How Should Polluters Be Prosecuted?

From November 2007 to February 2009, despite knowing that it was illegal, Hu Wenbiao and several other heads of Biaoxin Chemical Co. Ltd. in Yancheng, east China’s Jiangsu Province, ordered to discharge indus-

Flowcharts of Patent Prosecution and Litigation Procedures

I. Procedure for Filing and Examination of Patent Applications and Grant of Patents (at the State Intellectual Property Office of China) By Wu

International Patent Cooperation,Patent Prosecution Highway Agreements,and Export Product Quality

This paper investigates how international cooperation for patent examination using Patent Prosecution Highway(PPH)agreements has affected the quality of firms'exports.Taking the PPH agreements signed between China and the export destinations as a quasi-natural experiment,we established a difference-in-difference-in-differences model.We found that international cooperation for patent examination caused firms to increase export quality to PPH partners in patent-intensive industries to a greater extent.This effect was more profound among PPH partners with stronger intellectual property protection,diferentiated products and core products,and agreements along with the Patent Cooperation Treaty.We also found that PPH agreements increased the number of Chinese patent applications filed in PPH partners,patent applications by PPH partners in China,and the level of innovation,all of which constitute the major channels through which export quality to PPH partners increases.Our findings demonstrate that international patent cooperation has played an important role in promoting international trade quality.

Value Goals and Institutional Framework for the Establishment of Administrative Public Prosecution in China

中国正处于社会转型期,社会矛盾和利益纠纷呈高发态势,通过厉行法治,保证行政权正确行使,是预防、减少和妥善应对社会风险的良策。由于行政诉讼在制度架构方面的缺陷,其制度功能发挥并不充分。设置行政公诉制度,应当成为完善行政诉讼制度的一个重要选择。它具有监督和促进依法行政、引导市民社会生成、化解社会矛盾等多方面的价值,也是完善中国特色检察制度的应有之义。建立行政公诉,应当从理念和制度建构等不同层面予以设计。

Criminal Law Boundaries for Freedom of Speech in the Online Era

Demarcating the boundary between the constitutional right to freedom of speech and online speech crime is a major task before Chinese judiciary.In defining speech crime,we need to draw distinctions between facts and opinions;public and private affairs;and subjective and objective reality.Under the reasonable belief rule,“subjective reality”must be treated as justifiable cause.Given the technological applications and social nature of online media,internet service providers are only obliged to be neutral;they must not indiscriminately be deemed to be guilty of being accomplices or of the crime of nonperformance.In litigation involving speech crime,criminal proceedings must,in principle,be launched on the basis of the actual or presumed wishes of the victim.When a speech act seriously jeopardizes social order and the national interest but the victim is unable to determine whether to lay a charge,a direct public prosecution may be carried out.Finding someone guilty of“seriously jeopardizing law and order and the national interest”must be based on real,material disruption of order and on the fact that the suspect acted deliberately with no legitimate purpose.Minor speech crimes must not be indiscriminately subjected to fixed-term imprisonment,and social media tools serve routine purposes and should not be confiscated without good reason.

AN EXAMINATION OF LEGAL REGULATIONS FOR INSIDER DEALING IN THE UK AND THE LESSONS FOR CHINA

The UK＇s position as a leading international financial center depends not only on the openness and competitiveness of its market, but also on its reputation as a clean and fair place to do business. Market confidence will be undermined where participants and users believe markets are susceptible to abuse. Thus, the main convincing justification for controlling insider＇s abuse of power is based on the harm principle, which it causes to investor confidence and securities markets. An insider ought not to be able to take advantage of his position either to breach a confidence or to achieve an unfair advantage in the market place; particularly the market place should, as far as possible, provide equality of opportunity to people entering it. Insider dealing has been regulated by the criminal law involved under Part V of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 in the UK. It has become clear that the traditional criminal penalty was limited by the criminal standard of proof required, while self-regulatory regimes are thought as toothless tigers. Although various potential common law civil remedies for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of confidence relating to insider dealing do exist, they are ineffective remedies and beset by so many complexities. As a response, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 came into force and marked an important development in the regulation of market abuse in creating civil penalties, which also contained misuse of confidential insider information. Later, the main substantive changes to existing civil market abuse regime have been taken effect within the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 （Market Abuse） Regulations 2005, 2011 and 2014. Regarding to the regulatory framework, the range of regulatory powers of the Financial Services Authority, which has been replaced by the Financial Conduct Authority in April 1, 2013, available in combating market abuse is one of the most fundamental innovations of the FSMA 2000 and plays a significant role in defining the law in practice through a Code of Market Conduct. China has also exerted great efforts in regulating insider dealing. Under thecurrent Chinese legal framework, insider dealing is governed by the Criminal Law of the People＇s Republic of China, the Securities Law of the People＇s Republic of China 2005 and some other regulations. The China Securities Regulatory Commission （CSRC） is the regulatory body for supervising and penalizing insider dealing in China. Although China has made progress in legislation in terms of the regulation of insider dealing, there are still much room for improvement, such as the enforcement of the civil penalty and the enforcement power of the CSRC. Due to the fact that the UK has rich experience in regulating insider dealing, it is of great significance for China to learn from the UK＇s successful practices. Insider dealing could be well controlled with innovative and effective legal regulations. This article focuses on an in-depth examination on the regulations in the UK and a brief introduction of regulations in China in order to figure out an answer to what has been achieved in the UK and what are the most important aspects that China could learn from the UK＇s experiences. The aim of increasing the deterrent effect by reducing the obstacles to imposing suitable sanctions, whether criminal, civil or regulatory, should enable regulators to police a more efficient manner in the field of financial markets.