Securities legal liability

Author: Hou Shuiping, Editor-in-Chief
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-07-01
Features: It is a widely recognized reality that the securities market in our country is highly (unstandardized) and suffers from severe illegal activities. When the legitimate rights and interests of investors are infringed upon, they often fail to receive effective relief, even the most basic form of it. This has significantly impacted the development of our securities market. Given the close relationship between securities legal liability systems and the protection of investors' legitimate rights and interests as well as the maintenance of securities market order, we cannot help but attribute the causes of the aforementioned problems largely to the imperfections of the securities legal liability system. These imperfections primarily manifest as institutional flaws and the lack of coordination in inherent conflicts. The term "Conflict of Securities Legal Liability" adopted here is derived from the broader concept of legal conflict, emphasizing the contradictions in the value orientation of securities legal liability, which distinguishes it from legal conflicts under the narrow concept of private international law. As a legal liability within a specific department of law, securities legal liability reflects the legal interests protected by securities law. However, the three major types of securities legal liability are, in nature, simultaneously categorized under civil liability, administrative liability, and criminal liability. Therefore, they must also reflect the legal interests protected by civil law, administrative law, and criminal law. From this perspective, any of the three major types of securities legal liability inherently contains internal and external contradictions or conflicts. Taking securities civil liability as an example, it must reflect the legal interests protected and realized by both civil law and securities law, which determines its internal contradictions. At the same time, it conflicts externally with securities administrative liability and securities criminal liability. The root of the conflict lies in the fact that each department of law can only primarily protect and realize one type of interest, and the specific attributes of securities legal liability are cross-departmental. However, as a legal department, securities law naturally reflects the legal interest goals of securities law, which determines the coordinability of the conflicts among the three major types of securities legal liability.
Regarding the defects in China's securities legal liability system and their negative impact on the development and regulation of the securities market, relevant parties have not been entirely unaware, nor have they been unwilling to address the issue. The current situation should absolutely not be attributed to the unlimited tolerance of participants in the securities market, nor can it be understood as the numbness of the management. To some extent, this is somewhat inevitable, perhaps an unavoidable stage in the development history of China's securities market. Through investigation, analysis, summarizing experience, comparative research, and theoretical reflection, we aim to promote theoretical and institutional innovation, address the problems faced by China's securities market, improve the legislative framework for securities legal liability in China, enhance securities market supervision and securities judicial processes, and ensure the healthy development of the securities market. This is the goal of securities legal liability research and also the direction in which the authors of this book strive.