China: A Securities: Litigation (PRC Firms) Overview

In 2025, the securities litigation sector exhibited three core characteristics: a refined core institutional framework, enhanced co-ordination between regulatory and judicial authorities, and a comprehensive expansion of the scope of liability. This trend will deepen in 2026, evolving into a new landscape characterised by optimised mechanisms, targeted accountability, and integrated responses.

Continuous Advancement of Securities Regulatory Mechanisms for Listed Companies

Synergistic enhancement of multi-dimensional accountability mechanisms, extending securities litigation beyond civil dispute resolution

The integrated accountability mechanism combining administrative, civil and criminal measures has shifted from expanding coverage to strengthening co-ordination, forming a comprehensive accountability framework. Companies violating securities laws and regulations will face concurrent pressure from multiple accountability channels: administrative penalties, criminal prosecution and civil claims.

Administrative penalties maintain a high-pressure stance, focusing on six core risk areas:

• information disclosure;
• insider trading;
• trading on undisclosed information;
• intermediary due diligence;
• market manipulation; and
• short-term trading and non-compliant share reductions.

At the operational level, the two-way linkage mechanism between administrative penalties and criminal liability has been continuously refined to foster deeper inter-departmental collaboration between the CSRC and judicial organs, with standardised procedures and clear evidentiary protocols established for transferring investigative leads and integrating admissible evidence across different jurisdictions. Securities risk resolution is no longer a linear, single-track process but may now follow a flexible, two-way flow: either “from administrative to criminal” or “from criminal to administrative”. In the “administrative to criminal” direction, securities regulators adhere to the strict principle of “transferring all cases that should be transferred”. Cases meeting the high threshold of criminal prosecution standards are resolutely and promptly transferred to public security authorities in accordance with the law, thereby ensuring that severe violations face the full weight of the penal code. In the “criminal to administrative” direction, even if the involved conduct does not meet the rigorous criminal proof standards required for conviction, entities or individuals who have nonetheless violated relevant securities regulatory rules governing market order still bear administrative penalty liability. This reverse transfer mechanism ensures that the failure to secure a criminal conviction does not equate to total exoneration for the misconduct. This eliminates the legal vacuum where “no criminal liability means no liability at all”, effectively closing potential loopholes and reinforcing a seamless net of supervision where every infraction receives an appropriate sanction.

The civil recourse mechanism continues to be improved, with investor protection as its core principle. It encompasses a comprehensive scope of accountability for various entities including issuers, controlling shareholders, actual controllers, directors, supervisors, senior executives, and intermediaries. Furthermore, litigation cases have emerged where parties making public commitments and those aiding in fraudulent activities are listed as defendants. This demonstrates that the principle of “prosecuting the ringleaders and punishing accomplices’ is being implemented in an orderly manner, thereby fully safeguarding investors” rights to participate fairly in market transactions.

Securities regulatory framework enters “precision implementation” phase, unlocking closed-loop institutional efficiency

By 2025, a series of new regulations – including the Administrative Measures for Information Disclosure of Listed Companies, the Rules for the Supervision of Raised Funds of Listed Companies, and the Corporate Governance Guidelines for Listed Companies – took effect. These regulations establish a comprehensive compliance framework covering the entire life cycle of listed companies, focusing on four core dimensions:

• information disclosure;
• fund management;
• capital operations; and
• corporate governance.

The Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Listed Companies (Draft for Public Comment) was released. As the first administrative regulation specifically targeting listed company oversight, it fills a gap in the intermediate layer of the legal framework. By clarifying penalties for fund misappropriation, it marks the formal entry of listed company supervision into a new phase characterised by “legalisation and systematisation”.

Concurrently, upgrading regulatory tools has become a crucial supporting measure in policy evolution. The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) explicitly proposed a regulatory approach of “enhancing technological empowerment to improve precision enforcement”.

The essence of technology-driven regulation lies in leveraging big data and artificial intelligence to rebuild the oversight and monitoring framework. By establishing intelligent models for detecting abnormal transactions, it enables automatic screening of suspicious trade records. Utilising machine learning algorithms to analyse vast amounts of market data, it swiftly identifies potential illegal activities such as insider trading and market manipulation. This shifts regulatory focus from “post-event investigation” to “pre-emptive warning and real-time intervention”.

Complementing technology-driven empowerment is the fine-tuning of enforcement standards. The Basic Rules for Administrative Penalty Discretion of the China Securities Regulatory Commission have formally taken effect, clearly defining scenarios for non-penalty, penalty exemption, penalty reduction and lenient penalties. This refines discretion standards, reduces enforcement flexibility, and makes the costs of violations more predictable.

Key Trends in Securities Litigation for 2026

Emergence of new dispute areas and continued expansion of litigation scope

Securities misrepresentation liability disputes remain a high-incidence area, while civil claims stemming from insider trading and market manipulation are gradually breaking new ground and entering implementation phases. This shift compels listed companies to integrate compliance and risk control into their daily operations.

Additionally, driven by capital market innovation and heightened investor rights awareness, disputes involving asset-backed securities, interbank market bonds, REITs and other products are increasingly emerging, giving rise to novel focal points of contention.

Frequent securities class actions and exploration of innovative resolution mechanisms

Securities disputes are characterised by mass involvement, standardised patterns and multi-regional nature. Jurisdictions nationwide will continue to explore innovative resolution mechanisms centred on model judgments, representative litigation and diversified dispute resolution to enhance litigation efficiency and reduce costs.

Beyond focusing solely on the litigation dispute itself, listed companies should consider measures such as co-ordinated management and diversified mediation to minimise the scope of litigation risks.

Enhancing the multi-dimensional accountability system and optimising fact-finding collaboration

Following the abolition of the pre-litigation procedures for false statement lawsuits, cases with no prior administrative penalties will face more significant challenges in establishing facts. The demands for evidence presentation and cross-examination will also become more specialised and precise.

Beyond this, fundamentally because there is no inherent hierarchy or rigid chronological precedence among the independent proceedings of “criminal, civil and administrative” accountability, the effective and seamless procedural co-ordination between civil compensation mechanisms and regulatory administrative penalties or judicial criminal prosecution – particularly in terms of maximising evidence preservation efficiency, ensuring the uniformity of factual determination, and precisely demarcating liability attribution – will inevitably become a strategic focal point for systemic collaborative optimisation and in-depth, case-specific exploration aimed at reducing legal friction.

Precise determination of gatekeeper liability with clear exemption boundaries

The healthy and orderly operation of the securities market relies on listed companies, intermediaries and relevant personnel “fulfilling their respective responsibilities and performing their duties” with the utmost diligence to safeguard investor confidence and market integrity. As judicial practices in securities litigation have matured through the continuous accumulation of complex case precedents, the one-size-fits-all approach to intermediary liability has gradually become obsolete, giving way to a more precise model characterised by role-appropriate, fault-based and proportionate liability. Intermediaries such as underwriters, accounting firms, law firms, asset appraisal institutions, and financial advisers must all prudently manage litigation risks from the outset of their engagement by establishing rigorous compliance protocols and bear the burden of proof when asserting the absence of fault on their part, requiring them to substantively demonstrate that they exercised due care and adhered to professional standards.

2025 年，证券诉讼领域整体呈现出三项核心特征： “核心制度体系完善、监管司法协同强化、追责范围全面扩容”。2026 年，这一趋势会持续深化，将形成 “机制优化、追责精准、应对综合” 的新态势。

上市公司证券监管机制持续进阶

“立体化”追责机制协同强化，证券诉讼不局限于民事争议解决

“行政 + 民事 + 刑事” 三位一体追责机制从覆盖面扩大转向协同性强化，形成全链条追责格局。触及证券违法违规红线的公司将同步面临行政处罚、刑事打击和民事索赔的多重追责压力。

行政处罚延续高压态势，重点聚焦六大核心风险领域：

• 信息披露；
• 内幕交易；
• 利用未公开信息交易；
• 中介机构勤勉尽责；
• 操纵市场；
• 短线交易与违规减持。

在实操层面，行政处罚与刑事追责的双向衔接机制不断完善，线索移送、证据衔接等流程标准明确化，证券风险处置不再是单一程序，而可能经历“行政到刑事”或“刑事到行政”的双向流程。从“行政到刑事”，即证券监管坚持“应移尽移”的严格工作原则，对于触及刑事追诉标准的案件，坚决依法及时移送公安机关。从“刑事到行政”，则即便涉案行为未满足刑事证明标准，只要违反相关证券监管规则，实体或个人仍需承担行政处罚责任，不再存在“刑事不追责就无需担责”的真空地带。

民事追偿机制持续完善，以投资者保护为核心原则，将发行人、控股股东、实际控制人、董监高、中介机构等各类主体纳入全面追责范围。此外，也出现了公开承诺方、帮助造假者等涉诉案件，“追首恶”“惩帮凶”原则正在有序落实，以充分保障投资者公平参与市场交易的权利。

证券监管体系迈入 “精准落地” 阶段，制度效能闭环释放

2025年，《上市公司信息披露管理办法》《上市公司募集资金监管规则》《上市公司治理准则》等系列新规落地，法规形成覆盖全流程的合规要求体系，围绕四大核心维度：

• 信息披露；
• 资金管理；
• 资本运作；
• 公司治理。

《上市公司监督管理条例（公开征求意见稿）》对外公布，作为首部聚焦上市公司监管的行政法规，填补了法律体系中的中间层空白，明确资金占用罚则，标志着上市公司监管正式迈入“法治化、体系化”新阶段。

与此同时，监管手段升级成为政策演化的重要配套措施。中国证监会明确提出“强化科技赋能，提升精准执法”的监管思路。

所谓科技赋能，核心是依托大数据、人工智能技术重构监管监测体系——通过搭建异常交易智能监测模型，实现对可疑交易记录的自动筛查；借助机器学习算法分析海量市场数据，快速锁定内幕交易、市场操纵等潜在违法行为，让监管从“事后查处”向“事前预警、事中干预”延伸。

与科技赋能相辅相成的，是执法标准的精细化。《中国证监会行政处罚裁量基本规则》正式施行，清晰界定不予处罚、免予处罚、减轻处罚、从轻处罚的适用情形，细化裁量标准、减少执法弹性，违法违规成本预期更为明确。

2026 年证券诉讼核心趋势

新型领域纠纷涌现，诉讼范围持续扩容

证券虚假陈述责任纠纷仍为纠纷高发领域，而内幕交易、操纵市场衍生民事索赔亦逐步破冰，进入落地阶段，这一变化倒逼上市公司将合规风控前置到日常经营管理中。

此外，伴随资本市场创新发展及投资者维权意识增强，资产支持证券、银行间市场债券、REITs等产品逐步涉诉，新型争议焦点随之衍生。

证券群体性纠纷频发，处理机制探索创新

证券诉讼存在涉众性、类型化、多区域的特点，各地司法机关将不断探索以示范判决、代表人诉讼、纠纷多元化解为关键的创新处理机制，优化诉讼效率、降低诉讼成本。

除聚焦诉讼争议本身，上市公司需要考量统筹协调、多元调解等举措，限缩涉诉风险范围。

立体追责体系完善，事实查明协同优化

虚假陈述诉讼受理的前置程序废除后，对于未有在先行政处罚的案件，事实查明的难度较大，举证质证要求也将进一步专业化、精准化。

此外，由于“刑事、民事、行政”追责并无先后之分，尤其是在证据固定、事实认定、责任归属等方面，民事赔偿与行政处罚、刑事打击的有效衔接问题，必然会成为协同优化、因案制宜的深入探索重点。

看门人责任认定精准化，免责边界清晰

证券市场健康有序运行有赖于上市公司、中介机构及相关人员“各负其责、各尽其职”。伴随证券诉讼司法实务精耕，中介机构责任 “一刀切” 模式亦逐步成为历史，转向 “角色适配、过错匹配、责任相当” 的精准化路径。保荐机构、会计师事务所、律师事务所、资产评估机构、财务顾问等中介机构，均须自履职起审慎防控执业涉诉风险，对己方不存在过错承担证明责任。