In general, investors can claim compensation in the event of a violation of the disclosure of information by listed companies (falent statements), incurrent transactions and the manipulation of markets.

The corresponding legal basis is articles 69, 76 and 77 of the Securities Act.

Article 69 refers to the liability of a listed company for the disclosure of false statements, that is, the legal basis of the equity for a false claim. In such a case, the market company, the issuer is the first liability person and the other responsible person, including the supervisor, the audit body and the CNDP, is the second responsible person, with joint liability.

Article 76 of the Securities Act, which is the legal basis for claims for incurrent transactions, makes it clear that the perpetrator shall be liable according to law if the incurrent transaction results in loss to the investor.

Article 77 of the Securities Act is the legal basis for the manipulation of market claims. This article makes it clear that the manipulation of securities markets results in the loss of investors and that the perpetrator should be liable.

From the standpoint of securities law, the three offences of false statements, curtain transactions and market manipulation are compensable.

The procurrency is charged on the premise that the illegality of false statements made by the listed company has been determined by the relevant authorities. Common bodies are the Board, the Ministry of Finance or the Court. The prosecution of publicly listed companies must satisfy a precondition that the Board or the Ministry of Finance have taken administrative disciplinary decisions against them or that the People’s Court has already made criminal convictions against those responsible. This is a prerequisite for investor prosecution. This prerequisite is also known as administrative penalties or pre-trial criminal sentencing procedures.

In practice, there are problems with the disclosure of information by listed companies, which are recognized in their own bulletins and have been investigated by the Board or publicly denounced by the Exchange, but if the Board does not issue an administrative sanction. At that time, the time had not yet come for the protection of human rights, and there was a need to wait again.