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].

2025.11. 06 本文字数：5820，阅读时长大约10分钟 来源 | 最高人民法院、中国新闻网 据最高法网站消息， 依法再审纠正涉企产权冤错案件是保护民营企业和民营企业家权益的重要内 容。为进一步对保护民营企业和民营企业家合法权益提供指引和规范，最高人民法院5日发布4个涉 民营企业和民营企业家权益保护再审典型案例，包括3个刑事、1个民事案例。 最高法表示，本次发布的典型案例，具有以下几方面特点： 一是坚持罪刑法定原则。 谢某等三人虚报注册资本、私分国有资产、行贿、职务侵占再审部分改判无罪案中，原二审期间公司 法已对资本注册制度作出了重大调整，当事人没有实缴注册资本的行为未违反修正后公司法的规定， 不再需要承担刑事责任。人民法院严格把握刑事犯罪的认定标准，准确划定罪与非罪界限，对此案依 法再审裁判，切实维护了民营企业和民营企业家合法权益。 二是坚持刑法谦抑性原则。 史某某、王某某诉某矿业公司、某联合集团企业出售合同纠纷再审案，坚持民营企业和国有企业法律 地位平等，充分体现人民法院对各类市场主体的依法平等保护，为构建全国统一大市场，助力建设法 治化营商环境提供了优质司法服务。 以上典型案例的发布充分体现了人 ...

来源：最高人民法院 据最高法网站消息， 依法再审纠正涉企产权冤错案件是保护民营企业和民营企业家权益的重要内 容。为进一步对保护民营企业和民营企业家合法权益提供指引和规范，最高人民法院5日发布4个涉 民营企业和民营企业家权益保护再审典型案例，包括3个刑事、1个民事案例。 最高法表示，本次发布的典型案例，具有以下几方面特点： 一是坚持罪刑法定原则。 谢某等三人虚报注册资本、私分国有资产、行贿、职务侵占再审部分改判无罪案中，原二审期间公司 法已对资本注册制度作出了重大调整，当事人没有实缴注册资本的行为未违反修正后公司法的规定， 不再需要承担刑事责任。人民法院严格把握刑事犯罪的认定标准，准确划定罪与非罪界限，对此案依 法再审裁判，切实维护了民营企业和民营企业家合法权益。 二是坚持刑法谦抑性原则。 以上典型案例的发布充分体现了人民法院始终坚持实事求是、依法纠错、依法保护的原则，对具体案 件以事实为根据、以法律为准绳，维护当事人合法权益和社会公平正义的司法理念，为民营经济持 续、健康、高质量发展提供坚实司法服务保障。 附：涉民营企业产权和民营企业家权益保护 再审典型案例 1.谢某等三人虚报注册资本、私分国有资产、行贿、职 ...

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].