Research On The Judicial Determination Of The Crime Of Insider Trading

China's securities market has experienced nearly 30 years of development.The securities industry has become an important industry in the national economy and has made a significant contribution to promoting the growth of the national economy.Insider trading crimes account for a high proportion of securities market crimes.They have the characteristics of rapid updating of illegal means,high concealment and strong professionalism.They are extremely harmful,and it is urgent to increase the crackdown on insider trading.In recent years,various ministries and commissions have jointly issued a number of policies and documents,which have comprehensively stipulated various issues in the judicial aspects of insider trading crime cases.In the "Securities Law" reviewed and approved in 2019,it also clearly increased the punishment range and amount for insider trading violations,expanded the identification of "informed persons" on insider trading information,and refined the identification of insider trading information.Standards will effectively crack down on insider trading behavior,greatly increase the illegal cost of insider trading,and will effectively curb insider trading to a certain extent and enhance investor confidence.A series of measures showed the country's determination and attitude to crack down on insider trading.However,judging from judicial practice,there are still many disputes on the judicial determination of insider trading crimes that need to be resolved.Therefore,this article starts with "Liu Baochun's Insider Trading Case" and "Guo Fuxiang's Insider Trading Case" to summarize the focus of the dispute between the prosecution and the defense.It focuses on the analysis of the characteristics of inside information,the formation and disclosure time of inside information,the causes and problems of the confirmation letter,the application of the presumption rules in the judicial determination of insider trading crimes,and the legal transaction defense and other controversial issues.Through analysis,it is concluded that,in the standard for determining the inside information sensitive period,the matters and personnel of the transactions between the two parties shall be "specific" in terms of the formation time,and shall be combined with specific cases.In terms of the open time standard,the current formal open standard has loopholes due to the speed of pending orders,the collective bidding rules,and night market entrusted services in the exclusive channel of large customers.In the confirmation letter of the CSRC,the reasons,status quo,and disputes for the appearance of the confirmation letter are introduced,and the content and form of the confirmation letter are to be standardized and the types of evidence are unclear.Analyzes the background and problems in criminal presumption applicable to insider trading cases,and puts forward that the CSRC's investigation procedures and applicable rules are not sufficiently transparent,the presumption applicable subjects and identification standards are vague,and the need to refine the legitimate transaction defense's "justified reasons and legitimate information" Source "regulations.On the basis of clarifying the problems in the judicial determination of the crime of insider trading,and combining the analysis of typical cases and existing regulations,the following conclusions are drawn: First,the judgment of the importance of insider information should adopt subjective standards,and the disclosure of listed companies should improve the release of listed companies Time for forced suspension of major information and freezing of insiders' trading qualifications within a certain period of time after the information is disclosed.Second,standardize the content and procedures of the confirmation letter issued by the CSRC,conduct a comprehensive judicial review of the form and content of the confirmation letter,formally review its evidence capacity,and review its probative power in order to protect the parties' Right to relief.Third,clearly inform the parties that they have the right to refute criminal presumptions and the obligation to provide evidence.Added "timely and planned" recognition conditions to "justifiable reasons and sources of legitimate information".