In recent years, China has implemented the concept of “zero tolerance” for securities violations, and violations related to material information of listed companies are the focus of the crackdown, with insider trading being the most important. Article 180 of China's Criminal Law penalizes self-executed insider trading, explicitly implying that others are engaged in the act of trading, as well as the disclosure of insider information. Among them, there is a difference in the logic of punishment between insider trading and leaking insider information. The liability determination of insider trading can apply the presumption rule, while the liability determination of the crime of leaking insider information is differentiated, and should be judged by combining the timing of leaking, the fact of leaking, the motivation of leaking, the intention of leaking, the uniqueness of the source of information and other multiple factors.

The party in this case Li Mou (a pseudonym) is a listed company executives, in the listed company plans mergers and acquisitions and reorganization during the dinner with friends triggered a criminal case, previously suspected of insider trading, leaking insider information crime by the public security organs of criminal detention, the whole case profits amounted to more than 100 million yuan. Beijing King&Capital Law Firm Xu Ming lawyers accepted the family entrusted, the first time to meet with the detention center, to understand the case to the person concerned, and on similar cases to carry out research, and actively communicate with the authorities, and ultimately successfully for the person concerned for the release of bail pending trial. After the person concerned was released from bail pending trial, Xu Ming lawyers continue to work, recently, the public security organs for the person concerned released from bail pending trial.

Insider trading, leakage of insider information crime cases, the most complex is the multi-directional transmission and multi-level transmission of multi-level transmission type cases. In this case, the party LiMou in planning the company mergers and acquisitions and reorganization program during, and company colleagues dinner, after the colleague will insider information to more colleagues, relatives and related personnel to pass, and ultimately formed a multi-directional, multi-level, multi-person transactions of the transmission type insider trading chain. Xu Ming lawyers intervened, to the parties concerned to understand the content of the conversation during the dinner, the relationship between the traders, the specific process of stock trading, and collect information to confirm whether the source is the only one. After research, Xu Ming lawyer to the case organ, first, there is no close relationship between the two, both parties have no motivation to pass insider information; Second, the party simply do not know the colleague usually have the habit of trading stocks, and the company has restrictions on the employees trading stocks, based on the fact that the colleague trading stocks should not be presumed that the party LiMou should be aware of the fact of the transaction and conspire to carry out insider trading; Third, given that the colleague within the unit with more than one insider information knower. Thirdly, given the colleague in the unit and a number of insider information knower relationship is good, close, can not rule out the possibility of colleagues have multiple sources of insider information. The opinion was recognized by the case-handling authorities, and the person concerned was given the opportunity to be released on bail pending trial, which ultimately exempted him from criminal prosecution.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)