2021年上海司法前沿论坛成功举行

10月22日，由上海市高级人民法院主办、上海市第一中级人民法院和上海财经大学法学院共同承办的“2021年上海司法前沿论坛”在上海财经大学科技园会议中心顺利召开。

On October 22nd, “Shanghai Judicial Forum on Frontier Issues 2021” , hosted by Shanghai High People's Court and co-organized by Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court (SFIPC) and Shanghai University of Finance and Economics (SUFE) Law School, was successfully held in the conference center, which is located in the technology park of SUFE.

本次论坛以“大数据时代全球法治引领与司法保障创新”为主题，采用线上、线下相结合的方式，专题讨论采用全英文方式，来自中国、美国、澳大利亚、日本和英国的法官、学者、律师等共50余人参加。

With the theme of "Leading the Global Rule of Law and Evolving Judicial Assistance in the Big Data Era", this forum combined online and in-person discussion, and more than 50 experts including judges, scholars and lawyers from China, the United States, Australia, Japan and the United Kingdom participated in it. Thematic discussions are in English.

上海高院茆荣华副院长、黄祥青副院长、陈昶副院长及上海财大党委副书记、纪委书记陈宏，党委常委、统战部部长周杰普等出席，茆荣华副院长、陈宏副书记作开幕式致辞，黄祥青副院长作闭幕式总结。上海一中院陆卫民院长主持开幕式。

The opening ceremony had attendance of: on behalf of Shanghai High People’s Court, Vice President Mao Ronghua, Huang Xiangqing, Chen Chang；and on behalf of Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Professor Chen Hong and Professor Zhou Jiepu. Vice President Mao Ronghua and Professor Chen Hong delivered opening speeches, and Vice President Huang Xiangqing delivered closing summaries. President Lu Weimin of SFIPC spansided over the opening ceremony.

No.1

开幕式

Opening Ceremony

茆荣华副院长指出，大数据时代携手构建网络空间命运共同体是国际社会的共同目标，通过司法引领大数据时代高质量发展、服务保障科技创新、促进科技更好地造福人类也是各方的共同愿景。希望与会各方以本次论坛为契机，吸取司法智慧和经验，共同推进审判体系和审判能力现代化；充分发挥司法职能，促进数字经济依法健康发展；坚持问题导向，完善数字领域的司法应对机制；凝聚合作共识，努力搭建常态化的国际交流平台。

Vice President Mao Ronghua indicated that it is the common goal of the international community to join hands, build a cyberspace community of mutual purpose in big data era. It is also the direction of the legal community to lead high-quality development in the era of big data through justice, serve and protect scientific and technological innovation, and promote technology to benefit humanity. He hoped that the participating parties will take this forum as an opportunity to draw on judicial wisdom and jointly promote the modernization of the trial system. Fully innovate judicial functions and promote the healthy development of the digital economy in accordance with the law. Adhere to the problem-oriented approach and improve the judicial response mechanism in the digital field. Gather consensus on cooperation and strive to build a regular international exchange platform.

陈宏副书记表示，法律界应当充分认识并领会国家大数据战略的重要意义和实施要求，妥善处理大数据时代各种新型关系，综合精准施策保障大数据战略的具体实施。本次论坛邀请国内外知名专家学者共同交流大数据时代全球法治引领与司法保障创新的最新理论成果和实践进展，共同探讨网络空间治理、个人信息保护、电子证据的认定等重大议题，有助于深化各方对大数据背景下司法审判工作的认识。

Professor Chen Hong indicated that the legal profession should fully understand and apspanciate the importance and implementation requirements of the national big data strategy, properly handle various new relationships in the era of big data, imply comspanhensive and spancise measures to guarantee the concrete implementation of the big data strategy. This forum invites famous experts and scholars from China and abroad to exchange the latest theoretical achievements and practical progress of global rule of law leading and judicial guarantee innovation in the era of big data, and to discuss important issues such as the governance of cyberspace, personal information protection and the determination of electronic evidence, which will help deepen the understanding of judicial trial in the big data era.

陆卫民院长指出，当今世界正处于大数据时代，以法治引导促进数据合理有效利用，能有效保障数字经济社会高质量发展。本次论坛围绕网络犯罪、个人信息保护、电子证据三大专题，将共同研讨实务疑难问题的妥善解决，集中展示中外司法经验智慧的提炼总结，助力推动国际应用法学的积淀发展。

President Lu Weimin indicated that the world is now in the era of big data, the rule of law to guide the promotion of the reasonable and effective use of data, can effectively guarantee the high-quality development of the digital economy and society. The forum will focus on three major topics as cybercrime, personal information protection and electronic evidence. Around those topics, a joint discussion would be held in order to look for proper resolution of difficult practical problems, focusing on the distillation of both Chinese and foreign judicial wisdom, and eventually promoting the cumulative development of international jurisprudence.

No.2

专题讨论

Thematic Discussions

第一单元

Panel A

网络空间治理与信息网络犯罪规制

Ruling Cyberspace & Regulating Information Network Crimes

主持人

Moderator

郑天衣

ZHENG Tianyi

上海市第一中级人民法院研究室主任

Director of the Research Office, Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court

美国伊利诺伊州中部联邦地区法院法官迈克尔•米姆结合自身审判经验，介绍了美国法院在线庭审、电子证据的情况及涉网络民事、刑事诉讼的现状。重点介绍了与未成年人相关的涉网络性犯罪及网络黑客导致消费者信息泄露等案例，并指出涉及生物特征数据（如面部识别技术、指纹和声纹）的新类型侵权行为对消费者的危害性。

Based on trial experience, Judge Michael Mihm of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois introduced the online trial and electronic evidence in U.S. courts, as well as the current status of online civil and criminal litigation. He focused on cases involving sex related offenses related to minors and the identity theft from Internet hacking. He pointed out that new types of infringements involving biometric data (the use of facial recognition technology, fingerprints and voiceprints) can be very harmful to consumers.

上海一中院刑事审判庭庭长余剑以典型案例为基础，探讨了非法获取游戏币、道具等虚拟财产的刑法规制问题。他认为，游戏币、道具等具有财产属性，而侵占、盗窃等行为具有现实危害性，且游戏运营商无法有效管理上述犯罪，因此当非法获取虚拟财产的行为对现实利益造成损害时，应适用刑法规制。计算这类虚拟财产的价值时，应坚持填平原则，不简单以市场标价认定，并区分交易环节及主体认定犯罪数额。

Yu Jian, Chief Judge of the Criminal Division of SFIPC, discussed the criminal regulation of illegally obtaining virtual property such as game coins and gears based on typical cases. He believes that game coins, gears, etc. have property attributes, while embezzlement, theft, etc. are realistically harmful, and game operators cannot effectively manage the above-mentioned crimes. Therefore, when the illegal obtain of virtual property causes damage to real interests, it should be applied criminal laws and regulations. When calculating the value of this type of virtual property, the principle of fill-in should be adhered to, and not simply determined by the market price, and the transaction link and the amount of the crime determined by the subject should be distinguished.

美国威斯康星州戴安郡巡回法院法官朗达•兰福德结合相关立法，阐述了美国初审法院中的数据隐私。她指出所有人都有权获取尽可能多的信息。法院有权决定不予公开某些信息，但需要找到相应的法律依据，并综合“防止公众不安”“鼓励和解”“隐名需要”等因素来权衡披露与否以及限制披露的利弊。

Judge Rhonda L. Lanford of Dane County Circuit Court of Wisconsin USA, elaborated on data privacy in an American Trial Court in the context of relevant legislation. She thought that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government. The court shall determine whether there are sufficient grounds to restrict public access according to applicable constitutional, statutory, and common law. Meanwhile, the court need to weigh the pros and cons of disclosing and restricting disclosure by integrating factors such as “spanventing public embarrassment”,“encouraging settlement” and “need for anonymity”.

美国赫利•布鲁斯律师事务所律师佩顿•恩格尔认为低犯罪成本、高经济回报、新技术滥用、低起诉概率等是网络犯罪兴起的主要原因，并归纳了网络犯罪主要类型。他提出公众需求、国家安全等因素推动了网络犯罪立法，但也存在立法者缺乏技术知识、技术进步快于法律等问题。

Attorney Peyton B. Engel of Hurley Burish, S.C., thought that low cost of entry, potentially high reward, abuse of technology and low probability of prosecution are the main reasons for the rise of cybercrime, and summarized the main types of cybercrime. He pointed out that factors such as public demand and national security have motivated cybercrime legislation, but there are also problems such as legislators without technical knowledge and technology advancing faster than the law.

上海政法学院刑事司法学院讲师崔仕绣在介绍当代中国互联网发展情况的基础上，比较了中外网络犯罪在内涵与定义方面的异同。她认为随着网络的代际演变，网络犯罪呈现从犯罪对象到犯罪工具再到终极犯罪空间的发展趋势。目前虽然尚未达成全球性的打击网络犯罪公约，但加强对此类犯罪的国际合作已是共识和必然的发展趋势。

CUI Shixiu, Assistant Professor of the School of Criminal Justice, Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, introduced the development of the internet in contemporary China, and compared the similarities and differences in the connotation and definition of cybercrime in China and abroad. She believes that with the intergenerational evolution of network, cybercrime gradually develops toward the trend from crime object to crime tool, then to the ultimate crime space. Although a global convention on combating cybercrime has not yet been reached, it is a consensus and an inevitable development trend to strengthen international cooperation on such crimes.

自由研讨

Discussion

上海交通大学凯原法学院教授侯利阳、上海一中院刑事审判庭审判长张金玉、法官助理吴亚安、中国政法大学刑事司法学院讲师郭旨龙参加了自由探讨。

Then, a free discussion was joined by HOU Liyang, the professor of the KOGUAN School of Law, Shanghai Jiaotong University; ZHANG Jinyu, spansiding judge of the Criminal Division, SFIPC; WU Ya’an, judge assistant of the Criminal Division, SFIPC；GUO Zhilong, assistant professor of Institute of Cyber Law, School of Criminal Justice, China University of Political Science and Law.

第二单元

Panel B

个人信息保护制度的

全面构建与司法衔接

The Comspanhensive Structuring & Judicial Interlinking of the Personal Information Protection Regime

主持人

Moderator

宋晓燕

SONG Xiaoyan

上海财经大学法学院院长

Dean of the School of Law, Shanghai University of Finance & Economics

上海一中院民事审判庭审判长李兴介绍了中国个人信息保护的立法发展和司法转型。中国相关立法协同体系已经形成，具有“聚焦处理规则、确立行为边界”“坚持权利本位、强化监督机制”两大特征。他结合典型案例，介绍了目前我国实践中侵权过错的举证责任倒置、赔偿范围的行为获利认定、破除消费领域的信息强制三种司法新型救济模式。

LI Xing, Presiding Judge of the Civil Division of SFIPC, introduced the legislative development and judicial transition of Chinese personal information protection. The Personal Information Protection Law of the PRC (PIPL) will become the backbone of the integral system protecting personal information of Chinese citizens. Combining with typical cases, he introduced three new judicial relief models in China's current practice: shifting the burden of proof, scope of compensation, and de-bundling.

澳大利亚昆士兰州最高法院法官黛布拉•穆琳结合澳大利亚的司法实践及昆士兰州的立法现状，介绍了审判公开制度下立法及法院保护个人信息所采取的主要措施。她提及立法设置了隐私限制条款，禁止披露儿童、性犯罪或家暴受害者、证人的个人完整信息。法院设置专人专岗审核判决书，确保公众只能获取当事人的概要信息或替代信息。为防止当事人转移财产以保障审判或执行工作的开展，法院依法延迟公开立案信息或诉讼信息。她认为法院应衡量审判中的信息披露限度，在保障当事人诉权的前提下，避免披露不必要的个人隐私。

Debra Mullins, Justice of the Suspanme Court of Queensland Australia, introduced the practice of legislation and judiciary on personal information protection in Queensland and Australia. Privacy restrictions mandated by legislation includes children, sexual offence complainants, victims of domestic violence, and protected witnesses. It is the usual practice for a draft judgment to be checked by court staff employed for that confidential task to ensure there are no inadvertent disclosures of personal information or infringement of applicable legislation or guidelines. Supspanssion of the commencement of the proceeding may be used for proceedings where the plaintiff has grounds to believe that, if the defendant becomes aware of the commencement of the proceedings, the defendant may remove its assets. It is important that courts and judges strike the right balance in publishing judgments that show the decision-making that affects litigants’ rights, but at the same time avoids inadvertent consequences from unnecessary disclosure of personal information about the parties or witnesses.

上海师范大学哲学与法政学院副研究员吴玄着重阐述了我国《个人信息保护法》所蕴含的三个平衡：一是平衡个人信息保护与使用，聚焦个人信息处理规则，明晰个人权利与信息处理者的义务，促进个人信息的使用和发展；二是平衡个人与信息处理者的关系，以解决信息收集方式隐蔽、使用方式不透明、侵权因果关系难证明等问题；三是平衡法律规制和技术发展，实现保护个人信息与公共管理、法律监管等的协同发展。

WU Xuan, Associate Research Fellow, College of Philosophy, Law & Politic Science of Shanghai Normal University, weighed three balances in PIPL: protection and use of the personal information, individuals and personal information processor, legal regulation and technological development.

复旦大学法学院讲师葛江虬将我国《个人信息保护法》第24条与《电商法》《算法推荐管理规定（征求意见稿）》《价格法》等相关规定进行对照介绍，围绕自然选项与拒绝方式的提供义务、算法解释权与拒绝权、价格歧视等差别待遇行为探讨个人信息处理者的自动化决策，并详尽阐释了信息处理者的义务及违法后果。

GE Jiangqiu, Assistant Professor of the School of Law, Fudan University, compared the interspantation and application of article 24 of PIPL with "internet information service algorithm recommendation management regulations" and regulations on penalties for price violation. His discussion includes: natural options and refusal methods to provide obligations, the right to interspant the algorithm and the right to refuse, price discrimination and other acts of differential treatment, and elaborated the responsibilities and legal consequences of information processor.

上海交通大学凯原法学院副教授张陈果重点关注我国个人信息保护救济机制的建立与完善，具体分析了当前个人信息保护制度构建上存在的缺乏行政诉讼救济路径、行业自律等功能发挥较为困难、行政机关提起公益诉讼动力不足等问题，并介绍了在完善相关管理配套制度的前提下，实现个人信息保护公益诉讼损害赔偿请求权的必要性及可行性。

ZHANG Chenguo, Associate Professor of the KOGUAN School of Law, Shanghai JiaoTong University, focused on collective judicial enforcement of the personal information protection. She introduced the necessity and feasibility of realizing the right to claim damages in public interest litigation for personal information protection under the spanmise of improving the relevant support system.

自由研讨

Discussion

澳大利亚昆士兰州最高法院退休法官乔治•符瑞堡、法官彼得•卡拉汉、上海一中院民事审判庭审判长杨斯空、商事审判庭法官助理张立扬、研究室法官助理沈俊翔参加了自由探讨。

Then, a free discussion was joined by: George Fryberg, retired Justice, of the Suspanme Court of Queensland, Australia; Peter Callaghan, Justice of the Suspanme Court of Queensland, Australia; YANG Sikong, spansiding judge of the Civil Division，SFIPC; ZHANG Liyang, judge assistant of the Commercial Division, SFIPC; SHEN Junxiang, judge assistant of the Research Office, SFIPC.

第三单元

Panel C

电子证据的获取、审查与认定

The Acquisition, Examination and Determination of Electronic Evidence

主持人

Moderator

任明艳

REN Mingyan

上海市第一中级人民法院

未成年人与家事案件综合审判庭副庭长

Deputy Chief Judge of the Juvenile and Family division, Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court

日本京都大学法学部教授笠井正俊详细介绍了日本民事法庭程序中IT的引入现状及未来发展趋势。他提及日本法院围绕“电子提交”“电子法庭”“电子案件管理”三个核心任务，正有序提升民事法庭中信息技术的应用度。日本国会将通过修改《民事诉讼法》进一步推进IT技术在当事人在线提交诉讼请求、诉讼记录数字化、电子证据处理等方面的适用及发展。

KASAI Masatoshi, Professor of the School of Law, Kyoto University, Japan, gave a detailed spansentation on the current status and future trends of the introduction of IT in Japanese civil court proceedings. He mentioned that Japanese courts are systematically enhancing the use of IT in civil courts around the three core tasks of “e-filing”“e-court”and “e-case management”. The Japanese Parliament will further promote the application and development of IT in the online submission of motions, digitization of litigation records and electronic evidence handling by amending the Civil Procedure Law.

上海一中院商事审判庭审判员吴慧琼介绍了我国电子数据司法审查的规则概览，清晰展现出电子数据立法从2012年确立为证据形式至2020年具体审查规则建立的递进式发展，阐释了数字化形式存储、处理、传输的信息应更为宽泛地认定为民事诉讼中的电子数据。对于电子数据的认定规则，法院应基于完整性、可靠性两大要素对其真实性进行判定，并应在无反证的情形下适用推定真实规则，以确保司法对新科技成果审慎认定和促进技术升级发展的并行。

WU Huiqiong, Judge of the Commercial Division of SFIPC spansented an overview of the rules of Chinese judicial practice on electronic evidence. The spansentation clearly showed the progressive development of electronic data legislation from being approved as a form of evidence in 2012 to the specific review rules in 2020. She thought the scope of electronic data shall be broad, namely that any information stored, processed or transmitted in a digital form that can prove the facts of the case shall belong to electronic evidence. The court should review the authenticity of electronic data based on integrity and reliability, and apply rules of spansumption of truth when there is no rebuttal evidence, so as to make sure the judiciary's prudent attitude in the face of the development of new technologies and promoting upgrade and development of technology.

英国诺森比亚大学法学院教授提姆•威尔逊认为技术及经济的发展加速了犯罪行为的跨境融合，进而引发了法律、政策和组织困境的跨境聚合，因此需要建立科学有效的司法合作结构以进行跨境收集电子证据、解决国际化法律问题、加强算法支持合作，而跨境合作的形式需要随着数字领域的实际发展而相应改变。

Tim J. Wilson, Professor of the School of Law, Northumbria University, UK, argued that technological and economic development have accelerated the cross-border convergence in criminal behavior and the resulting legal, policy and organizational dilemmas. The scientifically effective judicial cooperation structures are therefore needed for the cross-border collection of electronic evidence, the resolution of internationalized legal issues, and the enhancement of algorithmic support cooperation, and that the forms of cross-border cooperation need to change accordingly with the actual development of the digital sphere.

华东师范大学法学院讲师袁琳详细介绍了我国《民事诉讼法》《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》等法律法规中电子证据的相关规定，总结了当前电子证据提取及审查的基本问题，说明了传统及新型载体下电子证据的不同特点，并研究分析了区块链存证技术的适用、电子证据真实性认定和司法鉴定等问题。

YUAN Lin, Assistant Professor of the School of Law, East China Normal University, introduced in detail the relevant provisions of electronic evidence in Chinese Civil Procedure Law, Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings and other laws and regulations. She summarized the basic issues of current electronic evidence extraction and illustrated the different characteristics of electronic evidence under traditional and new carriers. The studies also analyzed the issues involving with the application of blockchain deposition technology, electronic evidence authenticity determination and judicial appraisal.

英国伦敦玛丽女王大学法学院教授伊恩•沃尔登重点介绍了跨境电子证据收集的演变与完善，从刑事调查需求、供应商运营需要、跨境数据访问三方面讲解了当前跨境电子数据的主要应用领域，并结合具体实例详尽介绍了法律互助、规则对等、相互承认三种跨境合作取证模式。

Ian Walden, Professor of the School of Law, Queen Mary University of London, UK, focused on the evolution and improvement of cross-border electronic evidence collection, explained the current main application areas of cross-border electronic data from three aspects: criminal investigation needs, supplier operational needs and cross-border data access. Professor Ian also introduced in detail the three cross-border cooperation forensic models of mutual legal assistance, rule reciprocity and mutual recognition with concrete examples.

英国诺森比亚大学法学院副教授亚当•杰克逊认为电子证据应从收集资格及授权、披露数量及范围、认定标准等方面进行考量，并以英格兰和威尔士为例，介绍了控方对证据的全面出示义务、鉴定专家的资质及可采性标准、法院审查电子证据真实性规则。电子证据为传统证据审查标准和程序提供了新范式，今后应围绕证据量、技术鉴定能力、真实性审查等方面寻求突破和发展。

Adam Jackson, Associate Professor of the School of Law, Northumbria University, UK, argued that electronic evidence should be considered in terms of eligibility and authorization for collection, quantity and scope of disclosure, and standards of identification. Taking England and Wales as examples, he introduced the prosecution's obligation to produce evidence in full, the qualification and admissibility standards of identification experts, and the rules for courts to review the authenticity of electronic evidence. Electronic evidence provides a new paradigm for traditional evidence review standards and procedures. Breakthroughs and developments should be sought around the volume of evidence, technical expertise and authenticity review in the future.

自由研讨

Discussion

北京大学法学院助理教授曹志勋、上海一中院商事审判庭法官助理肖洋、戴欣媛、陆俊伟、梁春霞参加了自由探讨。

Assistant professor Cao Zhixun of the School of Law, Peking University, judge assistant Xiao Yang, Dai Xinyuan, Lu Junwei, and Liang Chunxia of the Commercial Division of SFIPC participated in the free discussion.

No.3

闭幕式

Closing Ceremony

上海一中院汤黎明副院长主持闭幕式。她表示本次论坛有助于增进彼此的相互理解，促进大数据时代跨境法治研究与实践的相互借鉴和有效协作，可以引发对专题内容的持续性思考，为今后司法实务和理论研究提供更广阔的视野和更多元的路径。

Vice President Tang Liming of SFIPC spansided over the closing ceremony. She exspanssed that the forum enhanced mutual understanding, promoted mutual reference and effective collaboration in cross-border rule of law research and practice in the era of big data, which can trigger continuous thinking on the topic content, and provide a broader vision and multiple paths for future judicial practice and theoretical research.

黄祥青副院长进行了总结发言，认为本次论坛气氛热烈、精彩纷呈，达到了促进法律文化交融互鉴、推动司法能力共同提升的目的。论坛主题鲜明，聚焦了大数据背景下的国际司法前沿问题，对以法治引导数据合理利用提出前瞻性观点和有效建议。研讨内容展现了理论与实务的紧密结合，具有思想深度和实践指导性，主旨发言与现场交流相辅相成、相得益彰，为妥善解决法律疑难问题提供国际视野和经验借鉴。

Vice President Huang Xiangqing of Shanghai High People's Court made a concluding speech. He believed that the forum had a lively and exciting atmosphere and had achieved the purpose of promoting the interchange and mutual apspanciation of legal culture and the common improvement of judicial capacity. The forum had a distinctive theme, focusing on the frontier issues of international justice in the context of big data, and putting forward views and effective suggestions on guiding the rational use of data by the rule of law. The discussion content showed a close combination of theory and practice, with depth of thought and practical guidance, and the thematic speeches and exchanges complemented each other, providing an international perspective and experience for the proper resolution of difficult legal issues.

来源｜上海市第一中级人民法院

文字：杨燕

英文翻译：张立扬、肖洋

图片：龚史伟

责任编辑 | 邱悦

声明｜转载请注明来自“浦江天平”公众号