Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the need for judicial research on the criminal law protection of publicly disclosed personal information, highlighting the risks to individuals' social image and personal rights if such information is mishandled [1]. Group 1: Legal Framework and Reasoning - The interpretation by the "Two Highs" in 2017 established that the consent of the information subject is a crucial criterion for determining whether a crime has occurred in cases of personal information infringement [2]. - The concept of "reasonable handling" should be recognized as a legal justification for the crime of infringing on citizens' personal information, as it balances the right to self-determination with the need for information circulation [2][3]. - The legal order principle suggests that actions deemed legal under civil or administrative law should not be classified as criminal, thus supporting the notion of "reasonable handling" as a defense [2]. Group 2: Definition and Scope of "Reasonable Handling" - "Reasonable handling" lacks a clear and unified standard in judicial practice, necessitating a distinction between voluntarily disclosed and legally mandated disclosures [3]. - When reprocessing voluntarily disclosed information, the handling must align with the original purpose of disclosure, respecting the information subject's expectations [4]. - If the purpose of the original disclosure is unclear, the information handler must exercise caution and reasonableness in processing the publicly available personal information [4]. Group 3: Balancing Interests and Legal Implications - The handling of publicly disclosed personal information must not infringe upon the significant interests of the information subject, which includes their life, dignity, and property security [5]. - The criminal law's regulation of publicly disclosed personal information should adhere to the principle of criminal law restraint, balancing public interest with individual rights [6]. - If the handling of voluntarily disclosed information meets the criteria for "reasonable handling" and is not explicitly rejected by the information subject, it does not constitute a crime [6].

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has released four typical cases regarding the protection of private enterprise property rights and entrepreneurs' rights, emphasizing the precise unification of fact recognition and legal application through retrial procedures, responding to the legal expectations of market entities [1] Group 1: Correction of Criminal Charges Related to Registered Capital - The retrial of a case involving false reporting of registered capital led to the correction of wrongful charges, maintaining the conviction for other crimes while declaring the defendant not guilty of falsely reporting registered capital [2][4] - The case highlighted the shift from "paid registration system" to "subscribed registration system" in company law, which influenced the legal applicability in the retrial [4][3] - The retrial demonstrated the judicial system's commitment to the principle of legality, ensuring that criminal charges are accurately defined and that the rights of private enterprises and entrepreneurs are protected [4][8] Group 2: Distinction Between Economic Disputes and Criminal Offenses - The retrial cases involving contract fraud and embezzlement emphasized the need to distinguish between economic disputes and criminal offenses, ensuring that criminal charges are not applied to mere contractual disagreements [5][6] - The courts focused on whether the defendants had the subjective intent to illegally possess others' property, which is a core element of contract fraud [6][8] - The retrial rulings reinforced the principle of judicial restraint in criminal law, ensuring that economic disputes are resolved without resorting to criminal charges unless clearly warranted [8] Group 3: Equal Protection in Share Transfer Disputes - A significant case involving a share transfer dispute worth over 3.262 billion highlighted the importance of equal protection in property rights, with the retrial correcting previous misinterpretations of contractual obligations [9][10] - The retrial clarified that the conditions for share transfer were not fixed and could evolve based on subsequent agreements and government actions, ensuring that the rights of private entrepreneurs were upheld [10][11] - The ruling served as a strong legal signal to support private enterprises, allowing them to operate with confidence and contributing to the high-quality development of the economy [11]

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 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 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].