为了有效地打击金融从业人员利用职务便利实施趋同交易的“老鼠仓”的犯罪，保护证券、期货市场一般投资者的合法权益，《刑法修正案（七）》在原有的刑法第一百八十条关于“内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪”的规定基础上增设一款，设立“利用未公开信息交易罪”，旨在进一步加强对这类犯罪行为的法律制裁。然而，利用未公开信息交易罪自设立以来，在法律适用实践中逐渐暴露出了一些认定上的挑战和难题。本文以61份裁判文书为研究对象，总结归纳出利用未公开信息交易罪在司法适用过程中出现的四个问题，包括私募基金从业人员能否构成犯罪主体、无身份者构成本罪共犯的认定规则不一致、“利用”要件难以证明、量刑幅度中的犯罪数额标准设置不合理的问题。本文对以上司法适用问题进行逐一分析，通过对裁判文书的分析、理论学说的研究，对于上述问题进行分析并提出对策。

本文的正文分为四个章节，主要内容如下：

第一章对收集到的利用未公开信息交易案件的司法裁判文书进行样态分析，首先对案件的收集情况进行说明，从年份和案件数量等因素入手分析案发趋势，从犯罪主体所述特殊主体的类别、有无身份者参与的案件数量的占比、两个量刑幅度的案件数量占比以及交易金额和违法所得金额数额分布等维度对所收集的数据进行分析，直观地展示出本罪在司法适用过程中出现的问题。

第二章探讨利用未公开信息交易罪的主体认定问题，主要解决私募基金从业者能否构成本罪的主体问题、无身份者构成本罪共犯的认定问题。首先从明确金融机构、金融机构的从业人员的范围入手，论证私募基金机构属于金融机构，然后结合私募基金从业者因利用未公开信息交易犯罪被处罚的案例，证明私募基金从业者可以构成本罪主体的合理性。其次，统计无身份者与有身份者共同犯本罪的案例，结合本罪的实行行为分析，总结出无身份者构成本罪共犯的认定规则。

第三章旨在深入探究利用未公开信息交易罪在客观方面司法认定中所面临的难题，并提出相应的解决方案。本章主要聚焦于界定未公开信息的范围、证明信息“利用”的构成要件，以及验证有身份者通过“明示或暗示”方式引导他人参与相关交易的要件。首先是根据相关法条对未公开信息的边界进行划定，从而清晰区分未公开信息与内幕信息之间的界限；其次对“利用”构成要件的证明规则进行探析，着重根据既有案例分析如何在缺乏客观证据的情况下完成对行为人“利用”了未公开信息构成要件的证明；再者对理论界颇有争议的“明示”与“暗示”之间的区别，以案例为依据对二者的区别和证明规则进行明晰。

第四章对利用未公开信息交易罪定罪量刑上的司法认定难题进行分析，主要解决本罪的法定刑援引规则适用、本罪量刑的金额门槛合理性问题。一是明确利用未公开信息交易罪的法定刑援引规则；二是明确利用未公开信息交易犯罪的犯罪金额和违法所得的计算方式，包括单向趋同交易金额是否应当计入犯罪金额、针对同一证券的买入和卖出交易金额能否累计计算，以及操控私募基金账户实施趋同交易的金额能否计入本罪的犯罪金额问题；三是对案例的犯罪金额和违法所得数额进行数据分析，探究本罪现行影响量刑的金额标准是否合理。

In order to effectively crack down on the crime of "rat warehouse" in which financial practitioners use their positions to facilitate converging trading, and protect the legitimate rights and interests of general investors in securities and futures markets, Amendment (VII) of the Criminal Law adds a new paragraph on the basis of the original provisions of Article 180 of the Criminal Law on "crimes of insider trading and disclosing insider information" to establish "crimes of trading with undisclosed information". The aim is to further strengthen legal sanctions against such crimes. However, since its establishment, the crime of trading with undisclosed information has gradually exposed some challenges and problems in the application of law. Based on 61 judgment documents, this paper summarizes four problems in the judicial application of the crime of trading with undisclosed information, including whether the private equity practitioners can constitute the subject of the crime, the identification rules of the identity of the accomplice of the crime are inconsistent, the "use" elements are difficult to prove, and the standard setting of the crime amount in the sentencing range is unreasonable. This paper analyzes the above problems of judicial application one by one, and analyzes the above problems and puts forward countermeasures through the analysis of judgment documents and theoretical research.

The text of this paper is divided into four chapters, the main contents are as follows:

The first chapter analyzes the collected judicial judgment documents of trading cases with undisclosed information, firstly explains the collection of cases, and analyzes the trend of cases from the factors such as the year and the number of cases.

The second chapter discusses the subject identification of the crime of trading with undisclosed information, mainly solving the problem of whether the private equity practitioners can constitute the subject of the crime and the identification of the accomplices of the crime without identity. First of all, it starts with clarifying the meaning of financial institutions as well as their practitioners as defined by the law, demonstrating that private fund institutions belong to financial institutions, and then, combining with the cases of private fund practitioners being punished for trading crimes using undisclosed information, it proves that private fund practitioners can constitute the rationality of the subject of this crime. Secondly, the statistics of the cases of the joint crime of the stateless person and the stateless person, combined with the analysis of the practice behavior of the crime, summed up the identification rules of the stateless person constituting the accomplice of the crime.

The third chapter explores the solution to the problem of judicial identification of the objective aspects of the crime of trading with undisclosed information, mainly solving the problem underneath：firstly answering the question of what exactly is undisclosed information, secondly the proof of the elements of the "use" of information, thrdly the proof of the identity of the "express and implied" others engaged in the relevant transaction elements. Firstly, according to the relevant laws and regulations, define the scope of undisclosed information, and settle the boundary between inside information and undisclosed information. Secondly, the author analyzes the proof rules of the constituent elements of "use", and focuses on how to prove the constituent elements of "use" of undisclosed information by the perpetrator in the absence of objective evidence according to the existing cases. Furthermore, the difference between "express" and "implied", which is quite controversial in the theoretical circle, is clarified based on the case.

Chapter four analyzes the problems of judicial determination in the conviction and sentencing of the crime of trading with undisclosed information, mainly solving the problems of the application of the rules of invoking the statutory penalty of this crime and the rationality of the monetary threshold of this crime. The first is to clarify the rules of invoking statutory punishment for the crime of trading with undisclosed information; The second is to clarify the calculation method of the criminal amount and illegal income of trading crimes using undisclosed information, including whether the amount of one-way convergence transaction should be included in the criminal amount, whether the amount of buying and selling transactions for the same securities can be calculated cumulating, and whether the amount of controlling private fund accounts to implement convergence transactions can be included in the criminal amount of this crime; The third is to analyze the amount of crime and the amount of illegal income in the case, and explore whether the current amount standard of this crime affecting sentencing is reasonable.