Abuse of Algorithmic Rights: The Boundary of Criminal Liability for AI Manipulation in the Securities Market

Yuhan Zhang

doi:10.62051/ijsspa.v10n4.04

Authors

Yuhan Zhang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62051/ijsspa.v10n4.04

Keywords:

Algorithm Rights, Securities Market, AI Manipulation, Criminal Responsibility, Boundary

Abstract

With the deepening application of AI in securities markets, the issue of abuse of power in algorithmic trading has become prominent, posing a threat to market fairness and investor rights. This paper focuses on the challenges in identifying criminal liability for algorithmic market manipulation and explores the scope of liability for AI decision-making entities under the current legal framework. Existing research primarily revolves around algorithmic transparency, determination of subjective intent, and assessment of market impact, but a consensus has not yet been formed regarding liability attribution for autonomous algorithmic decision-making. The "black box" nature of intelligent algorithms challenges the determination of traditional criminal law subjective elements, while novel manipulation methods expose regulatory lags. Significant differences in management across jurisdictions reflect conflicts between technological ethics and legal values. Current research lacks targeted liability theories, suffers from insufficient interdisciplinary integration, and has a scarcity of empirical samples. The future requires the construction of a criminal liability framework adapted to the characteristics of algorithms, improving diversified regulatory models, providing legal theoretical support for balancing technological innovation and market order, and contributing to the improvement of China's securities market regulatory system.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Lü, T. (2025). Potential risks and prevention paths of algorithmic homogenization in securities trading. Journal of Dalian University of Technology (Social Sciences), 44(2), 120-128.

[2] Jing, Z. (2023). Research on algorithmic regulation of program trading market manipulation behaviors. Securities Law Studies, 10(2), 45-60.

[3] Wang, Y. (2022). Criminal law regulation of technical manipulation behaviors in the securities and futures market. New Economy (Youth Perspective), (11), 136-141.

[4] Feng, X. (2022). Research on regulatory issues of market manipulation behaviors in the intelligent era. Financial Regulation Research, 8(4), 78-92.

[5] Huang, Y. (2021). On criminal liability subjects in the era of artificial intelligence: misunderstandings, positions, and types. Chinese Journal of Law, 43(3), 112-125.

[6] Li, Z., & Xia, Z. (2021). Evaluation of the gains and losses of the revision of market manipulation clauses in the new Securities Law. Securities Market Herald, 30(6), 55-68

[7] Liu, X. (2020). The evolution of criminal liability in the era of artificial intelligence: yesterday, today, tomorrow. China Legal Science, 37(5), 88-102.

[8] Wang, S., & Ma, R. (2022). Construction of an intelligent investment advisor algorithm black box regulatory system under the background of financial data security. Financial Law Review, 15(1), 34-50.

[9] de Koker, L., & Goldbarsht, D. (2022). Financial technologies and financial crime: key developments and areas for future research. In Financial technology and the law: Combating financial crime (pp. 303-320). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

[10] Pantano Jr, P. J., Schachter, M. S., Molesworth, R. M., Gray, E. P., Aguirre, S. A., & Kumar, N. E. (2017). Spoofing Conviction Upheld: Vagueness Challenge Rejected

[11] U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York. (2025). Founder of Purported Artificial Intelligence-Powered Hedge Fund Sentenced to 30 Months. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/founder-purported-artificial-intelligence-powered-hedge-fund-sentenced-30-months

[12] Xiao, K. (2017). Judicial determination of spoofing-type high-frequency trading from the Coscia case. Procuratorial View, (4), 28-29.

[13] Liu, X., & Ding, H. (2024). Interpretation of the key points of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Zhong Lun Insights. https://www.ctils.com/articles/13737?use_xbridge3=true&loader_name=forest&need_sec_link=1&sec_link_scene=im&theme=light.

[14] Huang, L. (2025). Restricting retailers from price cuts and discounts, three luxury brands fined 157 million euros by the EU. Toutiao. http://m.toutiao.com/group/7562061092206264873/?upstream_biz=doubao&use_xbridge3=true&loader_name=forest&need_sec_link=1&sec_link_scene=im&theme=light

[15] Tian, X., & Li, S. (2025). Regulatory challenges and response thoughts of artificial intelligence technology for the capital market. China Capital Market Research Network. https://www.ccms.org.cn/insights/c/c_20251031_10796649.shtml?use_xbridge3=true&loader_name=forest&need_sec_link=1&sec_link_scene=im&theme=light

[16] Cao, S. (2018). Enlightenment of the EU financial regulatory system on China's front-line transaction supervision (partial content). Securities Times..

[17] Act, E. A. I. (2024). The eu artificial intelligence act. European Union.

[18] Liu, X., & Yu, Y. (2024). Criminal law improvement of securities and futures crimes involving generative artificial intelligence. Journal of Zhejiang Gongshang University, 18(3), 47-57.

[19] Sun, K., & Bao, H. (2023). Algorithmic collusion in the era of artificial intelligence, how to deal with it? China Trial, 2023(18).

[20] Jiao, Z., & Li, M. (2019). Spoofing transactions: typed interpretation and futures market manipulation regulation. Journal of Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 230(2), 98-103.

[21] Liu, Q., & Bian, H. (2024). Generation, dissemination, and regulation of AIGC false information in China's financial market. New Finance, 2024(8), 32-38.