China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

SPP Releases Typical Cases Involving Distortion of Market Order

Mon, 12 Sep 2022
Categories: China Legal Trends

On 4 Aug. 2022, China’s Supreme People’s Procuratorates (SPP) released six typical cases involving distortion of the market order, exemplifying how Chinese procuratorates have endeavoured to maintain the market competition order.

In China, procuratorates act as public prosecutors in criminal cases. For more information on their functions, please read our previous post, “Don’t Forget the People’s Procuratorate When Resorting to China’s Judicial System.”

According to the PRC Criminal Law, “distortion of the market order” includes counterfeiting registered trademarks of others, collusive bidding, infringing trade secrets, false advertising, damaging commercial and commodity reputations of competitors, etc.

The six typical cases released this time involve price manipulation, counterfeiting registered trademarks of others, and damaging commercial and commodity reputations of competitors.

For example, in the case that Company X (an Internet technology company in Nantong, Jiangsu Province) and its legal representative Mr. Wan sabotaging the computer system, the procuratorate confirmed that the defendants had used DDoS to attack the servers of their competitor, thereby destroying the competitor’s network services. These acts constituted unfair competition in the civil action, and the crime of destroying the computer information system as well as the crime of sabotaging production and operation in the criminal action.

 

 

Cover Photo by Bournes senruoB on Unsplash

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

Related laws on China Laws Portal

You might also like

Guangdong High Court Highlights Landmark Mainland-Hong Kong Bankruptcy Ruling

Among 10 typical cases released by the Guangdong High People's Court to advance legal alignment in the Greater Bay Area, a landmark ruling (Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation) stands out for securing Hong Kong judicial recognition for a bankruptcy administrator appointed by a mainland court outside designated pilot regions.

China Publishes First Typical Cases in Sports Arbitration

China Commission of Arbitration for Sports (CCAS) has released its first set of six typical cases, establishing a precedent, among others, that sports agency contract disputes fall under specialized sports arbitration rather than general commercial arbitration.

China Designates Beijing Court for ICSID Arbitral Awards

China has officially designated the Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court to handle the recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards, filling a long-standing procedural gap and advancing its restrictive immunity framework.

PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal, Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments

Recent Australian case law clarifies that the “double interest” mechanism in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) monetary judgments functions as a compensatory post-judgment interest framework rather than an unenforceable penalty. This consolidates Australia’s position as a highly attractive and creditor-friendly forum for enforcing Chinese judgments. See Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58 (6 February 2024), Fu v Pang [2025] VSC 597 (16 September 2025)