Jointly Issued by the Supreme People's Court, the People's Bank of China, the National Financial Regulatory Administration, and the China Securities Regulatory Commission: Typical Cases on Protecting the Legitimate Rights and Interests of Financial Consumers and Investors
Finance is the lifeblood of the national economy, and financial consumers and investors are key participants in the financial markets. Guided by Xi Jinping's Thought on the Rule of Law, the People's Courts have steadfastly fulfilled their adjudicative functions in finance, upheld strict and fair justice, and collaborated with regulatory bodies to strengthen mechanisms for protecting financial consumers and investors, thereby supporting the building of a leading financial nation. To effectively safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of financial consumers and investors, standardize the operations of financial institutions, and foster a sound legal environment for finance, the Supreme People's Court, the People's Bank of China, the National Financial Regulatory Administration, and the China Securities Regulatory Commission jointly released six typical cases on the protection of financial consumers' and investors' legitimate rights and interests.
This release features cases spanning financial lending, fund management, digital finance, life insurance, and securities investment. It addresses critical issues and judicial challenges—including standard terms, fair trading, suitability obligations, rights protection, and diversified dispute resolution—demonstrating how financial adjudication drives high-quality industry development and underscores the importance of building a fair, transparent, trustworthy, and secure financial market ecosystem.
First, uphold legal protection and strengthen the obligation to explain standard terms. Courts adjudicate financial disputes by carefully balancing equal protection with protective measures for consumers, and contractual freedom with contractual justice, enabling individuals to make truly informed decisions and access financial services fairly. Case 1 clarifies that financial institutions must provide clear notice and explanation of standard clauses adjusting loan interest rates, underscoring the commitment to legally safeguarding consumers' rights to fair dealing and informed consent.
Second, strengthen institutional accountability and ensure suitability management and seller due diligence. Financial adjudication and financial regulation should work in tandem to compel financial institutions to strictly fulfill their suitability obligations. In Cases 2 and 3, the courts ruled that sales institutions failed to meet their suitability obligations for financial products and must bear corresponding liability for damages. This enforces the principle of "seller due diligence, buyer self-responsibility," compelling financial institutions to improve their internal control and compliance frameworks and embed consumer protection throughout all business processes.
Third, break down technical barriers to ensure financial consumers' right to choose dispute resolution procedures. As digital technologies advance, while financial institutions accelerate their tech-driven financial services, they also leverage technological advantages to control transaction and dispute resolution processes, imposing unreasonable conditions on consumers that require regulation. Case 4 clarifies that a fund company's practice of forcibly changing the dispute resolution method after a consumer purchases products via its app has no legal effect.
Fourth, leverage collaborative governance to maximize the effectiveness of diverse substantive dispute resolution mechanisms. Achieving efficient, substantive resolution of financial disputes is a shared goal of judicial and regulatory bodies. In light of the unique characteristics of financial cases, with support from regulatory authorities, people's courts have integrated measures such as diversified dispute resolution, mediation and settlement,示范判决 (pilot judgments), and representative litigation. These efforts streamline rights protection processes, reduce disposal timelines, and lower costs, providing financial consumers and small investors with convenient, efficient, and low-cost pathways for resolving disputes—yielding positive outcomes. In Case 5, lawful mediation eliminated the lengthy process of initiating judicial appraisal, enabling policyholders to receive critical illness insurance payouts within a significantly shorter timeframe. In Case 6, the innovative integration of "pilot judgments + delegated mediation + representative litigation" effectively activated the potential of diverse substantive dispute resolution mechanisms, safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of numerous small and medium-sized investors.
Next, the People's Courts and financial regulatory authorities will align with the deployment of the five key financial articles, deepen collaboration between government and courts, and unite efforts to standardize financial service practices. They will legally protect the legitimate rights and interests of financial consumers and investors. By continuously optimizing the financial legal environment, they aim to establish a favorable ecosystem characterized by compliant institutional operations, rational consumer behavior, precise regulatory measures, and effective judicial support, thereby fostering high-quality development in the financial sector.
Cases on Protecting the Legal Rights and Interests of Financial Consumers and Investors
Table of Contents
Case 1: Financial institutions have an obligation to notify and explain standard clauses regarding interest rate adjustments.
Bank vs. Pan and Li: Financial Loan Contract Dispute
Case 2: Banks cannot exempt themselves from suitability obligations by claiming they did not engage in deceptive or misleading marketing practices.
Contract Dispute Between Mr./Ms. Su and a Certain Bank Over Entrusted Wealth Management
Case 3: Securities firms selling private fund products must fulfill their "duty of care."
Yang 某某 v. Certain Securities Branch and Third Parties Chen and Certain Investment Management Center: Dispute over Financial Entrusted Property Management Contract
Case 4: A fund company's attempt to force a change in the dispute resolution method after product subscription via its app technology is legally invalid.
—— Fang v. Certain Fund Management Company: Dispute over Property Damage Compensation
Case 5: Efficient Resolution of Major Illness Insurance Claim Disputes Through Legal Mediation, Promptly Protecting Parties' Rights
Case of Wu vs. a Life Insurance Company: Dispute over Personal Insurance Contract
Case 6: Innovating the "Demonstration Judgment + Delegated Mediation + Representative Litigation" model to fully leverage the collective power of multi-party dispute resolution.
— Securities Fraud Liability Dispute Involving a Listed Company
Case 1
Financial institutions have a duty to inform and explain the standard clauses regarding adjustments to loan interest rates.
Bank vs. Pan and Li: Financial Loan Contract Dispute Case
Basic Case Facts
Mr. Pan, Mr. Li, and a certain bank entered into a financial loan contract to borrow 75 million yuan from the bank. Regarding the loan interest rate, the contract includes three provisions: First, the initial loan interest rate is set at an annual percentage rate of 6.9%.
Second, if the borrower fails to repay the principal as agreed, a penalty interest rate of 50% above the agreed loan interest rate shall apply; compound interest shall be charged on unpaid interest at the penalty interest rate.
Third, the parties agreed that if the borrower fails to repay any portion of the principal or interest/fees as agreed and is in default for more than 15 consecutive calendar days, the loan interest rate shall be adjusted to a fixed rate equal to four times the one-year Loan Prime Rate (LPR) effective from the date of disbursement. Any applicable penalty interest and other related charges shall also be adjusted accordingly. Additionally, the contract stipulates provisions regarding termination due to breach, mortgage security, and the allocation of costs incurred in enforcing creditor rights. After the contract was signed, a certain bank disbursed the loan to Pan and Li in accordance with the agreement. Subsequently, when Pan and Li failed to repay as agreed, the bank filed a lawsuit seeking repayment of the entire loan principal and interest, penalty interest and compound interest calculated at a rate of four times the one-year LPR plus an additional 50%, along with attorney fees, litigation costs, and asserted priority rights over the proceeds from the disposal of the mortgaged property.
Referee Content
The First Instance Court of the Shunde District People's Court in Foshan City, Guangdong Province, held that interest rate provisions are core terms of a loan agreement. Lenders have an obligation to fully disclose the applicable interest rates and ensure that the loan contract reflects the borrower's true intent. Financial institutions must timely, accurately, truthfully, and comprehensively disclose all fees and penalty charges that financial consumers may be required to bear. In this case, the lender invoked an adjustable interest rate clause to assert that upon the borrower's default, the interest rate would first adjust from an annual rate of 6.9% to 15.4%, then increase by an additional 50%, resulting in a default interest rate of 23.10% annually—more than three times the normal loan rate. The lender further claimed that liability for breach of contract should commence from the date the loan was disbursed. However, this adjustable interest rate provision was not highlighted or bolded. Its prominence, as well as its overall coherence with the general interest rate and default interest rate clauses, failed to meet the legal standard required to adequately draw the consumer's attention. Accordingly, the court supported the bank's claims regarding repayment of the principal amount, interest at an annual rate of 6.9%, penalty interest and compound interest at an annual rate of 10.35%, attorney fees, and priority rights over the mortgaged property. However, the court rejected the bank's request to calculate interest based on four times the one-year Loan Prime Rate (LPR) on the loan disbursement date, plus an additional 50% markup, resulting in a penalty interest and compound interest rate of 23.10% annually, along with corresponding attorney fee claims arising from such calculation. Neither party appealed the first-instance judgment.
Representative Significance
In recent years, as financial lending activities have expanded, some banks have imposed high default fees by layering interest rate clauses. Consumers often overlook contract details and only discover after receiving the loan that actual borrowing costs far exceed expectations. In this case, the agreed interest rate adjustment clause is a standard term with significant implications for borrowers, characterized by its non-negotiable and unconventional nature. Applying provisions of the Civil Code regarding the incorporation of standard terms and the duty to provide clear notice and explanation, the court ruled that the lender cannot calculate overdue interest based on such a clause if it failed to fulfill its obligation to inform and explain. This judgment reflects the legal commitment to protecting consumers' rights to fair trading and informed consent, while promoting reduced financing costs for the real economy. It sets an important precedent for guiding financial institutions to draft compliant contracts, regulate credit operations, and foster a healthy financing environment.
First Instance: (2023) Yue 0606 Min Chu No. 26168
Case 2
Banks cannot exempt themselves from suitability obligations on grounds such as the absence of deceptive or misleading marketing practices.
Contract Dispute Between Mr./Ms. Su and a Certain Bank Over Entrusted Wealth Management
Basic Case Facts
On 2016-10-27, after being referred by a bank's relationship manager, Su signed an asset management contract online and invested 30,000 yuan via their online banking account to purchase an asset management product distributed by the bank. The contract stated that the principal could be at risk. However, none of the original documents provided by the bank—including the contract, Risk Tolerance Assessment Questionnaire, and Risk Disclosure Statement—contained Su's electronic signature confirmation. Therefore, it cannot be established that the bank fully disclosed the risks or performed appropriate risk matching. Regulatory authorities also found issues in the bank's distribution practices, such as incomplete marketing materials and unclear product descriptions. On 2018-9-27, the product's asset manager announced that the investment plan would be terminated early and enter liquidation per the contract terms, as the reference net asset value had hit the stop-loss threshold. Although Su received subsequent liquidation distributions, the principal was still lost. Su then filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for the investment loss from the bank.
[Judgment Content]
The first-instance court found that the bank, as a selling institution, failed to fulfill its suitability obligations and ordered it to compensate Su for 662671.57 yuan. The case was appealed. The Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court of Henan Province held in the second instance that, when recommending and selling high-risk financial products or providing high-risk financial services, fulfilling suitability obligations is central to "seller responsibility" and forms the prerequisite and foundation for "buyer beware." Su's investment losses were real. During the sale of the asset management product involved, the bank failed to appropriately disclose key information—including product risks, features, investment direction, and redemption arrangements—to Su, and did not match the product's risk profile with Su's risk tolerance. Although the bank engaged in no deceptive marketing or inducement to purchase high-risk products, this does not imply it fulfilled its suitability obligations. Accordingly, the court rejected the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.
Representative Significance
The selling institution bears the suitability obligation to ensure that financial consumers can make autonomous investment decisions and assume corresponding returns and risks based on a full understanding of relevant financial products, investment activities, and their nature and risks. When selling high-risk financial products, financial institutions are subject to a higher standard of suitability obligations than in ordinary civil transactions. They cannot claim to have fulfilled these obligations merely by asserting the absence of deceptive or misleading marketing practices. Instead, they must be evaluated against the specific characteristics of the financial products to determine whether "the seller has acted responsibly." In this case, the court found that the bank failed to effectively fulfill its suitability obligation and ordered it to bear corresponding liability for compensation. This ruling underscores the judiciary's vital role in safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of financial consumers and maintaining order in the financial market.
Second Instance: (2025) Yu 01 Min Zhong 14673
Case 3
Securities institutions selling private fund products must fulfill their duty of care.
Yang 某某 v. Certain Securities Branch and Third Parties Chen and Certain Investment Management Center: Dispute over Financial Entrusted Property Management Contract
Basic Case Facts
In 2015 year, 6 month, Chen, the manager of a certain securities business department, sold a private equity fund to various investors. He promoted the fund as a project operated by a certain securities company and conducted multiple roadshows without assessing the investors' risk awareness, risk preferences, or risk tolerance. Yang 某某, a VIP client of the securities business department, invested 100 yuan in this private equity fund based on trust in the securities company and signed an "Asset Management Contract." After the contract term expired and the investment project met exit conditions, Yang 某某 failed to receive the proceeds. Upon demanding payment from Chen, Yang discovered that the product was not authorized for sale by the securities business department and carried extremely high risk. Consequently, Yang filed a complaint with the Securities Regulatory Bureau. In 2022 year, 3 month, the Bureau issued warning letters to the business department and Chen, citing the following issues: 1. Unauthorized sale of private equity funds not distributed by the securities company;
II. Inadequate management of blank contract documents at the branch office. In 2023, 8, Yang 某某 filed a lawsuit seeking compensation from the branch for its investment amount of RMB 100 million and interest losses exceeding RMB 30 million. The branch argued that the counterparty to the private fund product was a certain investment management center, and the warning issued by the Securities Regulatory Bureau was an internal industry reminder; receiving such a warning does not equate to bearing the commercial risk of investor failure. Furthermore, as Yang 某某 has long engaged in wealth management and is aware of investment risks, the branch should not be held liable for Yang 某某's investment losses. During the litigation, the private fund manager determined that the investment purpose of the asset management plan could no longer be achieved and decided to proceed with a loss liquidation process, issuing a liquidation distribution plan. Based on this plan, Yang 某某 sued the securities branch for compensation of losses.
[Judgment Content]
The first-instance court dismissed Yang 某某's claims. Yang 某某 appealed. The Ma'anshan Intermediate People's Court of Anhui Province, in its second-instance ruling, found that the securities branch failed to provide evidence that it had assessed Yang 某某's risk awareness, risk preference, and risk tolerance, nor did it rate the product for risk or complete the suitability matching between the product and the client, thereby violating its investor suitability obligations. However, as an investor with some wealth management experience, Yang 某某 failed to carefully review the contract terms and fully understand the product information before investing in high-risk products exceeding their risk tolerance, thus bearing some fault themselves. Accordingly, the court revoked the first-instance judgment and ruled that the securities branch shall compensate Yang 某某 for losses amounting to 576716.97 yuan.
Typical Significance
"Due diligence by sellers" is an essential requirement for fulfilling suitability obligations and a critical institutional safeguard for protecting financial consumer rights. This case clarifies that financial institutions and their staff must not misuse the institution's reputation to sell unauthorized products. They are strictly required to implement investor risk assessments, ensure product risk levels match investor profiles, and provide full disclosures. Failure to comply will result in liability for damages proportional to fault under applicable laws. Financial consumers, in turn, must recognize investment risks and purchase financial products aligned with their risk tolerance and investment capabilities. The court's ruling promotes strict adherence to sales compliance by financial institutions—curbing misleading claims of returns and concealed risks at the source—while encouraging consumers to proactively strengthen their risk awareness. This decision plays a constructive role in standardizing private equity fund sales practices and supporting high-quality development of the financial market.
Second Instance: (2024) Wan 05 Min Zhong 1088
Case 4
Fund companies cannot legally force a change in dispute resolution mechanisms after product subscription by leveraging their app technology advantages.
—— Fang v. Certain Fund Management Company: Dispute over Property Damage Compensation
Basic Case Facts
In 2015, the 74-year-old Fang purchased a 100 million yuan fund product promoted offline by a sales representative of a certain fund company. Subsequently, the product incurred losses. By the time Fang redeemed it through the fund company's app in 2024, the cumulative loss was approximately 38 million yuan. Fang alleged that the fund company misled investors with false promises of "low risk and high returns" and should bear liability for compensation. Accordingly, Fang filed a lawsuit against the company in 2025.
Before the first hearing, a fund company raised an objection to jurisdiction, arguing that the case should be arbitrated rather than adjudicated by the court. Citing prior similar cases where such objections were rejected, the company upgraded its app and amended the dispute resolution clause. On 2025/10, Fang logged into the upgraded app and electronically accepted a series of service agreements containing an arbitration clause. The clause explicitly stated that it applies retroactively and was highlighted in bold text. Accordingly, a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties, and this case should be transferred to the designated arbitration commission for arbitration.
Ms. Fang stated that no dispute resolution mechanism was agreed upon when purchasing the fund product. Around 2018 years ago, the fund company withdrew its offline service offices in its jurisdiction, making the app the primary channel for accessing fund information and processing subscriptions and redemptions. When she logged into the app to prepare for this trial, the app had already been upgraded. Her selection of the series of service agreements was a passive action required only to complete login and should not be construed as her consent to be bound by the arbitration clause.
Referee Content
The Shanghai Hongkou District People's Court held at first instance that the arbitrator's jurisdiction requires a valid arbitration agreement between both parties. Although the fund company presented its service agreements via pop-ups with bolded arbitration clauses, the interface offered only two options: "Agree and Sign" or "Disagree and Exit." Users who disagreed could not continue using the app. Even when merely viewing fund product information, users were required to click "Agree and Sign" on the series of service agreements to access their accounts. This mandatory signing method violated the principle of voluntary arbitration. Consequently, the available evidence failed to demonstrate Fang's genuine intent to resolve this dispute through arbitration; thus, the arbitration agreement is not binding on Fang, and the dispute must be resolved through litigation. The court ruled to dismiss the fund company's objection to jurisdiction. Dissatisfied with the first-instance ruling, the fund company appealed. The Shanghai Financial Court upheld the original ruling in the second instance.
Representative Significance
Pursuant to Article 4 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, parties electing arbitration to resolve disputes must do so voluntarily and reach a valid arbitration agreement. Such an agreement must clearly express the intent to arbitrate, specify the matters in dispute, and designate an arbitration institution. Consequently, for an arbitration agreement to be validly established, it requires not only the appropriate external form but, more critically, the genuine mutual consent of the parties to arbitrate. By mandating acceptance of an arbitration clause as a prerequisite for investors accessing existing product information, a certain fund company employed a contracting model that violates the principle of voluntary arbitration. The resulting arbitration agreement is legally binding on investors. This case holds significant precedent for curbing financial institutions from coercively altering dispute resolution mechanisms through technological advantages, safeguarding the dispute resolution rights of financial consumers and investors. It underscores the imperative protection of fairness and the legal rights of financial consumers in the digital finance era.
Second Instance: (2026) Hu 74 Min Zhong 26 No.
Case 5
Legally mediated resolution of major illness insurance claim disputes to efficiently settle conflicts and timely protect the rights of all parties.
Case of Wu vs. a Life Insurance Company: Dispute over Personal Insurance Contract
Basic Case Facts
On 2020-9-11, Mr. Xu purchased a whole-life critical illness insurance policy and an accompanying waiver of premium rider for his daughter, Ms. Wu, from a certain life insurance company. The basic sum insured is 40 ten thousand yuan, with an annual premium of 4840 yuan payable over 19 years. Coverage lasts for the insured's lifetime. The insurance contract includes "Hepatolenticular Degeneration (Wilson's Disease)" within the scope of critical illness coverage but imposes multiple stringent clinical diagnostic requirements.
In 2024, month 2, Mr. Wu sought medical care at Children's Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine due to abnormal liver function. Following multiple specialized examinations, he was diagnosed with "hepatolenticular degeneration (Wilson's disease)" on 2024, month 2, day 4. The hospital issued a "Certificate of Diagnosis" in accordance with legal requirements. Mr. Wu then filed a claim for critical illness benefits and requested premium waiver for subsequent installments with an insurance company. After review, the insurance company determined that although Mr. Wu's condition falls within the scope of critical illnesses listed in the contract, it did not fully meet all clinical criteria specified for this disease in the agreement. Consequently, the company denied both the benefit claim and the premium waiver request. Mr. Wu subsequently filed a lawsuit.
Mediation Content
The People's Court of Quzhou Intelligent Manufacturing New District, Zhejiang Province, reviewed the case and found that the insurance coverage clauses in the disputed contract were standard terms provided by the insurer. These clauses impose stringent claim requirements, and the insurer failed to fulfill its obligation of adequate notification and explanation. Therefore, the insurer's refusal to pay is not well-founded. Continuing with litigation would necessitate expert appraisal, challenges to the appraisal findings, and review procedures, significantly prolonging the process. Given that Mr./Ms. Wu urgently needs the claim proceeds for ongoing treatment, the court prioritized mediation to promptly protect the parties' rights and resolve the dispute substantively.
Under court-mediated settlement, both parties voluntarily reached a mediation agreement on 2024/5/17: 1. A certain life insurance company shall pay Wu a one-time critical illness insurance claim payment of 36 ten thousand yuan;
II. Waiver of the 16th renewal premium of 4 yuan for Wu, effective from the date of diagnosis on 2024/2/4.
III. The personal insurance contract dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant is now concluded, with no further disputes between the parties. On 5/25, a life insurance company fulfilled its payment obligations. The case was resolved in just 20 days.
Representative Significance
In judicial practice, some critical illness insurance policies impose strict and overly detailed professional diagnostic requirements, objectively raising the claims threshold for consumers and leading to frequent disputes. This case correctly applied the Civil Code's rules on standard-form contracts and the Insurance Law's principles of utmost good faith and contra proferentem (interpretation against the drafter). It clarified the legal boundary between contractual diagnostic criteria and clinical medical standards, establishing that insurers cannot deny claims based on contract terms that exceed established clinical diagnostic norms. The ruling protects the legitimate rights of financial consumers and guides insurance institutions to standardize their claims practices. Furthermore, recognizing the urgent need for treatment faced by the insured party, the court actively facilitated litigation mediation. This approach effectively avoided complex medical appraisal procedures, ensured swift realization of insurance coverage, and substantially resolved the dispute. The case serves as a valuable precedent for handling similar personal insurance claims disputes.
First Instance: (2024) Zhe 0891 Min Chu No. 1028
Case 6
Innovate "demonstrative judgment + entrusted mediation + representative litigation" to fully leverage the collaborative power of diverse dispute resolution mechanisms.
— Securities Fraud Liability Dispute Involving a Listed Company
Basic Case Facts
In 2016 10, a listed company initiated a major asset restructuring to acquire 100% of shares in a health company from its former actual controller, Fang 某某, and 16 other counterparties. The transaction was executed by issuing 2178.99 million shares and paying RMB 4.4 billion in cash, with a total consideration of RMB 10 billion. Following the acquisition, the health company became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the listed company and was consolidated into its financial statements. The local securities regulatory bureau discovered that between 2017 and 5 12, the health company signed false contracts with customers, fabricated orders in its ERP system, and forged documentation for procurement, production, and shipment. It also utilized personal and corporate accounts under its control to provide funds to customers for payments, inflating revenue by RMB 9734.39 million and profit by RMB 4083.86 million. These inflated figures represented 3.7% and 15.67% of the amounts disclosed by the health company during the reporting period. As the health company's financial data was included in the listed company's consolidated statements, this fraud resulted in false statements in the listed company's "2017 Annual Report". In 2023 6, the provincial securities regulatory bureau issued an "Administrative Penalty Decision" against the listed company and relevant parties.
Mediation Content
Since the administrative penalty was issued in 2023, month 6, multiple investors have filed securities false statement liability lawsuits with the Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, requesting compensation for investment losses from a listed company. The Guangzhou Intermediate Court issued a model judgment to standardize judicial rulings and loss calculation methods, guiding parties toward rational negotiations and referring cases to securities and futures mediation organizations. Under the guidance of the model judgment, 178 investors reached a settlement agreement with the listed company during litigation, collectively receiving approximately 1178 yuan in compensation. Additionally, 119 investors voluntarily withdrew their lawsuits, resulting in a total of 294 cases closed through mediation or withdrawal, accounting for 99% of all cases filed during the same period. For cases that did not result in mediation, the court initiated a representative action procedure in accordance with the law and rendered a judgment in 2025, month 12.
Typical Significance
In recent years, securities class actions triggered by financial fraud in listed companies' M&A targets have increased significantly. These disputes involve large numbers of parties and present substantial challenges in conflict resolution. By coordinating between courts and regulatory authorities, China has innovated a multi-faceted dispute resolution framework combining "demonstrative judgments," "delegated mediation," and "representative litigation." Demonstrative judgments clarify legal boundaries and stabilize party expectations, guiding voluntary negotiation and equal consultation. Delegated mediation enables swift rights relief, while ordinary representative litigation serves as a fallback mechanism. This approach integrates adjudication with mediation and employs tiered handling to efficiently resolve disputes substantively. This case effectively links administrative penalties with civil liability enforcement. Through civil compensation, it strengthens deterrence against financial fraud in capital markets, reduces litigation costs for retail investors, and promotes standardized information disclosure by listed companies and M&A targets. It also advances the development of a diversified securities dispute resolution system, playing a pivotal role in safeguarding capital market order.
Second Instance: (2024) Yue Min Zhong 1971, 1972
