China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

China Cracks Down on Securities and Futures Violations

Wed, 14 Aug 2024
Categories: China Legal Trends

On 17 May 2024, China’s Supreme People’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, and China Securities Regulatory Commission jointly issued the “Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Securities and Futures Violations” (关于办理证券期货违法犯罪案件工作若干问题的意见, hereinafter referred to as the “Opinions”).

The Opinions consist of 31 articles aimed at cracking down on securities and futures violations, improving the working mechanism that integrates administrative law enforcement with criminal justice, and safeguarding the healthy development of the capital market.

The highlights of the Opinions are as follows:

  • First-instance cases of securities and futures crimes shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the intermediate people’s courts, prosecuted by the people’s procuratorates at the same level, and investigated by the police authorities at or above the prefectural (municipal) level.
  • If the securities and futures regulator, in the course of administrative law enforcement, fails to obtain evidence directly proving securities and futures violations but finds other evidence that is highly related to the violation, mutually corroborative, and together forming a chain of evidence, the regulator can determine the facts of the violation based on the preponderance of the evidence standard.
  • The police authorities, people’s procuratorates, and people’s courts should ensure that the facts of the crime are clear and the evidence is credible and sufficient when handling cases of securities and futures crimes. Where the evidence is credible and sufficient, the facts of the case can be decided without the confession of the suspect or defendant.

 

   

Photo by Wang xiaoqi on Unsplash

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

You might also like

PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal, Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments

Recent Australian case law clarifies that the “double interest” mechanism in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) monetary judgments functions as a compensatory post-judgment interest framework rather than an unenforceable penalty. This consolidates Australia’s position as a highly attractive and creditor-friendly forum for enforcing Chinese judgments. See Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58 (6 February 2024), Fu v Pang [2025] VSC 597 (16 September 2025)

IOMed Settles First Case, Resolving China-Singapore Maritime Dispute

The newly established International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) has successfully resolved its inaugural case—a maritime charter dispute between Chinese and Singaporean parties—marking a major milestone for the world’s first government-backed global mediation body.