Based on the quantitative analysis of 74 cases of insider trading and disclosure of insider information, including the types of insider information, specific criminal acts, criminal amounts, return of illegal income, and sentencing, we can discover the basic characteristics and trends of insider trading and disclosure of insider information in terms of the number of cases, geographical distribution, criminal subjects, objective behavior, and criminal penalties. This article will continue to conduct in-depth analysis of the main characteristics of insider trading and disclosure of insider information cases.

1、 Characteristics of Insider Trading Cases

(1)Whether the subjective purpose is to seek profits does not affect the establishment of the crime of insider trading.

For example, the typical case of insider trading and disclosure of insider information issued by the Supreme People's Court: the case of insider trading and disclosure of insider information such as Mr. Huang. In this case, the defense proposed that Mr. Huang did not sell off after buying relevant stocks, and the purpose of his purchase of stocks was to hold them for a long time, not to cash in for profits. Therefore, it cannot be determined that Mr. Huang used insider information to conduct insider trading. The court held that the object of the crime of insider trading is the state's management system for securities market transactions and the legitimate rights and interests of investors in fair and open trading. Regardless of the purpose Huang holds when buying and selling stocks, as long as he is an insider of insider information, buying and selling the specific securities during the sensitive period of insider information price trading, regardless of whether he gains profits, does not affect the determination of the criminal nature of insider trading. The cases searched by the author, such as (2020) Chuan 01 Xing Chu No. 74, (2019) Yue 03 Xing Chu No. 473, (2019) Jing Xing Chu No. 141, (2016) Jing 02 Xing Chu No. 82, and (2009) Xia Xing Chu Zi No. 109, are all cases where stocks are held but not sold, but still convicted of insider trading. It can be seen that whether the subjective purpose is to seek profits does not affect the conviction of the crime.

(2)Objectively, whether to make profits does not affect the establishment of the crime of insider trading.

In 74 cases, there are 13 cases in which the defendant of insider trading ultimately suffered losses, that is, there was no illegal profit (to avoid losses), such as (2021) Jing 02 Xing Chu 154, (2021) Jing 02 Xing Chu 83, and (2021) Hu 01 Xing Chu 63. However, the defendant was convicted of insider trading by the court. In addition, the defendants who did not sell their shares after buying them actually made no illegal profits (to avoid losses), and were also convicted of insider trading by the court. It can be seen that objectively whether to make profits does not affect the determination of the crime.

(3)Whether there are illegal gains does not affect the judgment of the fine.

Article 180 of the Criminal Law provides for a fine for the crime of insider trading or disclosing insider information: a fine of between one and five times the illegal income shall be imposed concurrently or separately. However, in judicial practice, regardless of whether there are illegal gains or not, the court has basically imposed a fine on the defendant, the difference being: if there are illegal gains, a fine of one to five times the illegal gains will be imposed concurrently or alone; "If there are no illegal gains, the amount of the fine shall be at the discretion of the judge.".

For example, in cases such as (2021) Jing 02 Xing Chu No. 154, (2021) Jing 02 Xing Chu No. 83, (2021) Hu 01 Xing Chu No. 63, (2020) Hu 01 Xing Chu No. 8, and (2014) Zhe Shao Xing Chu Zi No. 12, the defendant lost money after selling the stock, and the court imposed a fine ranging from 1000 yuan to 500000 yuan on the defendant. Another example is the (2019) Jing 02 Xing Chu No. 141 case, in which the defendant had not sold his shares at the time of the incident, and the court imposed a fine of 10000 yuan; Another example is the (2016) Jing 02 Xing Chu No. 82 case, in which the defendant Duan Mou purchased shares that have not yet been sold. The court calculated the market value of the remaining shares based on the closing price of the first trading day after the stock resumed trading, and then determined that the book profit of the shares involved at the closing was 286173 yuan, which was the benefit obtained by the defendant Duan Mou through insider trading activities. Based on the profit obtained, the court calculated the defendant's illegal income and imposed a fine of 400000 yuan, The defendant Duan Mou's illegal income was recovered to 286173 yuan, and similar cases such as (2010) Erzhong Xingchu Zi No. 689 and (2019) Yue 03 Xingchu No. 473 were also investigated.

Illegal gains refer to the benefits obtained or losses avoided through insider trading. The author believes that the defendant who ultimately lost money or unsold shares in insider trading did not actually make illegal profits (to avoid losses), and the court imposed a fine without legal basis, which violates the principle of legality.

(4)There is no uniform standard for imposing fines on accomplices in insider trading.

Article 9, paragraph 2, of the "Interpretation on Criminal Cases of Handling Insider Trading and Disclosing Insider Information" (Fa Shi [2012] No. 6) imposes the following restrictions on the total amount of fines for joint crimes: If a joint crime is constituted, the offender shall be convicted and punished according to the total transaction amount, the total amount of occupied deposits, the total amount of profits or losses avoided by the joint offender, However, the total amount of fines imposed on each defendant should be between one and five times the total amount of profits or losses avoided.

In judicial practice, the court's imposition of fines on joint offenders mainly includes two situations: (1) calculating fines based on the respective amount of the crime, such as the (2011) Xi Xing Er Chu Zi No. 0001 case; (2) The calculation of a fine based on the amount of a joint crime also includes two situations. First, the court imposed consistent fines on the principal and accessory offenders, such as the (2011) Xi Xing Er Chu Zi No. 0002 case, which resulted in a profit of over 4.2 million yuan. The court imposed a fine of 4.25 million yuan on both the principal and accessory offenders, and similar cases such as the (2016) Lu 05 Xing Chu No. 14 case. Secondly, the court calculates the fines that the principal and accessory offenders need to pay based on the amount of joint profits. For example, in the case of (2014) Er Zhong Xing Chu Zi No. 315, the profit was 86012087 yuan, the principal offender Li was fined 620000 yuan, the accessory offender Song was fined 190000 yuan, the accessory offender Tu was fined 60000 yuan, and similar cases such as (2016) Hu 02 Xing Chu No. 115 were also found.

The above two cases of sentencing fines are within the scope of judicial interpretation. From the perspective of retrieved cases, in most joint crime cases, the court fully considered the role of the principal and accessory offenders, and differentiated the amount of fines in their judgments.

2、 Characteristics of cases of disclosing inside information

(1) Distinguishing between the crime of divulging inside information and the accomplice of the crime of insider trading.

The standard for accurately distinguishing between the joint crime of insider trading and the crime of disclosing insider information is whether the risks and benefits are shared. An insider who divulges insider information to others and shares risks and benefits with insider trading is a joint crime of insider trading. "An insider who only divulges inside information to others, does not bear risks, and does not participate in the sharing of stolen goods, shall be separately identified as the crime of divulging inside information.".

For example, in the (2019) Jing 02 Xing Chu No. 141 insider trading case between Wang and Li, although both the securities account and the fund account used for trading are under the name of Li, the funds of Wang and Li are mixed and used as common property for disposal. The two persons are not involved in the criminal relationship between disclosing insider information and using insider information for trading, but rather in the joint crime of conspiring to use insider information for securities trading, and both should be responsible for the total transaction amount of insider trading Take responsibility for the total profit. Similar cases also include: (2019) Jing 02 Xing Chu No. 141, (2019) Hu 02 Xing Chu No. 55, (2011) Xi Xing Er Chu Zi No. 0002, (2011) Xi Xing Er Chu Zi No. 0001, etc.

On the other hand, in the Hangxiao Steel Structure Case (the first case of disclosing inside information), Luo disclosed inside information to Chen, and Chen and Wang used inside information to conduct insider trading. The two of them illegally gained over 40 million yuan. In this case, Luo and Chen were involved in a criminal relationship between disclosing insider information and using insider information for trading. Luo and Chen did not share risks and benefits, so Luo and Chen constituted the crime of disclosing insider information, while Chen and Wang constituted the crime of insider trading. Similar cases also include (2021) Jing 02 Xing Chu No. 154, (2021) Hu 01 Xing Chu No. 7, (2020) Hu 01 Xing Chu No. 8, (2018) Yu 01 Xing Chu No. 31, (2018) Hu 02 Xing Chu No. 29, etc.

(2)There is no uniform standard for the judgment of fines by the court.

In judicial practice, when the leaked inside information is used by others for insider trading (there are two situations: losses and profits), the penalty for the defendant of the crime of disclosing inside information includes three situations: (1) not being fined, such as the (2021) Hu 01 Xing Chu No. 7 case, where the defendant Liu Moumou who leaked inside information was exempted from criminal punishment; Another example is the typical case published by the People's Court newspaper: the Hangxiao Steel Structure case, in which Luo Moumou, who leaked insider information, was sentenced to one year and six months in prison without being fined (the defendant of insider trading was sentenced to a fine of 40.37 million yuan). (2) The fine is at the discretion of the judge. For example, in the top ten financial criminal trials conducted by the Shanghai Court in 2013 - the case of Wang leaking insider information and the case of Xu insider trading, the defendant of insider trading, Xu, was fined 3 million yuan (twice the book profit), and the defendant of leaking insider information, Wang, was fined 100000 yuan. Similar cases include (2021) Jing 02 Xing Chu No. 154. (3) A fine is imposed based on the multiple of the illegal gains of the defendant in insider trading. For example, in the (2016) Hu 01 Xing Chu No. 60 case, both the defendant in insider trading and the defendant Zhang Mou who divulged insider information were sentenced to a fine of 610000 yuan that was twice the illegal gains (over 600000 yuan). Similar cases include (2015) Hu Yi Zhong Xing Chu Zi No. 141 and (2016) Hu 01 Xing Chu No. 80.

It can be seen that the court's imposition of a fine on a defendant who divulges insider information is not solely based on whether he or she has made a profit, nor is it entirely based on the amount of illegal profits made by the defendant in insider trading, and there is no unified standard.