yes.

it is against the securities law for institutions to manipulate stock market transactions and stock market prices.

the provisions of China's securities law on the determination of market manipulation are mainly concentrated in article 71 of the securities law. This article mainly adopts enumeration to stipulate the types of manipulation behavior, and also presupposes some conditions for identifying market manipulation.

because China is a statutory country, the administrative and judicial organs must adjudicate cases in strict accordance with the law in the process of law enforcement, and are not allowed to go beyond or tamper with the law. Therefore, the interpretation of the market manipulation norms in the Securities Law is actually related to the specific identification of market manipulation in the process of judicial and administrative law enforcement in China, which has important theoretical and practical significance.

provisions of the securities law on the subject of market manipulation

article 71 of the securities law prohibits "anyone" from seeking illegitimate interests or passing on risks by manipulating the market. "Anyone" here can't be narrowly understood as a natural person, but should be a "person" with legal meaning including natural persons, legal persons and other organizations. There are two reasons for its explanation:

First of all, from the legal point of view, "man" in the legal sense is actually a concept of "subject", and this understanding also exists in economics, where "economic man" is also a concept of "economic subject". Therefore, "anyone" in the securities law cannot be simply understood as a natural person, but should be understood as the concept of legal subject including natural persons, legal persons and other organizations.

Secondly, from a practical point of view, in practice, many legal persons and organizations use "sack accounts" to manipulate the market. From the perspective of nominal participants in securities trading, although the transactions are conducted in the name of natural persons, in fact, most of them are legal persons and other organizations that control these accounts. Judging from the market manipulation cases investigated and dealt with by the CSRC in the past, many legal persons and organizations used natural person accounts or even joined hands with natural persons to conduct market manipulation. Its typical case is the case of "Beijing Jinchang Investment Consulting Service Company and Sok Li jointly manipulating Zheng Baiwen's stock" investigated and dealt with in June 1996.

The Securities Law stipulates the subjective elements of market manipulation

The subjective elements have two aspects: one is subjective intention, and the other is motive or purpose.

although there is no exact stipulation on subjective criminal intent in the securities law, according to the legislation of various countries and the practice in China, there is no case of negligent manipulation of the market. Therefore, subjectively, market manipulation can only be carried out intentionally, and it is often manifested that the actor hopes a certain result will happen and creates conditions to promote this result.

There are disputes in legislation and academic circles in various countries about whether motivation or purpose should be an important element of market manipulation. How to understand the subjective purpose or motivation of "gaining illegitimate interests or passing on risks" in China's Securities Law has always been a difficult problem in the process of law enforcement and interpretation.

the provisions on mutual entrustment in China's securities law are embodied in item 3 of article 71, "buying and selling by oneself without transferring ownership, which affects the price or volume of securities trading". In this kind of transaction, the transaction behavior between the counterparties did not lead to any actual change in the interests of either party. This makes investors in the market misunderstand that there may be more trading behavior, but in fact it is not. In this way, the two sides of the transaction mislead investors by agreeing in advance to engage in a large number of selling and buying behaviors at a certain price at the same time, thus creating the effect of inflated trading volume.