Chinese Courts and Internet Judiciary
Contents
Preface.
I. Overall Development of Internet Judiciary.
II. Strengthening the Judicial Specialization for the Internet.
III. Promoting Access to and Benefits from Internet Judiciary for the People.
IV. Perfecting Online Litigation Procedures for Internet Judiciary.
V. Improving the Intelligent Application Scenarios in the Judicial System.
VI. Improving Governance over the Internet through Collaboration and Coordination.
VII. Forming Legal Rules Governing the Cyberspace.
Conclusion.
Appendix Influential Cases of Internet Judiciary in China
Preface
Nowadays, the cutting-edge information technology has evolved in leaps and bounds, and the Internet has become a leading force for innovation-driven development. The Internet has profoundly changed the lifestyle and working patterns, and propelled the world’s economy and society forward. The year 2019 marks the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, and the 50th anniversary of the birth of the Internet. Since its full access to the Internet in 1994, China has always taken the development of Information Technology as a historic opportunity to speed up the Internet Power Strategy, to deepen the reform and opening-up, and to accelerate the process of modernization. In the meantime, significant progress has been achieved in the information technology and Internet industry. As of June 30, 2019, China had 854 million netizens ballooned from 620,000 in 1997, and the number of mobile Internet users reached 847 million, both ranking first in the world. Instant messaging ranked first in online activities with 824 million users, followed by online video users at 759 million. Meanwhile, online shoppers and online users of electronic government service increased to 639 million and 509 million, respectively. The data traffic consumption of mobile phones and devices reached 55.39 billion GB.
Both national governance and administration of justice face the challenges and opportunities brought by the development and innovation of Information Technology and the Internet industry. Across the board spread of the Internet, problems such as unbalanced development, inadequate rules and inequitable order have become more evident. Citizens, corporations, and social organizations now expect greater access to justice and to guarantee the socio-economic development in the digital age, which urges the courts to harness the technology to keep pace with the rapidly changing demands of society. Since 2013, Chinese courts have been following the peoplecentered principle, actively implementing national Internet Power Strategy, and Big Data Strategy and the Internet Plus initiative, and exploring a broad spectrum of new approaches, fields, and models of integrating Internet technologies into trial procedures and the judicial system. Until now, online frameworks for Diversified Dispute Resolution and litigation service have taken shape, judicial rules and policies on cyberspace governance have been established, the cyberspace has become well regulated and in order, the national governance system and governance capability have been modernized accordingly.
I. Overall Development of Internet Judiciary
Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC), benefiting from the scale advantages and the achievements of the Internet industry, has incorporated the Online Judiciary development into the overall strategic plan for deepening the judicial reform and implementing overall progress in different fields, and at different levels step by step. With the deepening of the reform, the application scenarios of information technologies in the judiciary have gradually expanded. The platforms become multi-functional, and the litigation mode transformed into an integrated and intelligent mode. The law-based cyberspace governance has been promoted constantly, achieving a historical shift from technical innovation to mechanism reformation and from procedural improvements to the distillation of substantive rules. Application fields have extended from judicial openness to whole judicial activities. Chinese courts take judicial openness as the kickoff project for the application of Internet technologies in the judiciary. Since 2013, Chinese courts have been striving for and have accomplished the construction of four official websites, i.e. China Judicial Process Information Online, China Judgment Online, China Trial Live Broadcast, and China Executive Information Online, to promote judicial openness and transparency. To satisfy diverse needs for justice, Chinese courts continually experiment with the Internet judicial practice, such as in Diversified Dispute Resolution, litigation service, trial, and enforcement etc. A litigation service system connecting online and offline litigation service system has been built. A model of One-Stop online dispute resolution service, including mediation, case-filing, fee-payment, hearings, and e-delivery, has been developed, which covers the whole online process in courts’ judicial activities.
One-dimension platforms have transformed into multi-functional systems. The Internet technology infrastructure has dramatically improved since official websites and intranets started to be developed for the judiciary’s activities. Now internal and external networks, mobile networks, and office automation platforms covering all courts across the country have gradually developed and functioned well. In 2016, Smart Court Construction became part of the National Development Strategy (NDS). Since then, the level of digitalization in the judiciary has advanced at a fantastic speed. By June 2019, the Smart Court System had taken shape, offering whole-process transparent and intelligent online services to the public in accordance with the law. The internal judicial work systems and external litigation service systems are interconnected. The service carriers have expanded from PCs only to all smart mobile devices. A shared big-data platform connects government agencies, industry organizations, legal firms, and Internet companies.
Litigation model has shifted from linear and isolated into integrated, open, and intelligent. With the assistance of Internet technologies, judicial activities have profoundly shifted from the classic pattern into an online-and- offline integration pattern. Compared with the past, all the participants of court proceedings can benefit from the convenience and flexibility provided by the all-weather, multi-scenes, and interactive litigation system. Chinese courts have endeavored to conduct the process of judicial activities online. The routine work used to be operated manually, and the judicial practice across the whole nation’s court system was scattered. Now an open-access, sharing, and intelligent integrated model and approach have been set up for courts nationwide. By introducing new technologies like big data, cloud computing, blockchain and artificial intelligence, the application of modules such as voice recognition in hearings, digitalized evidence presentation, automatic document verification, and simultaneous generation of e-files, intelligence-assisted case handling, and case management are all included in the toolkits for the judiciary.
The main focus has shifted from the application innovation to lawbased governance of the Internet. In the early stages, the focus of the Internet Judiciary was utilizing online litigation mechanisms, strengthening the application of technologies, and enhancing people’s access to justice via keeping pace with trends of technologies. As the Internet industry deeply integrated with economic and social development, Chinese courts improve Internet judicial governance in an all-round manner by following the latest innovation in time. The official establishment of the Internet courts is the opening for a new era, which provides an opportunity for the judiciary to extract and to summarize the judicial rules from new Internet-related cases through its administration.
II. Strengthening the Judicial Specialization for the Internet
Echoing the development of the Internet era, courts nationwide have innovated the “Internet plus judiciary” mechanism according to local conditions. In April 2015, the High People’s Court of Zhejiang Province initiated online e-commerce tribunals in the courts within its jurisdiction, concentrating on handling cases on online monetary claims, copyright infringements, transaction disputes, and so forth. Based on the experiences from the pilot mentioned above, Hangzhou Internet Court was officially established on August 18th, 2017. Beijing Internet Court and Guangzhou Internet Court were successively established on September 9 and September 28, 2018. The three Internet courts have set up eight specialized divisions in total. All of the first assigned 84 judges are equipped with more than ten years of professional experience, and each concludes more than 700 cases per year.
Internet courts, designed as primary courts with designated jurisdiction over Internet-related cases, have implemented the new trial mechanism following the approach of “Online Disputes Tried Online”. The centralized jurisdiction covers 11 types of internet-related cases, including contracts for financial loans, goods purchase, services, and online disputes about torts, such as copyright infringements. A series of experiences have been accumulated and become the benchmark in the fields of online case handling, online platform developments, litigation guidelines and rules, technology application, Internet governance, etc.
As of October 31, 2019, Hangzhou Internet Court, Beijing Internet Court, and Guangzhou Internet Court had accepted 118,764 Internet-related cases and concluded 88,401. The rate of online filing (the lawsuits filed via the Internet) was 96.8%, and 80,819 cases concluded were proceeded online throughout the whole process. Compared with the case handling before, on average, it took 45 minutes in an online hearing and 38 days to conclude a case, which respectively saved time by about 3/5 and 1/2. Up to 98% of the parties accepted first-instance judgments and ceased further appeals. It indicates that the judicial quality, efficiency, and effect of Internet courts in a widely recognized condition. Subjected to local practices and conditions, several courts across China set up specialized divisions or units for Internet-related case, to explore an innovative and specialized judicature system for the Internet. More specialized judicature tribunals and units throughout national courts have been established, leading to a better judiciary with more expertise in the Internet-related cases. For example, Internet tribunals were set up in Changning Primary People’s Court of Shanghai, Binhai New District People’s Court of Tianjin, Shenzhen Futian Primary People’s Court of Guangdong Province, Wuhan Jiangxia Primary People’s Court of Hubei Province, Chengdu Pidu Primary People’s Court of Sichuan Province etc. Some other courts formed specialized collegiate panels or units for Internet cases, such as Zhenjiang Economic and Technological Development Zone People’s Court of Jiangsu Province, Ningbo Yuyao Primary People’s Court of Zhejiang Province, Xiamen Siming Primary People’s Court of Fujian Province ect.
Based on the distinctive features of Internet disputes and the Internet industry within their jurisdiction, the newly-established specialized tribunals and panels integrate online and offline resources, explore various approaches and strategies, and enrich the legal practices of the Internet judiciary. Changning Primary People’s Court of Shanghai studied against the fact that in its jurisdiction, service-oriented Internet enterprise gathered, which leads to new types of Internet disputes emerging in the form of class lawsuits. The court also delivered 12 times legal risk’s alerts to Internet intermediaries after concluded the test case, which helped the intermediaries mediated other disputes in the shadow of the law and amended their platform protocols successfully. Shenzhen Futian Primary People’s Court of Guangdong Province set up Internet and Finance tribunal and “Jujingzhi (Whale Intelligent Platform)” to realize financial cases processed online; Since June 2017, cases accepted and concluded on the platform are 42,987 and 37,503, respectively. The adjudicature units doubled the number of annual concluded cases while cutting down the time consumption per trial to a half. The Internet tribunal in Chengdu Pidu Primary People’s Court of Sichuan Province, upon the judicial demands of local creative projects and industries, upgraded the measures for intellectual property protection, encouraging creative works and products to take advantage of authentic blockchain to preserve their copyrights in advance. Qian’nan Huishui Primary People’s Court of Guizhou Province established a specialized tribunal to hear cases across Qian’nan related to big data protection, online transaction and online torts, making most use of centralization and specialization of judicial resources.
III. Promoting Access to and Benefits from Internet Judiciary for the People
In the information age, people’s judicial demands are increasingly diversified, and the public expects a more impartial, efficient, convenient, accurate, and transparent operation mode of the judiciary. Empowered by Internet technology, Chinese courts have improved litigation services and dispute resolution continuously. Access to justice has been greatly improved by fully implementation of Online Filing and Cross-regional Filing Mechanisms, as well as One-Stop Diversified Dispute Resolution and One-Stop Litigation Service, which enables litigants to participate at their convenience with lower costs.
Constructing a One-Stop Diversified Dispute Resolution. Taking advantage of the openness, rapidness, and efficiency of the Internet, Chinese courts expand the dispute resolving channels, optimize dispute resolution methods, and establish a One-Stop Diversified Dispute Resolution step by step. This One-Stop system provides online access to court proceedings, converges complete tracks of dispute resolution, and successfully integrates online and offline services. The system provides parties with early assistance to balance the gains and costs of multiple dispute resolution, and supports their decision-making with accurately-matched solutions and wellconnected resolution tracks, including mediation, arbitration, and litigation.
In October 2016, the SPC launched a unified online mediation platform covering mediation processes from acceptance, classification, resolution to feedback. The platform has multiple functions such as court-annexed mediation before and after filing, and application for court approval. By October 31, 2019, the SPC online mediation platform had assembled services of 2,679 courts, 21,379 professional mediation organizations, and 79,271 mediators, and resolved a total of 1,369,134 cases via mediation. Under the Diversified Dispute Resolution connected with Fast Track Trial mechanism launched by Beijing courts, 304,000 cases were referred to court-annexed mediation prior to commencement of litigation procedures in 2018. Out of those,178,000 cases were successfully concluded, accounting for 39.0% of the closed civil cases of the first instance in the same period. Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court of Sichuan Province has constructed a HeheZhijie (Harmonization and Intelligent Resolution) platform, which is interconnected to Chengdu Municipal Public Service TianfuShiminyun (Clouds Platform for Chengdu Citizens). This integrated platform provides litigants with online judicial services for assessing disputes, filing the mediation application, choosing a mediator, consulting pro bono service, smart Q&A and so on, which enables the litigants to conduct self-service over the boundaries of location and time. Guangzhou Internet Court’s DDR platform gathers 25 mediation organizations and 284 mediators from the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, with 22 professional mediators from Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan. Recently one online infringement of portrait rights with participants from Beijing, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Macao, and Singapore and other cross-border cases have been successfully concluded online.
Building a One-Stop Litigation Services. Relying on Internet technology, Chinese courts have promoted online filing, provided litigation services online and offline, standardized the procedures, and improved the quality of litigation service. Litigants and their representatives have access to 24-hour online self-service through the computer or mobile phone without leaving home or office, who can enjoy functions including online consultation, filing application, materials submission and fee payment, and remarkably saved time and costs for them. By December 31, 2018, 2,995 courts across the country had established official websites for litigation services, 1,623 courts had launched litigation service mobile applications, and 2,813 courts had set up 12368 hotline services. Beijing courts launched the Online Filing System to provide full-coverage online filing services for the parties and their representatives to resort to anytime and anywhere, which includes online reservation, Wechat reservation and other services. During the one-year pilot period, 100,361 cases were filed online, accounting for 14.2% of all cases filed at Beijing courts. In response to nearly 10,000 frequently-asked procedural questions accumulated over the years, Shanghai courts sorted out such issues following the procedural laws, has produced FabaoZhicha, a Q&A database containing 2,300 prepared answers. Multiple resources and links such as official websites, litigation service robots and WeChat official accounts are provided, to satisfy parties’ diversified needs throughout the litigation. The litigation service platform of Nanjing courts in Jiangsu Province has established 5 channels to provide accurate, timely litigation information and services designed for needs from litigants, lawyers, prosecutors, people’s assessors, and the public. At the same time, based on the data analysis of mediation outcomes and relevant judgments, parties are guided to adopt the appropriate approach to resolve disputes.
Exploring a new mode of cross-regional filing service. Chinese courts actively promote online filing and explore the cross-regional case-filing service. Litigants and their representatives could choose to file a case in any court nearby. The recipient court, via the inter-court platform, is able to transfer the filing application to the court with jurisdiction, and the court in charge could process filing and acceptance of cases online. The crossregional mode enables the litigation services to transcend limits of time and space, dramatically reduces the litigation costs, reshapes the case filing and acceptance mode, and creates a new method of cross-regional, crosscourt, and cross-level services. In January 2015, Quanzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Fujian Province took the lead in introducing the crossregional mode and realized the acceptance of filing applications across the city. Such an approach was gradually promoted nationwide. In 2018, more than 120,000 cases were successfully filed cross-regionally all over the country. From January to June 2019, online filing and cross-regional filing services have fully implemented within Zhejiang province, with 100% of the courts providing such services. A total of 253,000 civil cases had been filed online, accounting for 59.7% out of the total. In August 2019, courts in Beijing-Shanghai-Guangzhou, the Yangtze River Delta, and the Beijing- Tianjin-Hebei region have implemented cross-regional and cross-level filing services. Filings can be processed across courts from different regions and levels, which cut off the costs and expenses of litigants at most.
Promoting the use of “Mobile Court” application. Acknowledging the prevalence of mobile phones and WeChat application in the Internet era, Chinese courts have built and promoted the “Mobile Court” litigation service platform, a well-structured WeChat Mini Program. Upon the employment of facial recognition, remote audio and video system, e-signature and other technologies, litigants, and judges can easily use mobile phones to conduct online litigation activities such as filing, service, hearing, evidence exchange, mediation, and so forth. Back in October 2017, Ningbo Yuyao Primary People’s Court of Zhejiang Province initiated the “Mobile Court” platform. In January 2018, a similar platform was launched by the Ningbo Intermediate People’s Court in Zhejiang Province, which subsequently adopted on the provincial scale in October of the same year. In March 2019, the SPC distilled the success achieved by Zhejiang courts and decided to expand the “Mobile Court” pilot scheme into12 provinces, including Beijing. As of October 31, 2019, the number of registered litigants in Mobile Courts amounted to 1.16 million and registered lawyers 73,200. These registered users had completed a total of 3.14 million litigation activities on this platform.
Improving online services for the legal profession. On December 30, 2015, the SPC officially established an online platform for lawyers, which aims to effectively protect lawyers’ right to practice and to maximize supports and conveniences for lawyers to perform their duties following the law. Services provided on this online platform include but not limited to case filing, access to case files, case status inquiry, rescheduling due to time clashes, contact with judges, and e-service of legal documents. A pilot scheme was launched by Shanghai courts back to 2011. At the start, the Shanghai scheme provided only basic information of courts, and it has gradually expanded to 26 services of five fundamental categories, covering virtually all services that lawyers may demand from courts. By June 30, 2019, the Shanghai scheme had provided services to lawyers nationwide and received 4.41 million visits. Xiamen courts of Fujian province connect its lawyer service platform with the lawyer information and management system of the Municipal Bureau of Justice. The connected platform is open to more than 160 law firms in Xiamen. It enables lawyers to file cases, submit materials, check case status and access to case files online, and effectively strengthens communications among lawyers, judges, and the authority of judicial administration.
Comprehensively furthering the judicial openness. Since 2013, the SPC has invested in the construction of four open online platforms for publication of information regarding judicial process, court hearings, court decisions, and enforcement proceedings. With details on all court-related proceedings virtually available online, people’s rights to know, to participate, and to supervise are well safeguarded. As of October 31, 2019, more than 1.1 billion case status information of no less than 22 million cases had disclosed on China Judicial Process Information Online. The court hearing of 5.5 million cases had been broadcasted live on China Court’s Live Trial website, attracting more than 20 billion views. China Judgment Online has published 80 million court decisions and attracted over 37 billion visits from more than 210 countries and regions, which makes the website the world’s largest judicial information database. China Enforcement Information Online presents consumption restriction orders in announcement against 6.13 million discredited judgment debtors, 10.06 million cases successfully enforced or legally terminated, and had earned more than 220million visits. As of October 31, 2019, a total of 3,585 courts had started to run official Weibo accounts, and the total number of followers amounted to 81.30 million. Among them, the SPC’s official Weibo account is subscribed by over 17.50 million users and had published more than 20 thousand posts. Another of 1.51 million users subscribed to the SPC’s official account on WeChat, where 14,000 pieces of information were posted. The scope, profundity, and dimension of judicial openness in Chinese courts have expanded continuously. The disclosure of judicial information is furthered in timely and substantive manner, which effectively promotes authority and accountability of the judiciary.
IV. Perfecting Online Litigation Procedures for Internet Judiciary
The rapid development of Internet technology has brought unprecedented opportunities and challenges to the law and the judicial system. Online litigation has become an inevitable trend of judicial development. Adhering to the latest developments and social needs, Chinese courts strive to promote the online litigation device and to perfect the rules of online litigation. By deeply applying new technologies such as big data, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, blockchain, and so forth, Chinese courts revolutionary reshape litigation processes and judicial operation in the Internet era.
Exploring the whole-process online trial mechanism. Based on the pilot project of Internet Courts Reform, Chinese courts make great efforts to explore a new judicial mechanism of “online trial for online disputes”. As a result, all litigation procedures such as case filing and acceptance, court referred mediation, proofing, evidence examination and challenge, hearing, judgment announcement, and enforcement could be conducted online. Compared with traditional approach, Beijing Internet Court recorded 100% online submission of litigants’ filing applications, 90.3% online payment of litigation fees and costs, and 98.7% online hearing. The average duration of court hearings was reduced to 52 minutes. 96.8% of judicial documents are serviced in electronic forms. Hangzhou Internet Court, taking into consideration the “time difference” of litigation caused by the litigants’ being at work or on business trip or going abroad, explored the approach of “asynchronous trial” which allows the litigants and their representatives to log in at different times and places to participate in mediation, cross-examination and other litigation activities. A total of 2,495 cases were successfully concluded through this system, saving 6 hours in traveling for litigants each case on average. Guangzhou Internet Court has creatively launched an online test trial scheme for contract disputes of similar or class lawsuits. One case is selected from the same class as a test case to be scheduled for the hearing. In order to promote resolutions of similar disputes, parties of those cases are invited to audit the hearing online. Statics reveal a strong demonstration effect that, among parties audited the hearing, 37% has resorted to voluntary performance and proactive reconciliation.
Improving the rules of online litigation procedures. In September 2018, the SPC issued Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts, which established the original jurisdiction of and the appellate jurisdiction over the Internet courts, and clarified the procedural rules for online litigation such as identity authentication, case filing, responding, proofing, hearing, service, signature and archiving, advancing the development of the online litigation system. In light of judicial practices, Internet courts in Beijing, Hangzhou and Guangzhou have made efforts to refine the online litigation protocols. A series of procedural directions, litigation guidelines, trial instructions and documents alike have been promulgated to regulate online filing and hearing, court disciplines and e-service, so as to ensure that online litigation is open, orderly, interactive and solemn, and procedural rights of the litigants fully protected.
Innovating online preservation and authentication of e-evidence. Aiming at tackling the difficulties in the e-evidence collection, preservation and authentication, Chinese courts explored to apply the blockchain technology in combination with big data and cloud storage in the judicial process. Distinctive features of the blockchain such as traceability, postaudit, data-tampering prevention, and high security are utilized so that the credibility and authenticity of e-evidence has been improved significantly. As of October 31, 2019, courts in 22 provinces (municipalities) including Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Jilin, Shandong, Shaanxi, Henan, Zhejiang, Guangdong, and Hubei had interconnected with national e-evidence platform underpinned by blockchain, which is widely linked to 27 sites including National Time Service Center, Diversified Dispute Resolution platforms, notary offices, and forensic sciences centers. 194 million pieces of e-evidence have been preserved on the platform, supporting for evidence authentication and examination in future hearings. The TianpingLian (Libra Chain) e-evidence platform built by Beijing Internet Court was incorporated into the first blockchain units filed at the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC). The platform has access to 18 blockchain nodes, realizing data docking of 9 categories and 25 application nodes, including copyright and Internet finance. The number of online evidence collection has exceeded 4.72 million, and the record of cross-chain evidence preservation has reached 10 million. Hangzhou Internet Court examined and admitted the electronic evidence provided by plaintiff in Huatai v. Daotong, which facts of infringement were preserved on the third-party platform in the form of blockchain. The court for the first time provided an approach for the review of electronic evidence stored by the blockchain. Guangzhou Internet Court, joint by more than 50 local institutions including judicial administration authorities, telecommunication operators, and Internet enterprises, built an intelligent credit ecosystem named WangtongFalian(Law Network Chain). Since March 30, 2019, more than 5.45 million pieces of evidence have been preserved therein.
Improving the online document service mechanism. Chinese courts have widened the channels of e-service and optimized service methods to realize the transformation of litigation document services. In 2018, the SPC developed a unified online document service platform for courts nationwide. The platform is now being piloted in selected courts. Through this platform, litigation materials and documents can be served to litigants and legal representatives via e-mail, SMS, instant messaging applications, and alike. A column specialized for e-service has been launched on the website China Judicial Process Information Online. Litigation participants using their ID number and a unique signature code can log in to the platform to check document service information and sign for e-documents online. Courts around China have made great efforts in building specialized e-service platforms, expanding the application of e-service, and advancing the e-service to a more standard and intensified stage. As of October 31, 2019, three Internet courts had served 96,857 documents through telephone, e-mail, WeChat, SMS, and official online accounts. By establishing a centralized provincial service center, Jiangxi courts unified the process, standards, and assessment mechanism of judicial documents service. All services are carried out under the unified litigation service hotline number 12368. By June 30, 2019, 77.4% out of 564,292 people served by Jiangxi courts were completed in electronic methods, including 47.7% recipients via WeChat application. The average time for service has decreased to 0.9 day, accounting for only 1/11 of the time by mail. Jiaxing Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang Province builds an intelligent service platform sustained by big data technology, which collects litigants address information with mobile phone numbers, active addresses of civil activities, addresses registered with governmental agencies and successful service records in courts included. The platform is able to intelligently filter addresses collected, automatically generate documents to be served, and trigger service processes.
Promoting the electronic mechanism of property investigation, seizure, and disposal. In 2014, the SPC established the “Zong Dui Zong(General to General)”system, a national inter-departmental network for assets investigation and seizure, which assembles credit information shared by 16 authorities such as the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Civil Affairs, the People’s Bank of China, the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission and more than 3,900 financial institutions. “Zong Dui Zong” allows the court, in accordance with the law, access to records of the judgment debtor’s real estate, deposits, financial investments, ships, vehicles, securities, online assets, and alike nationwide. With full coverage of main property forms and records, this system fundamentally transforms the traditional, outdated offline enforcement mode and effectively clears the stumbling blocks such as low efficiency, limited coverage, and high human resource costs. To improve the efficiency, transparency, and credibility of property disposal, the SPC, in cooperation with significant Internet platforms, adopts big data methods to appraise the property and push ahead with the online auction scheme. Since the implementation of an online auction scheme nationwide on January 1, 2017, the take-up rate and price premium of property disposal have doubled, and the rate of failed auctions, the price reduction rate, as well as the auction cost, have decreased significantly. In the meanwhile, none complaint about the violation of disciplines and laws during auctions has been petitioned. From the launching of this online auction system to October 31, 2019, more than 3,300 courts have entirely moved their judicial auctions online. Over 1.59 million online judicial auctions have been conducted nationwide, with 436 thousand succeeding and turnover of 938.7 billion yuan. The take-up rate arrived at 66.8%, with an 89.8% price premium on average, saving 29.1 billion yuan in commission fees for parties concerned.
V. Improving the Intelligent Application Scenarios in the Judicial System
Chinese courts have seized the opportunity in the era of artificial intelligence to construct the system of “Smart Court”, comprehensively promoting the in-depth utilization of intelligent technologies in the judiciary. This innovation has provided with intelligent assistance and decision-making references for case trials, trial supervision, judicial administration, and social governance. The routine operation in the judiciary has been empowered by more smart assistance than merely networked, advancing the modernization of the judicial system and capacities.
Establishing the simultaneous generation system of digital case files. The digitization of case files is the foundation and prerequisite of “Smart Court”. Since 2016, the SPC has been attaching great importance to promote the simultaneous generation and in-depth application of digitized files. As of October 31, 2019, 3,363 Chinese courts had built up the digitized files simultaneous generation system, applied in 67% cases. Paper-free has been realized throughout the whole process in judicial activities in some courts. Based on the application of digitized files simultaneous generation system, Kunshan Primary People’s Court of Jiangsu Province has implemented a paper-free case handling process, called “Qiandeng Model”. It has included the functions of pre-filing documents scanning and quick indexing and cataloguing, and simultaneous files transfer along with the procedure proceeding, centralized property preservation, and service, one-click file archiving, the whole-process monitoring, and tracking. Consequently, case handling, litigation service, and case management have become more automated and smarter. Due to the paper-free case handling process, the cases concluded per person monthly amount to 41, which rises by 16.5% year-on-year, while the quantity of long-term pending cases has declined by 18.2%.
Promoting a comprehensive and smart assistant system for case handling. Chinese courts have been developing various smart assistant platforms for case handling and administrative works. Smart functions developed under circumstance, such as risk management in case-filing, the identification of case-complexity, text recognition of digitized files, voiceto- text transcription, smart case-element profiling, automatic monitor of misconducts in court hearings, accurate recommendation of related laws and similar cases for reference, automatic generation and correction of judicial documents, warnings of decision-making risk deviation have been applied at various levels, facilitating court decisions with higher quality and efficiency. The SPC has initiated the Faxin(Global China Law) Platform for legal information and resources such as laws and regulations, judicial documents, cases, and academic research and studies, providing judges with smart search and recommendation services. By October 31, 2019, the number of registered users of the Faxin Platform had reached 937 thousand with 16.49 million visits and 141 million page views. The High People’s Court of Beijing has established an intelligent case identification system. By applying the “algorithm and manual identification” mechanism, fast-track cases under 93 causes of action from 11 default and 9 optional case classifications can be identified. Since 2018, the case identification of 150 thousand cases has conducted by this system. The integrated smart court system of Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province stands out with advanced applications of digitized case files, voice recognition, and intelligent services throughout the whole litigation process. The goal of paper-free has been achieved by such system integrating functions of simultaneous generation of digitized case files, documents transfer via smart drop boxes, voice-to-text transcription for the court hearing, voice-command navigation of e-evidence, and one-click generation of judgments of simple cases. The workload of judges’ administrative affairs has decreased by about 40%, while clerks’ has nearly reduced by 50%.
Enhancing the smart supervision and management of judicial operations. Chinese courts have been improving the case management system by developing various intelligent methods. These platforms function the identification of public-concerned cases, tracking of key cases and profiling of negative features, and mark misconduct measures, forming a smart, automatic, least interference but accurate management mechanism. The SPC founded the enforcement management platform to manage the enforcement units of courts nationwide. The platform provides a real-time monitoring of case-handling, judicial cooperation between courts, petitions and complaints, and online opinions based on data from the enforcement and trial systems of courts across the country. The High People’s Court of Hebei Province has developed the supervision and management platform for critical cases, formulated unified supervision rules, and established a case-feature identification database. The platform has functions including automatic big-data analysis, case-feature tagging, real-time alerts, whole process recording to ensure that the case management operates orderly, standardized, and in accordance with the law. Taizhou Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang Province has developed the risk management system for judicial integrity of courts. Within the system, 60 risk indicators of 7 categories have been set, which can evaluate risks arising from trial, enforcement and administration activities, using a red, yellow, and blue alert labels. By April 2019, a total of 248 alerts had been triggered and effectively strengthened judicial integrity by reducing the risks of judicial misconduct.
Improving the management and application of judicial big data. Courts through China have attached great importance to the development of data sharing and integrated application of big data in judicial activities. With the scientific, objective, and accurate analysis concerning the trial and enforcement trend based on the development, courts’ decision making is offered with better reference, which enhances the accuracy and effectiveness of the judicial decision-making and judicial governance. In July 2014, the SPC officially launched the big data management and service platform of the people’s court (China Justice Big Data Service Platform). It is capable of collecting real-time data of trials and enforcement, judicial administration, and researches from 3,507 courts across the country, automatically updating every five minutes. By October 31, 2019, the platform had collected 193 million cases’ data. More than 700 thematic analysis reports had been conducted, 38 of which had been released to the public. The center of judicial big data established by the High People’s Court of Fujian Province, has advanced the judicial governance of courts across the province, by providing with tools of lawsuits trend analyses, case-handling quality and efficiency monitoring, connection-between cases search, special-category-data analyses and so forth. Thus, the center has offered valuable references for strengthening collective management of case handling, optimizing resource allocation, and bringing solutions for outstanding problems. Chongqing No.2 Intermediate People’s Court has constructed a highly integrated, intelligent, and visualized data management center with the function of real-time automatic data generation. All data is updated every 30 seconds. Information about case analyses, case-handling quality and efficiency monitoring, and trend analyses can be produced and delivered automatically to the presidents of courts and the heads of divisions for references.
VI. Improving Governance over the Internet through Collaboration and Coordination
Chinese courts have made use of the decentralized, interactive, and fast Internet to speed up the development of an inter-departmental, multi-tiered, smoothly-connected, and all-dimensional judicial collaboration in critical areas. The courts have made efforts to accelerate judicial information exchange, optimize the online case handling mechanism, and the integrated resolution model of disputes, which benefits the creations of a new interconnected and collaborative governance mode among different sectors in cyberspace.
Exploring online cooperative mechanisms for dealing with criminal cases. In order to advance the trial-centered reform of criminal procedure and to prevent wrongful convictions, Chinese courts explore the application of big data to optimize the handling of criminal cases. Online cooperative mechanisms shared with other judicial authorities have been established. Shanghai courts have developed an inter-departmental supporting IT system for criminal trials, which unifies the evidence rules and ensured criminal procedural activities conducted by the police and the procuratorates to be visible, traceable, and monitorable. This system equips Shanghai courts with cutting-edge technologies such as image recognition, natural language processing, evidence identification and auto-display, and automatic extraction of key case information.
By June 30, 2019, it had grown into an integrated platform keeping records of all procedural activities under common criminal offenses to which relevant authorities have proportionate clearance in Shanghai. A total of 24,873 cases have been registered in this system by the police, 8,811 arrests approved and 7,442 prosecutions brought up by the procuratorate, 4,812 cases accepted and 3,483 cases concluded by the court. The High People’s Court of Guizhou Province has also established a data-sharing platform with the public security department and the procuratorates, with five types of criminal offenses, namely the intentional homicide, intentional injury, robbery, theft and drug crimes processed on this platform. The High People’s Court of Hubei Province has established a collaborate working platform for penalty reduction and parole with the People’s Procuratorate of Hubei and the Bureau of Prisons Administration of Hubei. With functions such as real-time data transmission and information sharing, this system enables Hubei courts to conduct remote hearings and to process penalty reduction and parole cases entirely online. From March 2018 to June 30 2019, Hubei courts transmitted files of 95,924 cases via this online system, processed 8,335 cases of penalty reduction and parole, and concluded 8,186 cases.
Promoting an integrated mechanism to resolve traffic accident disputes. The number of traffic disputes has been rising owing to the increase in vehicle possessions. The dispute resolution mechanism, which involves multiple departments, was gradually perceived to be lengthy and tedious. In 2013, Hangzhou Yuhang Primary People’s Court of Zhejiang province has initiated an online integrated data processing platform to deal with traffic accident disputes. Yuhang Court, via this platform, has access to all the data shared by related agencies such as the traffic police, judicial administration, and social security, appraisal institutions, and commercial insurance companies. By introducing meditation, Yuhang Court ensures that these cases are dealt with more effectively and transparently, and the compensation settled more quickly. In November 2017, the SPC with the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Justice, and China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission experimented with an online resolution scheme of traffic disputes in Beijing and the other 13 different provinces. The One-Stop scheme assembles post-accident services, including damage assessment, liability ascertainment, appraisal, mediation, litigation, and compensation. By October 31, 2019, under this scheme 125,616 traffic disputes have been concluded nationwide, that is 83.2% of 150,984 cases reached a satisfied mediation.
Promoting the digitalization of bankruptcy proceedings. By introducing more market-oriented, law-based, digitalized, and specialized approaches into bankruptcy proceedings, Chinese courts have functioned more significantly in supply-side structural reform. In August 2016, the SPC set up a national information platform, National Enterprise Bankruptcy Information Disclosure Platform, for both liquidation and reorganization cases, given the circumstances that bankruptcy cases involve a large number of creditors, complicated legal relations and significant social impacts. Judges, bankruptcy administrators, and lawyers share this platform and are able to proceed with bankruptcy procedures online. Relevant information is disclosed timely and proportionately, while creditors, debtors, market investors and other stake holders can participate online. By October 31, 2019, 53,641 bankrupt cases had been disclosed on this website involving 504,013 creditors and defaulted debts worth 903 billion yuan. A total of 312 online meetings of creditors had been convened, and debtors’ assets valued 297.8 billion yuan disposed of. Utilization of this new platform effectively optimizes the free distribution and reallocation of capital, technology, assets, and other essential factors for economy. Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province presided over the bankruptcy proceedings of Jade Cargo International Airlines Co., Ltd in November 2017, introduced online auction to dispose of assets. With foreign capital attracted and the competition intensified, three Boeing 747 airplanes were sold with a 49% price premium, effectively alleviating creditors’ losses. In March 2019, the Court extended the online auction model to the cross-border context. Entrusted by a Hong Kong bankruptcy trustee, five Hong Kong vehicle licenses with distinctive registration marks were online auctioned by Shenzhen Court. It is the first case within China to dispose of bankruptcy assets upon cross-jurisdiction cooperation.
Assisting the construction of the national social credit system. Chinese courts have improved the mechanism of credit management, warning, and reward and punishment for discredited judgment debtors. The establishment of the discredited judgment debtor blacklist and the judicial credit reporting system sufficiently strengthen the protection for interests of both creditors and debtors and contributes to the development of China’s social credit system. Since 2016, the SPC in alliance with 60 authorities, including the National Development and Reform Commission, and entities set up the social credit management network underlain by multiple departments, sectors, and enforcing measures. Owing to this network, discredited judgment debtors would receive restrictions in the application for public office, traveling at high costs, purchasing houses, making an investment, and participating in tender and bid. Almost 40% discredited judgment debtors of all voluntarily fulfill their obligation specified by court judgments. By October 31, 2019, case information of 5.61 million discredited judgment debtors are in the process of disclosure. Guangzhou Internet Court created the report of judicial credit to promote social credit online. Subject to consent from litigants, positive judicial credit information of these litigants can be sent to market supervision authority, financial institutions, and credit agencies. As to the discredited litigants, related discredit records would be taken into account by the Court when imposing penalties such as consumption restrictions, online disclosure, enlisted as discredited judgment debtors.
VII. Forming Legal Rules Governing the Cyberspace
Internet-related disputes are characterized as newly emerged categories, wide ranges, cutting-edge technologies, and high complexity. To promote Internet judiciary, Chinese courts have explored the advantages of centralized jurisdiction, standardization of similar cases and specialization of trials, and tried a series of influential cases. Underlined by such, online transaction rules have been clarified, online activities held in order, and the scope of rights defined. Consequently, the legal system governing the Internet has been improved, and the rule of law in cyberspace has been furthered.
Legal rules governing online transactions have been established. The information age is characterized by widespread Internet business activities and emerging new business models, while conventional transactions have also evolved with new modes and features. Chinese judiciary has clarified the courts inclination regarding online transactions and managed to facilitate compliance in business activities and to maintain an orderly online market.
In Yu Binhua v. Guangzhou Huaduo Network Technology Co. Ltd., Guangzhou Internet Court opined that gratuities given to the streamers during live-streaming are gifts unless evidence demonstrates that the streamers are under clear and specific contractual obligations which provide otherwise. Shanghai Financial Court sorted out the rules in terms of the burden of risks and responsibilities in online debit card fraud cases. In XU v. China Merchants Bank, this court decided that the bank, unless being able to prove the existence of defaults on the cardholder side, shall take full responsibilities of the losses induced by such fraud.
Xiamen Siming Primary People’s Court of Fujian Province, in ZHANG v. Yetong Online Merchant, issued a judgment against the defendant who sold the online shop and regained the control of it by taking the advantages of the platforms biometric security system to reset the password. The defendant modified the bound mobile number and changed the default log-in methods. The defendant was held liable for breach of the contract and ordered to repay the claimant twice the money illegally transferred. Chengdu Wenjiang Primary People’s Court of Sichuan Province, in PENG v. LI, decided that transactions of brand-new goods with nonspecific counterparts on secondhand e-commerce platforms fall into the scope of consumer protection laws. Once the transaction constitutes fraud, the buyer is entitled to treble damages.
Legal responsibilities of online platforms have been clearly defined. Online platforms have become a market participant of ascending significance, and the scope of their rights and obligations need to be delimited. Through the following judgments, Chinese courts have clarified the duties imposed on online platforms and advanced the online ecosystem to the greater fairness, transparency, and predictability.
Beijing Internet Court ruled in Music Copyright Society v. Douyu that a webcast platform company, when enjoys the intellectual property rights and business interests of the webcast works of the streamer who has contracted with the company, shall bear the corresponding tort compensation liability if the streamer plays the music of others without authorization. In Daodou Technology v. Changsha Baizan & Tencent, Hangzhou Internet Court held that Tencent WeChat mini-program only offers fundamental services of framing and data traffic to mini-program developers, but no service of data storage and search engine to users of mini-program. The fact is that Tencent has no control over specific service or data provided by the developer within the miniprogram; thus, it would be disproportionate to follow the “notice and action rule” (aka. the safe harbor doctrine) and block the sued Mini Program as a whole.
Changning Primary People’s Court of Shanghai, in deciding Fuzhou Jiunong v. Xunmeng Technology, distinguished the “consumer compensation” on e-commerce platforms from the liquidated damages in a conventional contractual context, the former should be considered a self regulated behavior of the online community. The court so ordered that when online merchant sells counterfeits on the platform that constituting a breach of contract, the e-commerce platform is entitled to hold the sum of the compensation from the merchant’s accounts, and directly make payments to the compensated consumers. Chongqing No.5 Intermediate People’s Court in Chongqing Transit v. GUO ordered that online car rental providers, who verified the lessees only by name and national ID number when written statements or any other forms of authorization are absent, shall be deemed as failing to fulfill the duty of care and not entitled to enforce the contract.
Legal protection of personality rights in cyberspace has been reinforced. Violations of personality rights in the digital age have become more inter-related and of more new connotations. A diversity of methods and consequences of such breaches can be found both online and offline. Chinese courts have made efforts to consolidate the protection of personality rights, especially the right to portrait and right to the reputation of individuals.
In HUANG v. YUE & Micro Dream, Beijing Internet Court examined the conditions of an online violation of the right to reputation. The Court clarified relevant rules in its conclusion that the existence of fault is one of the indispensable elements, and the duty of care varies according to the behavior’s social impact and profession. In Meimingyu Home Services v. ZHANG & Hantao Co. Ltd, Guangzhou Internet Court opined that consumers shall not be held liable for publicizing negative feedbacks online against the services they received provided that those feedbacks did not constitute defamation or slander.
In ZHANG v. China Online News Center, Beijing No.2 Intermediate People’s Court decided that using one individual’s portrait in negative news reports, unless proven to be necessary, constitutes unfair use and shall be held liable for the violation of one’s right to portrait. In Falv (ilaw66.com) v. Qihoo, Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People’s Court was requested to decide whether the security software for mobile phones which assembles and displays negative labels of incoming phone numbers constitutes a tort against the right to reputation of the calling party. The Court concluded that such labeling made by mobile phone users is legitimate comments, and the mobile phone security software which displays the contexts and quantities of such negative labels on users’ mobile phones shall not be held liable in any form.
Internet-based monopolization and unfair competition have been constrained. Abuses of dominant position and unfair competition practices are more prevalent in online marketplaces. Chinese courts have refined the standards and doctrines in monopolization and unfair competition practices in order to ensure a well-regulated and balanced market competition between participants.
In Sogou v. Qihoo Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled that Internet products or service providers shall not obstruct the functioning of other products and services, nor shall they conduct any such obstruction on users’ terminals. Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, in iqiyi v. Sogou ruled that the design of the defendant, an input methods (IME) developer, which simultaneously displays input options and search options, does not restrict consumers’ choices in the marketplace or substantively obstruct the operation of the claimant’s video website. Hence, none unfair competition practice existed in the present case.
Hangzhou Yuhang People’s Court of Zhejiang Province, in XU v. TONG & Jin Xin Plastics, ruled against using the complaint mechanism of an e-commerce platform to make a malicious complaint against other proprietors’ goods so that links of those goods are deleted by the platform and lose sales opportunities constitutes unfair competition. In Wei Ma Yuan v. Tencent, the claimant sued against the WeChat Official Accounts Platform operated by the defendant for abuse of dominant position. When analyzing the relevant product market at issue, Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province distinguished general users of the social media function from users for the online advertisement services. It defined the online advertisement service market as relevant. This Court’s efforts furthered the definition rules of relevant market for Internet platforms and the services they provided and guaranteed the integrity of competition analysis from its starting point.
Security of personal data has been firmly consolidated. With the prevalent adoption of artificial intelligence, data and security have become more closely linked to individual lives and possessed more commercial values than ever. In the following cases, Chinese courts strived to check the commercial use of personal data, facilitate the Internet enterprises’ compliance therein, and strengthen the security of personal data.
In Xu Yong v. Zhima Credit, Hangzhou Internet Court decided that using personal credit records for commercial purposes violated the right of privacy of data subjects. The liability can be exempted only if such usage is (1) consented by the data subject, or (2) based on public information disclosed by the Court or governmental agencies and fed back to that exact data subject. The liability of abusing credit records has been clarified therein.
In PANG Lipeng v. China Eastern Airlines & Qunar, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court held that the airlines and online ticket agencies at fault shall take liabilities for leakage of users’ personal information. In ZHU v. Baidu, the claimant sued for alleged violation of the right of privacy in personal browsing histories. Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province recognized the private nature of personal browsing history, yet found that the information of anonymous site preference collected via cookies, which underlies the targeted advertising of the defendant, cannot be used to identify individual Internet users. The Court concluded that such a lack of personally identifiable information does not satisfy the legal requirement of invasion of personal privacy, and thus the defendant shall not be held liable.
Relevant criminal laws were further clarified by Yichang Dangyang People’s Court of Hubei Province. This Court found the prosecuted guilty of criminal invasion of personal data for their acquisition and sales of individuals’ personal data through fake loan websites, which are seriously illegal. The prosecuted that knowingly helped to set up and advertised for the above mentioned website was also condemned as an accomplice.
Legal protection for a healthy and thriving digital economy has been consolidated. In order to facilitate rapid and healthy growth of emerging industries such as big data, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, blockchain and Internet of Things, Chinese courts in delivering a series of judgments have strived to squeeze out those grey-area businesses, backup the executive branch in supervising the market in an inclusive and prudential manner, and delimit the industrial developments.
In CHANG v. XU, Beijing Internet Court voided the contract between the parties which utilize illegal technical means to increase the click volume and to create fake Internet traffic in order to mislead online game players. This judgment signaled the Chinese courts’ solid stance in suppressing grey-area Internet businesses. In Realsoft infotech Co., Ltd vs. Guangzhou Market Supervision Authority and Guangzhou Municipal Government, Guangzhou Internet Court upheld the administrative decision of sanctioning illegal online pyramid schemes disguised in the name of online marketing, and thus helped to cleanse the online business environment.
In Guangdong Consumers Association v. Yueqi Biking, a public interest lawsuit, Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province was required to clarify the legal rules concerning the ownership of deposits made by users. The Court ordered the defendant to refrain from procrastination in refunding users’ deposits, to disclose information of deposits, and to make a public apology. Such order deterred further attempts to hoarding deposits as financing methods and thus safeguards stable and healthy growth of the sharing economy. In Goome v. Yuanguang, Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province ruled that big data resources collected, analyzed, edited and integrated by business operators which have commercial value, shall be legally protected by the Anti Unfair Competition Law. The unauthorized use of such big data resources via web crawler technologies consequently constitutes unfair competition practice. Such a judgment furthered the establishment of fair competition rules concerning the big data industry.
Legal rule for protecting IP rights online has been strengthened. Court decisions in various Internet-related cases have lain down the rules defining emerging types of intellectual property rights, the legal protection threshold, and accountability mechanism. With the legal protection increased and the remedies sufficing, related standards have been clarified, and the innovation-friendly business environment has been sustained and fostered.
In Music Copyright Society vs. Douyu, Beijing Internet Court defined that if the webcast platform, according to the contract with the streamer, owns the intellectual property and business benefits of the webcast works, then it should be responsible for the corresponding infringement if the streamer plays the music of others without authorization. In Astley Baker Davies et al. v. Jufan, one of the Peppa Pig lawsuits in China, Hangzhou Internet Court found copyright infringement existed where former licensee continued to produce and sell “Peppa Pig” toys online beyond the authorized time, scope and methods. This judgment reinstated the Chinese court’s solid position in providing equal protection for right holders regardless of the nationality.
In Tencent v. ByteDance, Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court granted an injunction order against unauthorized live-streaming of online games. It ruled that such unauthorized live streaming caused damages to the rights holder and constituted unfair competition practice, and shall be banned accordingly. In Yu Qu v. Mai Miao, a dispute between competing live streaming websites of online games, Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court of Hubei Province ruled against the defendant who knowingly poached a live streaming host bound by an exclusive contract with the claimant and declared the poaching constituted an unfair competition practice. In terms of the patentability of motion pictures in online games, the Court found the game player’s claim for copyright groundless for all the pictures are pre-designed by the developers, despite that player contributed to the final presentation of motion pictures to some extent.
Cybercrimes have been combated resolutely. With the development of Internet technologies, cybercrime has displayed such features as the wide use of high-tech, specialized sectors, intricate organization, and chained operation. Acknowledging these latest circumstances, Chinese courts have intensified the crackdown on crimes such as operating online casinos, Internet frauds, thefts of digital assets and infringements of personal information and have managed to guarantee the safety and order of the cyberspace.
Confronting criminal charges against Internet traffic hijackings, Pudong New Area People’s Court of Shanghai convicted the defendants of the crime of causing damage to computer information systems where the convicted were proven to use malware to forcedly reroute Internet users to specific webpages and cause severe consequences. The denounced technical methods include modifying Internet routers and Internet browser settings, locking the browser homepage, and popping up new windows.
In the Treasure Box case, decided by Tai’an Intermediate People’s Court of Shandong Province, where defendants developed a Media Aggregation Portal of obscene live streaming via hacking and recruited subordinates to disperse and sell these obscene products, the Court found the defendants guilty of the crime distributing obscene materials for profits. Taizhou Wenling Primary People’s Court of Zhejiang Chinese Courts and Internet Judiciary Province targeted at online campus bullying in a criminal defamation case. It ruled that subject to the severity of the circumstances, the criminal defamation occurs when one purposely fabricates, and online disseminates false information for sabotaging others’ reputation. Another crime combated is online fundraising fraud. Putian Licheng Primary People’s Court of Fujian Province in deciding such case, convicted defendants of the crime of fraud for illegally faking themselves with others’ identities, soliciting donation online and defrauding Internet users of a huge amount of money. Such charity fraud that deceived goodwill of the public was contained so as to maintain a society of trust and honesty.
Conclusion
Internet Judiciary in China is the crystal of the times and the practice, which evolves with social progress, technological innovation and judicial reform. Chinese judiciary has, in the digital age, restructured the litigation processes, optimized the procedural rules, and improved the judicature models underpinned both innovations of information technology and reforms of the judicial system. All of the citizens and legal persons now have greater access to a more just, transparent, inclusive and efficient judicial system. The levels of judicial capacity, quality, efficiency and credibility of Chinese courts have been considerably improved.
Chinese courts will continue to be open, prudent, and inclusive, and hold the philosophy of sustainable development. To secure the diverse needs of the public and to serve the prosperity of the digital economy, Chinese courts will continue to explore the information and intelligent technologies to create new dynamics for systematic reform and court construction, and to tailor a more efficient, fair and credible judicial system to national objectives with Chinese characteristics. In the meantime, Chinese courts are willing to contribute to the global Internet governance system and rules with Chinese approaches and experiences, and to jointly promote global governance in cyberspace and strive to build a community of shared future in cyberspace.
Appendix Influential Cases of Internet Judiciary in China
Case 1
Fuzhou Jiunong Trade Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Xunmeng Information Technology Co., Ltd. Disputes over contracts for Internet services
[Significance]
Since online shopping have characteristics such as rapid trading, large trading volume, broad cross-regional scope, decentralized subjects, it is increasingly difficult for administrative departments to supervise e-commerce, and the self-regulated rules of platforms are playing an increasingly significant role. This case clarified that the registration agreement signed between the platform and the merchants stipulating the “consumer compensation” belongs to a self-regulated behavior of the online community, provided that the content of the agreement does not violate the compulsory provisions under the laws and administrative regulations. When a merchant sells counterfeits on the platform that constitutes a breach of contract, according to the agreed “consumer compensation” rules the e-commerce platform is entitled to hold the sum of the compensation from the merchant’s accounts and directly make payments to the compensated consumers, which helps affirm the effectiveness of the self-regulated rules of the Internet platform.
[Case Summary]
On July 4, 2016, Fuzhou Jiunong Trade Co., Ltd. (“Jiunong”) and Shanghai Xunmeng Information Technology Co., Ltd. (“Xunmeng”)’s e-commerce platform signed an agreement which stipulated that: The merchant shall pay liquidated damages ten times of the historical sales of the counterfeit goods, and the platform shall have the right to directly freeze the merchant’s account and deduct the payment therefrom. If the merchant cannot prove that the suspected counterfeit goods are genuine after receiving a notice from the platform, the platform will compensate the consumer with the deposit in the merchant’s account. As Jiunong sold counterfeit goods on Xunmeng’s platform, Xunmeng froze the Jiunong’s account and paid the full amount of the deducted money to the corresponding consumers of the counterfeit goods. Jiunong claimed that it did not sell any counterfeit goods, and Xunmeng’s unilateral request of the ten-times penalty, formulation of other harsh punishment rules, and freezing Jiunong’s account violated its legitimate rights and interests Therefore, Jiunong brought this civil case before a court asking for a refund and compensation.
[Decision]
The court held that, the merchants had full freedom to choose when registering in the e-commerce platform, and the platform company had fully performed the obligation of reminder when signing the contract. Therefore, when the plaintiff Jiunong registered on the platform operated by the defendant Xunmeng , the terms of the contract signed online became valid. The plaintiff Jiunong’s selling activities was a sale of counterfeits according to rules of the platform and was considered as a violation of the agreement between both parties. Therefore, it had no right to request the defendant Xunmeng to refund or compensate for its loss. The consumer compensation system set up by the defendant Xunmeng’s e-commerce platform was different from the traditional liquidated damages system in terms of the beneficiary subject, source of rights, responsibility target, applicable standards, etc. The purpose of the consumer compensation system was not to make profit, but to maintain an honest and credible e-commerce environment, to protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, which complies with the principle of public order and good customs, and its effect should be affirmed.
On May 31, 2018, Shanghai Changning District People’s Court made a civil judgment, which rejected all relieves requested by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an appeal after the first instance judgment was pronounced, but failed to pay the appeal fee on time. The court of second instance ruled that the appeal should be considered as withdrawn, and the judgment of first instance had become effective.
Case 2
Yu Binhua v. Guangzhou Huaduo Network Technology Co., Ltd., Wang Zirong, Harbin Xingrong Culture Media Co., Ltd., and Liu Qiqi Disputes over Contracts for Internet Services
[Significance]
In recent years, the webcast industry has developed rapidly and become an emerged form of digital economy, and the number of related disputes also increased. This case clearly defines the legal relationship among the users, the live broadcast streamer and the live broadcast platform, and specifies the legal nature of “live broadcast gratuity”. By defining the legal nature of relations and behaviors related to webcast, this case clarifies the rights and obligations of parties involved, helps regulate webcast activities and promotes the healthy development of the live broadcast industry.
[Case Summary]
Liu Qiqi is a streamer of Harbin Xingrong Culture Media Co., Ltd. (“Xingrong”) who performed live broadcasts on the YY live-broadcasting platform operated by Guangzhou Huaduo Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Huaduo”). Liu Qiqi’s live broadcast room is opened with the YY account of Wang Zikai, the legal representative of Xingyi Company. February 2017 and April 2017, Yu Binhua spent a total of RMB 59,291.28 yuan (including gifts and enabling functions of “Duke” and “Guardian”) in Liu’s live broadcast room. On March 17, 2017, Yu Binhua was the top gift-giver that day and was set as VP of the room by Liu. On April 7, 2017, Liu canceled Yu Binhua’s VP permission, because Liu Qiqi objected to Yu Binhua’s activities including transferring money through WeChat or giving gifts to Liu privately. Yu Binhua filed a civil lawsuit before a court, requested to cancel the contract regarding offering gifts in the live broadcast room, and requested for ten prayers for relief including requesting Huaduo, Wang Zirong, Xingrong, and Liu Qiqi to jointly return a total of RMB 49,291.28 Yuan.
[Decision]
The court concludes that, the webcast platform provides platform services for users, and charges service fees through users’ purchase and use of virtual currency. The two form a legal relationship of Internet service contract. Generally, a gift contract is established when a user offers “gratuity” to the streamer, unless there is evidence to prove that the streamer must perform specific and clear contractual obligations before and after accepting the “gratuity”. In this case, the plaintiff Yu Binhua’s act of offering “gratuity” to the defendant Liu Qiqi did not involve any agreement requiring the defendant to fulfill specific obligations, nor did it put forward any consideration of the “gratuity”, and so it should be deemed as a gift contract rather than a service contract.
On January 7, 2019, Guangzhou Internet Court made a civil judgment, which rejected all of the plaintiffs'claims. After the first instance judgment was pronounced and served, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant filed an appeal, and the judgment has become effective.
Case 3
Music Copyright Society of China v. Wuhan Douyu Network Technology Co., Ltd. Case of Dispute over Right to Disseminate Music Work on the Internet
[Significance]
Driven by user demand and technological innovation, Internet content platforms with abundant forms of communication and creative industries such as short video and stream have developed rapidly, which leads to a sharp growth of intellectual property disputes and increased difficulty in legal protection. This case clarified that a network company with the main business of webcast when enjoying the intellectual property rights and business interests of the webcast works of the streamer who has contracted with the company shall bear the corresponding tort compensation liability if the streamer plays the music of others without authorization. The case helps standardize the relationships among all parties in the content payment business model, and reasonably defines the responsibilities and obligations of the Internet content platform.
[Case Summary]
On February 14, 2018, Feng Timo, the streamer contracted with Douyu Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Douyu”) conducted online live broadcasting on the platform operated by Douyu. Users of the live broadcasting platform can buy virtual currency and gifts as gratuity. During the broadcast, Feng Timo played the song “Lovers Heart”, which lasted about one minute and ten seconds. After the live broadcast, the streamer made the live broadcast process into a video and saved it on the live broadcast platform for the audience to replay and share. The plaintiff Music Copyright Society of China, as the organization authorized by the songwriter of “Lovers Heart” to exercise copyright to the song, stated that the above behaviors of Douyu and the streamer violated the right of Music Copyright Society of China to disseminate the song over internet, and requested the court to order the defendant to compensate the copyright fee of RMB 30,000 Yuan and the reasonable expenses of RMB 12,600 Yuan including attorney fees, notarial cost and other fees.
[Decision]
The court held that the webcast platform had agreed with the contracted streamer that the platform shall own the intellectual property rights of the audio and video works produced through live broadcast, and the platform makes profits from the virtual gratuity of the streamer given by the users who watch live programs online and play back live videos. Therefore, the live broadcast platform is not only its service provider but also the owner and beneficiary of audio and video works thereon. For the infringemen t of copyright, the obligation of the platform is not only limited in the "notice and action” obligations but also extended to higher attention paid to the content of the live broadcast and video. The platform bears the corresponding compensation liability for the infringement occurred in the production and dissemination of live broadcast programs and videos on the plattorm in addition to the “notification and deletion" obligations.
Beijing Internet Court ordered the defendant Douyu to compensate the plaintiff, Music Copyright Society of China, for the economic losses of RMB 2.000 Yuan and the reasonable expenses of RMB 3,200 Yuan. Douyu appealed to Beijing Intellectual Property Court, which made the final judgment that rejected the appeal and affirmed the original judgment.
Case 4
Hangzhou Huatai Media Culture Media Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Daotong Technology Development Co., Ltd. Case of Dispute over Right of Dissemination over Internet
[Significance]
In the Internet era, electronic evidence has been enormously presented. The newly emerged information technology, such as blockchain has brought a brand-new renovation to the collection and storage of electronic evidence. At the same time, it is urgent to clarify the rules examining the effectiveness of electronic evidence. This case is the first one in China to determine the legal effect of the electronic evidence stored by blockchain, providing a review method for examination and admission of this new type of electronic evidence, detailing the consideration factors and clarifying the adjudication criteria. This case could promote the in-depth integration of blockchain technology and judiciary process by clarifying the rules of preservation and storage of blockchain evidence, which is of considerable significance to the improvement of the internet-related litigation rules in the information age.
[Case Summary]
The plaintiff, Hangzhou Huatai Media Culture Media Co., Ltd (“Huatai”), alleged that the defendant’s, Shenzhen Daotong Technology Development Co., Ltd(“Daotong”), act of publishing the works of which Huatai had the copyright on the website without authorization infringed the plaintiff’s right of dissemination over information networks. Huatai collected evidence of infringement through the third-party evidence-storage platform, uploaded the relevant data as a hash value to the bitcoin blockchain and Factom blockchain, based on which Huatai requested Daotong to bear the liability of infringement.
[Decision]
The court held in this case that blockchain technology, based on its characteristics of distributed storage, tamper-proof mechanism and traceability, has advantages in the fixation, preservation and extraction of electronic evidence, but the court shall still determine the authenticity of electronic evidence stored on the blockchain according to certain standards and procedures. In this case, the electronic evidence data stored in the blockchain has a clear source, its generation and transmission path is definite and clear, and it can be mutually verified with the screenshots of web pages, source code information and call logs. Therefore, the generated electronic data is reliable.
On June 27, 2018, Hangzhou Internet Court made a judgment, which ordered the defendant to pay RMB 4,000 yuan to the plaintiff as the compensation for the economic loss. After the first instance judgment of the case was pronounced and served, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant filed an appeal, and the judgment has been effective.
Case 5
Shenzhen Weiyuanma Software Development Co., Ltd. v. Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. Case of Dispute over Abuse of Market Dominance
[Significance]
Nowadays, platforms on the Internet have played a critical role in the digital economy. The number of anti-monopoly claims brought against platforms recorded a sharp increase, and the norms and rules govern actions related to the abuse of market dominance should be further refined in such field. This case clarified the criteria for the delineation of the “relevant product market” for comprehensive Internet platforms. For comprehensive Internet platforms that provide various types of services, to delineate “relevant product market”, it is necessary to fully consider the products or services to which the abusive activities are specifically directed, to distinguish “relevant product market” for basic services from that for the value-added services, and to adopt the demand substitution analysis method according to the nature and characteristics of the products or services.
[Case Summary]
Since October 2015, Shenzhen Weiyuanma Software Development Co., Ltd. (“Weiyuanma”) has registered twenty-six WeChat official accounts such as “Data Wizard Distribution Platform” on the WeChat platform operated by Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. (“Tencent”). After that, Tencent banned the official accounts operated by Weiyuanma because the number of plug-in software promoted by the official accounts involved in this case obviously exceeded the scope of functions allowed by WeChat and violated WeChat’s service agreement, operation specifications and other regulations. Therefore, Weiyuanma brought a lawsuit to a court, requesting the court to order Tencent to stop abusing its market dominance and proposing nine prayers for relief, including unbanning its registered official accounts and compensating for its losses.
[Decision]
The court held in this case that, the plaintiff Weiyuanma is not a general user of the WeChat instant messaging and social networking services, but a commercial entity who markets and promotes software products in the form of self-media on the platform. It has the demand of online promotion and publicity. Therefore, the “relevant product market” in this case should be the online promotion and publicity service market of the Internet platform. The plaintiff Weiyuanma had a wrong understanding of the “relevant product market" and failed to provide evidence to prove that the defendant Tencent had any activities of abusing its market dominance in the WeChat instant messaging and social networking services. As the operator of the WeChat platform, the defendant Tencent's necessary management of the plaintiff Weiyuanma's behavior which violated the service agreement and operation specifications concluded and agreed by both parties in advance is proper and does not constitute an abuse of its market dominance.
On August 23, 2018, Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court ruled against plaintiff. After the first instance judgment was pronounced and served, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant filed an appeal, and the judgment has become effective.
Case 6
Xu Xianben v. Tong Jiangang and YuhuanJinxin Plastics Co., Ltd. Case of Dispute over Unfair Competition
[Significance]
With the rise of the Internet economy, there are more and more activities taking advantage of the “notification-deletion” mechanism adopted by the Internet platforms for a quick handling of the infringement complaints, and infringing others’ legitimate rights and interests. This case clarified that it constituted unfair competition to make a malicious complaint against another undertaking’s goods through the complaint mechanism of an e-commerce platform and to make those goods deleted by the platform and lose the opportunities to be sold. It could effectively curb the filing of malicious complaints and maintain a good order of market competition.
[Case Summary]
On March 28, 2016, Tong Jiangang filed an infringement complaint to Taobao on the ground that the explosion-proof pressure cooker sold in Xu Xianben’s store on Taobao infringed his design patent, and submitted the Design Patent Certificate, the Design Patent Evaluation Report, etc. online. On April 7, 2016, Taobao recognized that the complaint made by Tong Jiangang was valid and deleted the link of the products being complained about. It was later found that Tong Jiangang altered the key content in the Design Patent Evaluation Report which was submitted when filing the complaint. Specifically, he maliciously changed “Preliminary conclusion: The whole design does not meet the requirements for the grant of a patent right” to “Preliminary conclusion: No defect has been found in the whole design that does not meet the requirements for the grant of a patent right”, and deleted “the design does not comply with the provisions of Article 23.2 of the Patent Law”. Xu Xianben brought a civil case before a court and requested the court to order the defendant to make a public apology and to compensate him RMB 500,000 Yuan.
[Decision]
The court held that the defendant Tong Jiangang knew that the application for design patent he filed was not granted with a patent right. Still, he altered the conclusion in the Patent Evaluation Report and used forged evidence to maliciously complain about the products sold by Xu Xianben which are similar products of his. Eventually, the link of the complained products was deleted by the platform. His activity violated the universally accepted code of business ethics and caused damages to the plaintiff since the plaintiff Xu Xianben was unable to normally carry out its business operations and suffer from losses, and constituted unfair competition.
Hangzhou Yuhang District People's Court of Zhejiang Province ruled, after trial, that the malicious complaint made by the defendant Tong Jiangang tituted unfair competition and ordered the defendant Tong Jiangang to compensate the plaintiff Xu Xianben RMB 20,000 Yuan for the economic ng reasonable expenses. The first instance judgment had then become effective
Case 7
Shenzhen Goome Technology Co., Ltd. v. Wuhan Yuanguang Science & Technology Co., Ltd., Shao Lingshuang et. al Case of Dispute over Unfair Competition
[Significance]
As an important resource in the information age, big data contains enormous economic and social value. With the boom of industries related to the big data industry, it is also urgent to establish industry norms and governance standards. This case clarified that using web crawler technology to steal big data resources for a similar business constitutes an unfair competition. This rule aims to encourage the big data industry players to follow the business ethics and carry out fair and benign competition.
[Case Summary]
From November 2015 to May 2016, Wuhan Yuanguang Science & Technology Co., Ltd. (“Yuanguang”) to expand the market share and information query accuracy of the intelligent bus app “Chelaile”, Shao Lingshuang, the company’s legal representative and president then, authorized Chen Mao, the company’s technical director to instruct employees Liu Jianghong, Liu Kunpeng, Zhang Xiang and others to use web crawler technology to obtain a large number of real-time bus information data of “Kumike”, the like app run by Shenzhen Goome Technology Co., Ltd. (“Goome”), use it for its own app “Chelaile” and provide inquiry service to the public. Goome sued to the court for the break of business ethics and the principle of good faith by Yuanguang and relevant responsible persons which constituted unfair competition.
[Decision]
The court held that the commercially valued big data resources legally obtained by the right owner of the plaintiff Goome through collection, analysis, edition and compilation are protected by the relevant law. The plaintiff Goome provides free data query to the public for reasons of its business model or other needs, but the defendant Yuanguang uses web crawler technology to steal the data and use it to run its similar business. Yuanguang had the subjective intention of seeking its own competitive advantages by destroying others’ market competitive advantages, which seriously disrupted the market order, and thus constituted unfair competition.
On May 23, 2018, Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court made a civil judgment, which ordered the defendant Wuhan Yuanguang Technology Co., Ltd. to compensate the plaintiff Shenzhen Goome Technology Co., Ltd. for the economic losses and reasonable costs of RMB 500,000 yuan. After the first instance judgment was pronounced and served, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant appealed, and the judgment has become effective.
Case 8
Pang Lipeng v. China Eastern Airlines Co., Ltd. and Beijing Qunar Information Technology Co., Ltd. Case of Dispute over Right of Privacy
[Significance]
In the Internet era, various types of data and information are transmitted at a high speed and in a huge amount of volume, and are highly shared. Not only does it bring convenience to people, it also brings unprecedented challenges to personal information security. This case set up the rule that personal information security may be protected through the right of privacy, specifies that the standard of proof used for the determination of personal information leakage should be the high probability for civil evidence, and was of great significance to the scrutiny of the platform behaviors and the maintenance of personal information security.
[Case Summary]
Pang Lipeng entrusted his assistant Lu Chao to book an air ticket of China Eastern Airlines Co., Ltd. (“China Eastern Airlines”) on the website (www.qunar.com) run by Beijing Qunar Information Technology Co., Ltd. (“Qunar”), and then received a fraud SMS, showing Pang Lipeng’s flight departure time, landing time, the name of the airport, and the flight number. Pang Lipeng believed that his mobile phone number and the exact flight information were only known to Qunar and China Eastern Airlines. He concluded that the two companies leaked his personal information and filed a lawsuit with a court to request a compensation of RMB 1,000 yuan as the mental damage solatium.
[Decision]
The court concluded that, the plaintiff Pang Lipeng’s non-private information and his private information has been combined together and constituted an inseparable right as a whole. It should be protected in accordance with the protection rules for privacy.
The defendants China Eastern Airlines and Qunar obtained the plaintiff Pang Lipeng’s ID number, mobile phone number and voyage information, and the related information was leaked within a reasonable time. According to the standard of proof of high probability, it was enough to conclude that the information leakage was caused by the defendant. Therefore, both defendant shall be responsible for the infringement of the plaintiff’s right of privacy. On January 20, 2016, Beijing Haidian Primary People’s Court made the first-instance judgment and denied all of Pang Lipeng’s claims. On March 27, 2017, Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court made the final civil judgment in which the court revoked the first instance judgment; Qunar shall apologize to Pang Lipeng; China Eastern Airlines shall apologize to Pang Lipeng; and Pang Lipeng’s other requests for relief shall be rejected.
Case 9
Shanghai Falv Information Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd. Case of Dispute over Right to Reputation
[Significance]
With the popularization of Internet terminals, spam messages and nuisance calls appears more frequently due to the leakage of personal information or excessive promotion by merchants, and there is a growing public demand for the protection of personal information and the right to be undisturbed. This case clarified that labeling of calling numbers made by mobile phone users is legitimate comments, and the mobile phone security software which displays the contexts and quantities of such negative labels on users’ mobile phones shall not be held liable in any form. It is of positive significance to the effective management of nuisance calls, protection of the right to privacy and the public’s right to be undisturbed.
[Case Summary]
Established in March 2014, Shanghai Falv Information Technology Co., Ltd. (“Falv”) mainly relies on its huge call system to carry out legal consulting business. 360 mobile phone guard is a free software operated by Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd (“Qihoo”), the cloud marking function of which can be used to mark and classify strange calls. Later, Falv found that its consulting number was marked by 360 mobile phone guard as a nuisance call number. It then brought a case to a court and requested Qihoo to stop the infringement, make an apology publicly and compensate for its losses.
[Decision]
The court found in this case that the mobile phone security software developed by the defendant Qihoo allowed users to classify and mark strange incoming calls through the cloud marking function of the software. When the number of markings reached a certain amount, it would be displayed to other users on the receiving interface to assist users to intercept nuisance calls. The court held that network evaluation has become a part of the public’s daily expression, and people’s actions and decisions often rely on collective evaluations. An evaluation with negative words does not constitute an infringement on the right of reputation unless it is seriously untrue and causes harm or is made out of the purpose of fraud. The defendant Qihoo, in order to meet its users’ needs, truthfully displayed users’ evaluations of the calls from the plaintiff Falv, which did not constitute a violation of the right of reputation. On January 25, 2017, Shanghai Yangpu District People’s Court made a civil judgment, which rejected all of the claims of Falv. Falv was not satisfied with the result and appealed to Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court. On May 15, 2017, the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court made a final decision th l and upheld the original judgment.
Case 10
Illegal Use of Information Networks by Tan Zhangyu, Zhang Yuan, et al. Case on the Crime of Illegal Use of Information Network
[Significance]
Cyber crimes in recent years has been showing the characteristics of diversified subjects, highly hidden means, refined division of work in a cybercrime chain, scattered places where the crime is committed, etc. In particular, cyber fraud is often committed via online communication by and between the upstream and the downstream of a cybercrime chain. This case clarified that a person who had a clear knowledge that the “clickfarming advertisement” of his client was a fraudulent act, but, with a purpose of obtaining illegal gains, still provided assistance to promote the advertisement for the crime committed, shall be considered as committed the crime of illegal use of information networks where the circumstances are severe. The specific rules set by the case could effectively crack down on criminal activities involving illegal use of information networks.
[Case Summary]
In December 2016, to obtain illegal gains, the defendants, Tan Zhangyu and Zhang Yuan planned to engage in sending fraud information about “gainning commissions by click-farming” to others via the Internet. Tan Zhangyu and Zhang Yuan employed the defendant Qin Qiufa and other persons to send the fraud information. Zhang Yuan’s primary responsibility was to purchase “Alitalk” accounts and software, and to lease computer servers, etc. Qin Qiufa took charge of soliciting and contacting with customers who are in need of sending fraud information, receiving payments from the customers and guiding others to send fraud information. The three defendants provided assistance to publish the fraud information with the clear knowledge that the click-farming was not true and was used only for fraud. Tan Zhangyu and Zhang Yuan would obtain RMB 30 to 70 Yuan from their client when each person added QQ numbers in the above-mentioned information. The victims Wang and Hong were defrauded of RMB 31,000 Yuan and RMB 30,049 Yuan respectively after adding QQ numbers in the fraud information prepared and sent by Tan Zhangyu and Zhang Yuan.
[Decision]
The court held that the defendants Tan Zhangyu, Zhang Yuan, and Qin Qiufa sent fraud click-farming information via information networks with a purpose of obtaining illegal gains which was essentially an inchoate offense of fraud, and constituted the crime of illegal use of information networks. Although there was no evidence proving that the persons conducted the fraud act have been arrested and criminally prosecuted, many victims have appeared, without any prejudice to the constitution of the crime of illegal use of information networks. Tan Zhangyu, Zhang Yuan, and Qin Qiufa jointly committed the intentional offense, which is a jointly committed crime. Tan Zhangyu and Zhang Yuan played a leading role in this jointly committed crime and they are the principals in this case. Qin Qiufa played subordinate role in this jointly committed crime as an accessory criminal and shall be given lighter sentence.
Pursuant to the first-instance judgment of Shuyang Primary People's Court of Jiangsu Province and the second-instan judgment of Suqian Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province the defendant Zhang Yuan was sentenced to two-year and one month imprisonment for the crime of illegal use of information networks and fined RMB 100,000 yuan as penalty; the defendant Tan Zhangyu was sentenced to one year and ten months imprisonment for the crime of illegal use of information networks and fined RMB 80.000 yuan as penalty; and the defendant Qin Qiufa was sentenced to one year and four months imprisonment for the crime of illegal use of information network and fined RMB 30,000 yuan as penalty.