Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has released four typical cases regarding the protection of the rights and interests of private enterprises and entrepreneurs, emphasizing the importance of correcting wrongful judgments in property rights cases involving enterprises [2][3]. Group 1: Characteristics of the Typical Cases - The cases adhere to the principle of legality in criminal law, ensuring that individuals are not held criminally liable for actions that do not violate the law as amended [3]. - The cases reflect the principle of criminal law's restraint, distinguishing between economic disputes and economic crimes, thus preventing the misuse of criminal law in civil matters [4]. - The cases uphold the principle of equal legal protection, demonstrating that both private and state-owned enterprises are treated equally under the law, contributing to a fair business environment [5]. Group 2: Case Summaries - Case 1: In the case of Xie et al., the Supreme Court ruled that the defendants did not violate the amended Company Law regarding registered capital, leading to a retrial that declared them not guilty of the charge of falsely reporting registered capital [6][8][10]. - Case 2: In the case of Ye, the court found that while he had forged documents, he did not possess the intent to unlawfully possess others' property, resulting in a not guilty verdict for contract fraud [11][13]. - Case 3: In the case of Dou, the court determined that the mixing of personal and company assets made it impossible to establish a clear violation of property rights, leading to a not guilty verdict for embezzlement and misappropriation of funds [14][18]. - Case 4: In the case of Shi and Wang, the court clarified the conditions under which the transfer of equity occurred, ruling that the private entrepreneurs were entitled to the full payment for their shares, thus reinforcing the principle of equal protection for private enterprises [19][22].

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has released four typical cases related to the protection of private enterprises' property rights and the rights of private entrepreneurs, responding to social concerns and allowing private enterprises to focus on entrepreneurship and development [1][7]. Group 1: Legal Principles - The cases adhere to the principle of legality, ensuring that criminal responsibility is only assigned when actions violate the law, as seen in the case of individuals who were acquitted due to changes in the company law regarding registered capital [1][3]. - The cases uphold the principle of criminal law's restraint, distinguishing between economic disputes and economic crimes, which helps prevent the misuse of criminal law in economic conflicts [4][5]. - The cases emphasize the principle of equal legal protection, treating private and state-owned enterprises equally under the law, thereby contributing to a unified national market and a law-based business environment [2][5]. Group 2: Impact on Private Economy - The release of these typical cases reflects the court's commitment to factual accuracy and legal correction, providing a solid judicial service guarantee for the sustainable and high-quality development of the private economy [5][7]. - The judicial actions are seen as a beacon for the development of the private economy, reinforcing the legal framework that supports private entrepreneurs and fostering a stable, fair, and predictable legal environment [7]. - The cases are expected to instill confidence in private entrepreneurs, allowing them to focus on their businesses and contribute to economic growth, job creation, and innovation [6][7].

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has released four typical cases regarding the protection of private enterprises and entrepreneurs' rights, emphasizing the importance of correcting wrongful property rights cases to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests [1][2]. Group 1: Characteristics of the Typical Cases - The cases adhere to the principle of legality, ensuring that criminal responsibility is only assigned when there is a clear violation of the law [2]. - The cases reflect the principle of criminal law's restraint, distinguishing between economic disputes and criminal offenses, thus preventing the misuse of criminal law in economic conflicts [3]. - The cases uphold the principle of equal legal protection, demonstrating that both private and state-owned enterprises are treated equally under the law, contributing to a fair business environment [4]. Group 2: Case Summaries - Case 1: The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of individuals for falsely reporting registered capital, as the actions did not violate the revised Company Law, which shifted from a paid-in capital system to a subscribed capital system [5][7][8]. - Case 2: The court found that the actions of an individual, who was accused of contract fraud, did not demonstrate the intent to illegally possess another's property, leading to a not guilty verdict [9][10][11]. - Case 3: The court ruled that the evidence was insufficient to convict an individual of embezzlement and misappropriation of funds due to the commingling of personal and company assets, resulting in a not guilty verdict [12][14][16]. - Case 4: The court clarified the conditions under which a mining company was to pay for the remaining equity transfer, emphasizing the equal legal status of private and state-owned enterprises and correcting previous misinterpretations of contractual obligations [17][19][20].

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has released four typical cases related to the protection of private enterprises and entrepreneurs' rights, emphasizing the importance of correcting wrongful judgments in property rights cases involving enterprises [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Principles - The principle of legality in criminal law is upheld, as seen in the case where the defendants were acquitted of charges related to falsely reporting registered capital due to changes in the company law [3][5]. - The principle of criminal law's restraint is maintained, distinguishing between economic disputes and economic crimes, which helps prevent the misuse of criminal law in economic conflicts [2][9]. - The principle of equal legal protection is emphasized, ensuring that private and state-owned enterprises are treated equally under the law, contributing to a fair business environment [2][19]. Group 2: Typical Cases - Case 1: The defendants in the case of falsely reporting registered capital were acquitted as their actions did not violate the revised company law, which shifted from a paid-in capital system to a subscribed capital system [3][5][6]. - Case 2: In the contract fraud case, the defendant was acquitted as there was no evidence of intent to illegally possess property, highlighting the need to differentiate between contract disputes and fraud [7][9]. - Case 3: The defendant in the case of embezzlement and misappropriation was acquitted due to the lack of clear evidence distinguishing personal and company assets, emphasizing the need for clarity in property rights [10][14]. - Case 4: The court corrected the previous ruling regarding a share transfer agreement, affirming the equal legal status of private and state-owned enterprises and ensuring the protection of private entrepreneurs' rights [15][19].

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court emphasizes the importance of correcting wrongful cases involving enterprise property rights through retrials, which is crucial for protecting the rights of private enterprises and entrepreneurs [3]. Group 1: Characteristics of Typical Cases - The typical cases released by the Supreme People's Court adhere to the principle of legality in criminal law, ensuring that individuals are not held criminally liable for actions that do not violate the law as amended [4][10]. - The cases reflect the principle of criminal law's restraint, distinguishing between economic disputes and economic crimes, thereby preventing the misuse of criminal law in economic conflicts [5][6]. - The principle of equal legal protection is upheld, ensuring that both private and state-owned enterprises are treated equally under the law, which supports the establishment of a unified national market and a law-based business environment [7]. Group 2: Case Summaries - Case 1: In the case of Xie et al., the court found that the defendants did not violate the amended Company Law regarding registered capital, leading to a retrial that declared them not guilty of the charge of falsely reporting registered capital [8][10][11]. - Case 2: In the case of Ye, the court determined that despite some fraudulent actions, there was no intent to illegally possess others' property, resulting in a retrial that declared him not guilty of contract fraud [12][15]. - Case 3: In the case of Dou, the court found that the mixing of personal and company assets made it difficult to establish a clear violation of property rights, leading to a retrial that declared him not guilty of embezzlement and misappropriation of funds [16][20]. - Case 4: In the case of Shi and Wang, the court clarified the conditions under which the transfer of equity occurred, ruling that the mining company was liable for the full payment of the equity transfer price, thus reinforcing the equal legal status of private and state-owned enterprises [21][24].

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court emphasizes the importance of correcting wrongful cases involving enterprise property rights through retrials, which is crucial for protecting the rights of private enterprises and entrepreneurs [2]. Group 1: Characteristics of Typical Cases - The typical cases released by the Supreme People's Court adhere to the principle of legality in criminal law, ensuring that the recognition of criminal acts is based on clear legal standards [3]. - The cases reflect the principle of criminal law's restraint, distinguishing between economic disputes and economic crimes, thus preventing the misuse of criminal law in economic conflicts [4]. - The principle of equal legal protection is upheld, ensuring that both private and state-owned enterprises are treated equally under the law, contributing to a unified national market and a law-based business environment [5]. Group 2: Case Summaries - In the case of Xie et al., the retrial determined that the defendants did not violate the revised Company Law regarding registered capital, leading to the conclusion that they should not bear criminal responsibility for falsely reporting registered capital [6][8]. - In the case of Ye, the retrial found that although he forged a receipt, he did not have the intent to illegally possess others' property, thus he was not guilty of contract fraud [10][12]. - In the case of Dou, the retrial concluded that the mixing of personal and company assets made it difficult to establish a clear distinction between personal and company property, leading to a not guilty verdict for embezzlement and misappropriation of funds [14][16]. - In the case of Shi and Wang, the retrial clarified the conditions under which the transfer of equity occurred, correcting the previous judgment and ensuring that the rights of private entrepreneurs were upheld [19][21]. Group 3: Significance of Typical Cases - The cases illustrate the necessity of distinguishing between economic disputes and criminal acts, reinforcing the legal protection of entrepreneurs and enhancing their sense of security [13]. - The retrials demonstrate a careful examination of the relationship between personal and company assets, emphasizing the need for clear property rights in cases of financial crimes [18]. - The rulings reflect a commitment to equal legal treatment for all market participants, fostering a supportive environment for private enterprises and contributing to high-quality economic development [22].

Core Points - The Supreme People's Court of China released four typical cases related to the protection of private enterprises and entrepreneurs' rights, emphasizing the importance of correcting wrongful cases involving enterprise property rights [1][2] Group 1: Legal Principles - The principle of legality in criminal law is upheld, as seen in the case where individuals were acquitted due to changes in company law regarding registered capital, indicating that their actions did not violate the revised regulations [1] - The principle of criminal law's restraint is maintained, with cases involving contract fraud and embezzlement being overturned due to insufficient evidence of criminal intent, highlighting the distinction between economic disputes and criminal offenses [1][2] Group 2: Equal Protection - The principle of equal legal protection is emphasized, ensuring that private and state-owned enterprises are treated equally under the law, which supports the establishment of a unified national market and a law-based business environment [2] - The release of these typical cases sends a strong legal signal, addressing societal concerns and allowing private enterprises and entrepreneurs to focus on their business operations without fear [2]

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has released four typical cases related to the protection of the rights and interests of private enterprises and entrepreneurs, emphasizing the principles of legality, restraint in criminal law, and equal protection under the law [1][2]. Group 1: Case Summaries - Case 1: The Supreme People's Court overturned the conviction of three individuals for falsely reporting registered capital and other charges, citing changes in company law that no longer classify their actions as criminal [4][5]. - Case 2: The court found that the actions of an individual accused of contract fraud did not demonstrate intent to illegally possess property, leading to a not guilty verdict [6][7]. - Case 3: The court determined that the personal and company assets of an individual were so intertwined that it could not be established that the individual had committed embezzlement or misappropriation of funds, resulting in a not guilty verdict [10][12]. - Case 4: The court ruled that a mining company must pay the remaining transfer price for coal mine shares, correcting a previous ruling that limited the company's liability [16][17]. Group 2: Legal Principles - The cases highlight the importance of adhering to the principle of legality in criminal law, ensuring that individuals are not prosecuted under outdated legal standards [2][5]. - The decisions reflect a commitment to distinguishing between economic disputes and criminal acts, reinforcing the need for clear evidence of intent in fraud cases [7][12]. - The rulings demonstrate a commitment to equal legal protection for both private and state-owned enterprises, fostering a fair business environment [17].

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court of China has released four typical cases related to the protection of private enterprises and entrepreneurs' rights, emphasizing the importance of legal principles in safeguarding their interests [1][3]. Group 1: Characteristics of the Released Cases - The cases adhere to the principle of legality, ensuring that criminal responsibility is only assigned when there is a clear violation of the law, as seen in the case of Xie and others, where the revised Company Law negated the charges of false capital registration [2][6]. - The cases reflect the principle of criminal law's restraint, distinguishing between economic disputes and criminal acts, which is evident in the cases of Ye and Dou, where the evidence did not support the existence of criminal intent [2][9]. - The cases uphold the principle of equal legal protection, demonstrating that both private and state-owned enterprises are treated equally under the law, as illustrated in the case involving Shi and Wang against a mining company [2][19]. Group 2: Specific Case Summaries - In the case of Xie and others, the Supreme Court ruled that the defendants did not violate the revised Company Law regarding capital registration, leading to a retraction of the false capital registration charges [4][6]. - The case of Ye involved a contract dispute where the court found that despite some fraudulent actions, there was no intent to unlawfully possess another's property, resulting in a not guilty verdict [7][9]. - In Dou's case, the court determined that the mixing of personal and company assets made it difficult to establish a clear violation of property rights, leading to a not guilty ruling on charges of embezzlement and misappropriation [10][14]. - The case involving Shi and Wang highlighted the complexities of equity transfer agreements, where the court ultimately ruled that the mining company was liable for the full payment of the transfer price, reinforcing the equal treatment of private and state enterprises [15][19].