and the fine [imposed] by the original adjudication could be paid in full. In light of [the existence of] these circumstances for which [a court] may consider a reduction of punishment, MA Le’s punishment could be reduced.
In the first-instance judgment and the second-instance ruling, [the courts] clearly ascertained the facts, the evidence was credible and sufficient, and the conviction was accurate. However, an incorrect understanding of legal rules resulted in improper sentencing and should be corrected. According to Article 180 Paragraph 4 and Paragraph 1, Article 67 Paragraph 1, Article 52, Article 53, and Article 64 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China as well as Article 389 Item (3) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the “Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China”,[13] [the Supreme People’s Court rendered] the following judgment:

  1. [The court] upholds the parts of the (2014) Yue Gao Fa Xing Er Zhong Zi No. 137 Criminal Ruling of the High People’s Court of Guangdong Province and the (2014) Shen Zhong Fa Xing Er Chu Zi No. 27 Criminal Judgment of the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen Municipality regarding the conviction of defendant MA Le.
  2. [The court] revokes the parts of the (2014) Yue Gao Fa Xing Er Zhong Zi No. 137 Criminal Ruling of the High People’s Court of Guangdong Province and the (2014) Shen Zhong Fa Xing Er Chu Zi No. 27 Criminal Judgment of the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen Municipality regarding the sentencing of defendant MA Le and the recovering of [his] unlawful gains.
  3. Defendant MA Le committed the crime of using nonpublic information for trading and is [therefore] sentenced to a limited-term imprisonment of three years and fined RMB 19,130,000.
  4. [The court orders] the recovery in accordance with law of [defendant MA Le’s] unlawful gains of RMB 19,120,246.98 and their turning over to the State Treasury.

Reasons for the Adjudication

In the effective judgment, the court opined:[14] the facts of this case were clear, the conviction was accurate, and the focal points of the dispute were how to correctly understand the citation in Article 180 Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Law to Paragraph 1 and how to grasp the standards for determining [when] the “circumstances are particularly serious” for the crime of using nonpublic information for trading.

1. On Understanding the Citation in Article 180 Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Law to the Sentencing Circumstances of Paragraph 1 and Grasping [Its Application]

With respect to the crimes of insider trading and divulging inside information, Article 180 Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law provides:

Where before the information involving the issuance of securities or the trading of securities or futures, or other information that has major effects on the trading prices of securities or futures, is made public, a person who has inside information regarding the trading of the securities or futures or a person who illegally obtains inside information regarding the trading of the securities or futures buys or sells the securities, engages in futures trading related to the inside information, divulges the information, or explicitly or implicitly suggests that others engage in the above-mentioned trading activities, and the circumstances are serious, [the person] shall be sentenced to a limited-term imprisonment or detention of no more than five years and in addition or as sole [punishment] shall be fined one to five times [his] unlawful gains. If[, however,] the circumstances are particularly serious, [the person] shall be sentenced to a limited-term imprisonment of five to ten years and in addition or as sole [punishment] shall be fined one to five times [his] unlawful gains.

With respect to the crime of using nonpublic information for trading, [Article 180] Paragraph 4 [of the Criminal Law] provides:

Where an employee of a stock exchange, futures exchange, securities company, futures brokerage company, fund management company, commercial bank, insurance company, or other financial institution, or a staff member of a related regulatory department or industry association, uses nonpublic information which is not inside information but which is obtained through conveniences of [his] office to engage, in violation of provisions, in securities or futures trading activities related to the information, or to explicitly or implicitly suggest that others engage in related trading activities, and the circumstances are serious, [the employee or the staff member] shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 1.

On [the issue of] how [the phrase] “[w]here […] the circumstances are serious, [the employee or the staff member] shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 1” in Paragraph 4 should be understood, there existed different understandings in judicial practice. One view was that Paragraph 4 only provided for a situation where the “circumstances are serious” and did not provide for a situation where the “circumstances are particularly serious”. Therefore, [the phrase] “[w]here […] the circumstances are serious, [the employee or the staff member] shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 1” could only [mean that the employee or the staff member shall] be punished in accordance with the “circumstances are serious” sentencing level [stated] in Paragraph 1.

Another view was that [the phrase] “circumstances are serious” in Paragraph 4 was only a conviction provision, i.e., in a situation where the circumstances were more than serious, [the employee or the staff member was convicted of the crime in accordance with Paragraph 4 but could be] punished in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 1. As for the specific punishment, [according to this view, a court] should see whether the situation conformed to one where the “circumstances are serious” or one where the “circumstances are particularly serious” [as provided for] in Paragraph 1 and should sentence [the employee or the staff member] respectively in accordance with law. Where the circumstances were serious, [the person was to be] “sentenced to a limited-term imprisonment […] of no more than five years” and where the circumstances were particularly serious, [the person was to be] “sentenced to a limited-term imprisonment of five to ten years”.

The Supreme People’s Court opined: the citation of statutory sentences provided for in Article 180 Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Law should be [considered as] the citation of all statutory sentences [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. The specific reasons for this understanding were as follows:

(1) It accords with the legislative purpose of the Criminal Law. The acts of using nonpublic information for trading occur relatively frequently in the fields of funds, securities, futures, etc. within China.[17] The actors, by using an enormous amount of capital invested by the public as backing, buy in advance or sell in advance to obtain enormous amounts of illegal benefits, passing the risks and losses [associated with this kind of trading] to other investors. [These acts] not only harm property interests of [the actors’] work units, but also seriously undermine the principles of an open, just, and fair securities market, seriously harm interests of client investors and [interests of] individual investors who are disadvantaged by [having less] information, seriously harm the goodwill of the financial industry and affect the trust of investors in financial institutions, and finally, seriously affect the healthy development of asset management and markets for funds, securities, and futures.

For these reasons, Amendment (VII) to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China [18] added the crime of using nonpublic information for trading and placed this crime in the same legal rule as the crime of insider trading or divulging inside information. [This] demonstrates that the degrees of illegality and liability for these two crimes are quite equivalent. [The phrase] “circumstances are particularly serious” should also apply to the crime of using nonpublic information for trading.

(2) It accords with the meaning of the legal rules. First, [the phrase] “circumstances are serious” in Article 180 Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Law is a conviction provision. The Provisions (II) of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security on Standards for Registering Criminal Cases Under the Jurisdiction of Public Security Organs for Investigation and Prosecution [19] provides the “circumstance” standards for investigating and prosecuting the crime of using nonpublic information for trading and explains that the crime must reach [a situation] where “circumstances are serious” [before] it can be investigated and prosecuted. The crime of using nonpublic information for trading is a crime of circumstance. The legislation must make clear the attributes of this crime of circumstance, and thus it needs the help of the expression “circumstances are serious” to avoid a conviction for acts [in situations] where the “circumstances are not serious”.

Furthermore, [the phrase] “circumstances are serious” in this paragraph does not have the nature of a sentencing provision.  In many articles of the Criminal Law, [the phrase] “circumstances are serious” has the nature of both a conviction provision and a sentencing provision; but in all [these instances], without exception, there is a specific statutory sentence following [the phrase].  [By contrast], after [the phrase] “circumstances are serious” in Article 180 Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Law, there is no specific statutory sentence following it; instead, the statutory sentence for the crime of insider trading or divulging inside information is referenced.  Therefore, [the phrase] “circumstances are serious” in this paragraph has the nature only of a conviction provision, not [also] the nature of a sentencing provision.

(3) It accords with the [general] understanding of the legislative technique of citing to a statutory sentence. Citing to a statutory sentence refers to [a situation where legislation] does not provide an independent statutory sentence for a certain crime, but instead cites to the statutory sentence of another crime to serve as the statutory sentence of the [given] crime. The purpose of the citation to a statutory sentence in Article 180 Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Law is to avoid repetition in the textual expression of legal rules and it is not a situation where legal provisions are unclear.

In summary, although Article 180 Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Law does not explicitly [use] the expression “circumstances are particularly serious”, it should, based on the legislative purpose of setting up this provision, the meaning of the legal rules, and legislative technique, [be interpreted to] include the situation where “circumstances are particularly serious” and [the corresponding] sentencing level.

2. Standards for determining [when] “circumstances are particularly serious” for the crime of using nonpublic information for trading

There is currently no special provision concerning the standards for determining [when] “circumstances are particularly serious” for the crime of using nonpublic information for trading.  However, in light of [the fact that] the Criminal Law provides that the crime of using nonpublic information for trading shall refer to the punishment provided for the crime of insider trading or divulging inside information, the standards for determining [when] “circumstances are particularly serious” for the crime of insider trading or divulging inside information––situations [where] the trading amount is at least RMB 2.5 million and the [illegally] derived benefits are at least RMB 750,000––as [set forth] in 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 [20] should also be followed for the crime of using nonpublic information for trading.

MA Le used nonpublic information to carry out trading activities, accruing a trading amount of over RMB 1.05 billion and illegally deriving benefits of over RMB 19,120,000.  This far surpassed the above-mentioned standards.  In addition, at the time of the case, this was the largest amount [of money] that had been seized for this type of crime in the entire country.  Referring 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, the circumstances of MA Le’s crime should be [considered as] “circumstances [that] are particularly serious".

Endnotes

*         The citation of this translation of this Guiding Case is: 《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.  The original, Chinese version of this case is available at 《中国法院网》(www.chinacourt.org), http://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2016/07/id/2011310.shtml.  See also 《最高人民法院关于发布第13批指导性案例的通知》 (Notice of the Supreme People’s Court on the Release of the 13th Batch of Guiding Cases), issued on and effective as of June 30, 2016, http://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-23101.html.

This document was primarily prepared by Sean Webb and Dr. Mei Gechlik; it was finalized by Sean Webb, Dimitri Phillips, and Dr. Mei Gechlik.  Minor editing, such as splitting long paragraphs, adding a few words included in square brackets, and boldfacing the headings, was done to make the piece more comprehensible to readers; all footnotes, unless otherwise noted, have been added by the China Guiding Cases Project.  The following text is otherwise a direct translation of the original text released by the Supreme People’s Court.

[1]           《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.

Given that the final judgment of this Guiding Case was rendered by the Supreme People’s Court in November 2015 (see below), the Criminal Law referred to in this Guiding Case should mean the law as amended by Amendment IX.  See《中华人民共和国刑法修正案(九)》(Amendment (IX) to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China), passed and issued on Aug. 29, 2015, effective as of Nov. 1, 2015, http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/2015-08/31/content_1945587.htm.  Amendment X to the Criminal Law did not amend Article 180.

[2]           The name “博时精选股票证券投资”, which is likely meant to be “博时精选股票证券投资基金” (see, e.g., http://info.chinafund.cn/fund/050004), is translated here as “Bosera Select Equity Securities Investment Fund” in accordance with a prominent company database, at https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks
/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=47844124.

[3]           The name “博时基金管理有限公司” is translated here as “Bosera Asset Management Co., Ltd.” in accordance with the translation used on the company’s website, at https://www.bosera.com/english.

[4]           MA La is a male.  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.

[5]           The text reads “神州行” (“shenzhouxing”), which literally means “across China”.  Shenzhouxing phone cards are prepaid phone cards sold by China Mobile.

[6]                The text reads “到案” (“[report] to the case”), which refers to the situation in which a person reports voluntarily or involuntarily (e.g., by being arrested) to the authorities handling the case.  For more discussion of this topic, see, e.g., 马静华 (MA Jinghua), 新《刑事诉讼法》背景下侦查到案制度实施问题研究 (Research on the Implementation Issues of the Report-to-the-Case for Investigation System Against the Backdrop of the New “Criminal Procedure Law”), 《当代法学》 (Contemporary Law Review), Issue No. 2 (2015), also available at http://www.spp.gov.cn/llyj/201510/t20151027_106500.shtml.

[7]           《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), supra note

[8]           The name “深圳市福田区司法局社区矫正和安置帮教科” is translated here literally as “the Community Correction, Settlement, Assistance, and Education Division of the Futian District Justice Bureau of Shenzhen Municipality”.  This entity does not appear to have an official English name.

[9]           These conditions are listed in Article 72 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China.  According to Article 76 of the law, any criminal pronounced to have a suspended sentence is subject to community correction during the period for suspension of sentence and, if none of the situations set out in Article 77 occur (e.g., commission of crimes), his sentence will not be enforced upon expiration of the period.  See 《中华人民共和国刑法》(Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China), supra note 1, Articles 72, 76, and 77.

[10]           《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.

[11]           《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.

[12]           The name “中国证券监督管理委员会” is translated here as “China Securities Regulatory Commission” in accordance with the translation used on the Commission’s website, http://www.csrc.gov.cn.

[13]           《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法〉的解释》 (Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the “Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China), passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on Nov. 5, 2012, issued on Dec. 20, 2012, effective as of Jan. 1, 2013, http://www.court.gov.cn/fabu-xiangqing-4937.html.

[14]           The Chinese text does not specify which court opined.  Given the context, this should be the Supreme People’s Court.

[15]           The text reads “五年以下”,which is translated herein as “no more than five years” because Article 99 of the Criminal Law provides that any reference relating a number with “以上” (“above”), “以下” (“below”), or “以内” (“within”) includes the number itself.  See 《中华人民共和国刑法》(Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China), supra note 1, Article 99.

[16]           The text reads “一倍以上五倍以下”, which is translated herein as “one to five times” because of the interpretation of “以上” and “以下” in Article 99 of the Criminal Law.  See id.

[17]           The original text reads “我国” (“my country”) and is translated herein as “China”.

[18]           《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), supra note 1.

[19]           《最高人民检察院、公安部关于公安机关管辖的刑事案件立案追诉标准的规定(二)》 (Provisions (II) of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security on Standards for Registering Criminal Cases Under the Jurisdiction of Public Security Organs for Investigation and Prosecution), Article 36, issued on and effective as of May 7, 2010, http://www.csrc.gov.cn/pub/shenzhen/xxfw/tzzsyd/ssgs/zh/zhxx/201005
/t20100521_180759.htm.

[20]           《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.