在股票发行全面推行注册制背景下，信息披露制度在证券市场中的作用更为重要。《证券法》与《刑法修正案（十一）》针对信息披露违规行为的联动修订，不仅完善了犯罪体系，更严密了法律责任。本文以刑法、证券法等法律法规为研究基础，结合相关行政处罚决定书和司法案例，探索违规披露、不披露重要信息行为的刑法规制，以更好地解决司法实务中的问题。本文主要包括以下内容：

第一，本罪的立法修改与修法背景。违规披露、不披露重要信息罪司法适用率较低使得本罪在理论界与实务界一直存在相应争议。为了回应社会重大关切，提升办案质量和效果，打击违法犯罪行为，本罪联动《证券法》的修订，结合注册制改革的特点，进一步完善了法律条文的规定，并加大了刑事处罚力度。

第二，信息披露违规行为的类型化分析及司法适用困境。由于缺少足量的司法案例，本文选择以证监会行政处罚决定书为样本，总结出信息披露违规行为的常见类型，为后文的客观行为认定提供相应依据。在研读现有的司法案件后，本罪的司法适用存在以下问题：信息披露刑事责任主体认定不清晰，尤其是控股股东和实际控制人的界定；客观行为方式认定不明确；信息披露的“重要信息”缺乏司法适用标准。

第三，违规披露、不披露重要信息罪的法益侵害。本罪所侵害的法益在理论界存在相应的争议，且多数都将秩序法益作为刑法保护的对象。本文认为，应承认秩序法益存在的合理之处，并将秩序法益背后包含法益予以实体化处理。在全面推行注册制背景下，本罪侵害的法益为信息披露制度，具体为保护证券市场参与主体的合法权益，维护证券市场的良好秩序，“股东或社会公众的合法利益”并非刑法所保护的法益。

第四，违规披露、不披露重要信息罪的刑事责任主体。直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员应根据犯罪的地位和作用确定，尤其是财务人员的认定；对控股股东、实际控制人采用实质化的认定方式，结合对信息披露制度的影响综合确定。

第五，违规披露、不披露重要信息罪的客观行为方式。本罪的客观行为方式主要分为作为犯罪与不作为犯罪，具体可以分为虚假记载、误导性陈述和重大遗漏；对于条款新增的控股股东、实际控制人行为方式，应当以行政领域的法律法规和案例为参考，结合行为人是否在公司内有任职判断行为人是否构成“组织、指使”的情形。

第六，“重要信息”的司法适用标准。本文通过阅读国外的经典判例和法律法规，梳理了信息披露“重大性”标准的发展历程，并以我国的法律法规为依据，明确了本罪 “重要信息”的概念、范围与认定规则。在司法认定过程中，进一步明确了“投资者决策标准”，优化“证券价格变动标准”，确立“先价格变动、后投资者决策”的认定顺序。

Under the background of the full implementation of the registration system for stock issuance, the role of the information disclosure system in the securities market is more important. The joint revision of the Securities Law and the Criminal Law Amendment (11) to the Securities Law not only improves the criminal system, but also tightens legal liability. Based on the research of laws and regulations such as criminal law and securities law, this paper explores the criminal legal system for illegal disclosure and not disclosing important information based on relevant administrative penalty decisions and judicial cases, so as to better solve problems in judicial practice. This article mainly includes the following:

First, the legislative revision and the background of the amendment of this crime. The low judicial application rate of the crime of illegal disclosure and not disclosing important information has led to corresponding controversies in theoretical and practical circles. In order to respond to major social concerns, improve the quality and effectiveness of case handling, and crack down on illegal and criminal activities, this crime is linked to the revision of the Securities Law, combined with the characteristics of the registration system reform, further improves the provisions of the law, and increases the intensity of criminal punishment.

Second, the typological analysis of information disclosure violations and the dilemma of judicial application. Due to the lack of sufficient judicial cases, this paper selects the CSRC's administrative penalty decision as a sample to summarize the common types of information disclosure violations, so as to provide corresponding basis for the determination of objective behavior later. There are the following problems in the judicial application of this crime: the identification of the subject of criminal liability for information disclosure is not clear, especially the definition of the controlling shareholder and the actual controller; Unclear determination of objective behavior; "Important information" lacks standards of judicial application.

Third, the infringement of legal interests of the crime of illegal disclosure and not disclosing important information.The legal interests infringed by this crime are correspondingly controversial in theoretical circles, and most of them regard the legal interests of order as the object of criminal law protection. This article argues that the reasonableness of the existence of the legal interests of order should be recognized, and the legal interests behind the legal interests of order should be materialized. In the context of the comprehensive implementation of the registration system, the legal interests infringed by this crime are the information disclosure system, specifically to protect the legitimate rights and interests of securities market participants and maintain the good order of the securities market, and "the legitimate interests of shareholders or the public" is not a legal interest protected by the criminal law.

Fourth, the subject of criminal responsibility for the crime of illegal disclosure and not disclosing important information. The directly responsible supervisor and other persons directly responsible shall be determined on the basis of the status and role of the offence, in particular the identification of financial personnel; Adopt a substantive identification method for controlling shareholders and actual controllers, and comprehensively determine them based on the impact on the information disclosure system.

Fifth, the objective mode of conduct of the crime of illegal disclosure and not disclosing important information. The objective mode of conduct of this crime is mainly divided into crimes and crimes of omission, which can be specifically divided into false records, misleading statements and material omissions; For the behavior of controlling shareholders and actual controllers newly added in the article, the laws, regulations and cases in the administrative field shall be used as a reference, and whether the actor has held an office in the company to determine whether the actor constitutes an "organization or direction".

Sixth, the standard of judicial application of "important information". By reading classic foreign jurisprudence and laws and regulations, this article sorts out the development process of the "materiality" standard of information disclosure, and clarifies the concept, scope and rules for determining "important information" for this crime based on China's laws and regulations. In the process of judicial determination, the "investor decision-making criteria" were further clarified, the "securities price change criteria" were optimized, and the identification order of "price change first, then investor decision-making" was established.