操纵证券市场案件中大数据证据的证明局限及完善

Proof limitations and Improvement of Big Data Evidence in Cases of Manipulating Securities Market

对操纵证券市场犯罪案件中大数据证据的证明作用进行解构,大数据证据主要应用于确定操纵账户组、锁定账户组实际控制人并得出行为人的主观心态。尽管大数据证据在操纵证券市场案件当中能补充证据空白、提高侦查效率,但基于大数据分析的自身特征,当前的证据审查规则尚未周延,其先验性相关性存在证明风险,程序方面加重了现已缺失的庭审对抗性,证据属性不明确致使审查规则不统一。完善大数据证据的审查规则,首先应明确证据属性,数据适用电子证据审查规则,分析报告则属于专门性问题报告参照鉴定意见审查规则,但从犯罪行为到行为特征、行为特征到数学模型的两次跃迁应当由法官进行实质审查;其次完善大数据证据的审查机制,从刑事侦查程序开始对大数据技术的应用进行法律控制,原则上大数据证据的数据基础和分析方法均应经法院审查;最后应当减轻辩方的质证压力,形成健全的质证程序,帮助法官形成客观中立的心证。

Deconstructing the evidentiary role played by big data evidence in cases of criminal manipulation of securities market,big data evidence is mainly used to identify the manipulation account group,lock the actual controller of the account group,and determine the subjective mentality of the perpetrators.While big data evidence can fill evidentiary gaps and improves investigative efficiency in securities market manipulation cases,the current evidentiary review rules are not comprehensive due to the inherent characteristics of big data analysis.There are risks of proving the relevance of prior evidence which procedurally aggravate the now-missing adversarial nature of the trial.The lack of clarity in the nature of the evidence leads to inconsistencies in the review rules.To improve the review rules for big data evidence,it is essential to first clarify the attributes of the evidence,with the rules for reviewing electronic evidence applying to data,and the rules for reviewing expert opinions applying to analytical reports,which are reports on specialized issues.However,the two transitions from criminal behavior to behavioral characteristics and to mathematical models should be subject to substantive review by judges.Secondly,it is crucial to enhance the review mechanism for big data evidence,starting from the criminal investigation process to legal control over the application of big data technology.In principle,the data basis and analysis methods of big data evidence should be reviewed by the court.Lastly,efforts should be made to alleviate the defense's burden of proof,establish a sound process for cross examination,and assist judges in forming objective and neutral judgments.