Legal Analysis Of Rio Tinto Case In Shanghai

In2009Shanghai City National Security Bureau Success uncovered spy case,involved for the Australian company Rio Tinto employee Hu Shitai, Wang Yong, LiuCaikui, GE Minqiang the four, the case was referred to as" the Rio Tinto case". In2010March a Shanghai court in the case to trial, defendant Hu Shitai, Wang Yong,GE Minqiang, Liu Caikui sentenced to Non-governmental Staff Bribery Crimes andthe crime of violation of trade secrets, combined punishment for several crimes.On Non-governmental Staff Bribery behavior qualitative part of the social fromall walks of life are no objection against the defendant, and take the lure or otherimproper means to obtain, spying on iron and steel enterprise secret informationbehavior, from before the national security agency qualitative" stealing China’s statesecrets" spy crime to the last court identified as ordinary "violation of trade secretssin", the handling of the case in the law theory circle and practice circle has sparkedintense discussion, focusing on Hu Shitai and others illegally obtained information isa state secret or business secret, as well as on the basis of Hu Shitai’s four crimequalitative problem. There are mainly three kinds of views, the first kind of viewpointthinks Hu Shitai’s actions against commercial bribery or infringement of commercialsecrets of the relevant charges. The second view, Hu Shitai and others on suspicion ofspying, stealing China’s state secrets law conviction. The third view is the case inChina Steel Association Conference in Wuxi, Beijing, Nanning conference meetingsand the66article content involved, is a normal commercial information, Hu Shitai andothers for more than four of information disclosure does not bear criminal liability.Based on the" trade secrets" and" state secrets" concept based on the three kinds ofacademic perspectives were analyzed, at the same time to the judicial qualitativefactors analysis, that the court remanded the case for qualitative for" crime ofinfringement of commercial secrets" has its deep reason. However, from the theory ofcriminal law and the realistic national conditions," Rio" qualitative choice should be "stealing, spying, buying, illegally providing state secrets". In part because thedefendant Hu Shitai et al’s behavior consistent with" stealing, spying, buying,illegally providing state secrets" elements, consistent with the relevant provisions ofthe criminal law of our country. On the other hand, because of the qualitative processmore accord with our country to crack down on such foreign business corruption crime and protect the safety of our country ’s criminal policy.