2009 "Criminal Law Amendment (7)" added for sale、The crime of illegally providing citizens’ personal bet365 voucher and illegally obtaining citizens’ personal bet365 voucher，Take the lead in establishing the legislative spirit of comprehensive protection of personal bet365 voucher，But it is slightly insufficient in terms of regulatory objects and scope。Then the "Criminal Law Amendment (9)" will be "sold、The crime of illegally providing citizens’ personal bet365 voucher” and “the crime of illegally obtaining citizens’ personal bet365 voucher” are integrated into the “crime of infringing on citizens’ personal bet365 voucher”，Expanded the scope of criminal subjects and infringement of personal bet365 voucher。With the implementation of the "Personal bet365 voucher Protection Law"，The filing of incidental public interest litigation in cases of infringement of citizens’ personal bet365 voucher has become normal。

【Case Introduction】2020 to 2021，Qin、Li used his status as a customer service representative of an airline，By stealing passenger manifest bet365 voucher，Illegally obtained more than 1,900 pieces of bet365 voucher on the whereabouts of other people’s flights，Xiang Zhang、For sale by Xu et al.，Profit of more than 17,000 yuan。Among them，Zhang illegally purchased 426 pieces of other people’s whereabouts bet365 voucher，78 other bet365 voucher，Xu purchased 192 pieces of bet365 voucher on the whereabouts of other people’s flights，8 pieces of personal bet365 voucher of other citizens。Finally，All four people were sentenced to varying penalties for their actions constituting the crime of infringing on citizens’ bet365 voucher [(2021) Beijing 0105 Xingchu No. 2759]。At the same time，Procuratorate against Qin、Li filed an incidental civil public interest litigation。

[Case Analysis] This case is a typical case of public interest litigation attached to the public prosecution of infringement of citizens’ personal bet365 voucher in accordance with the law。Citizens’ personal bet365 voucher is not only related to citizens’ personal privacy rights，Also related to national data security。When a certain behavior infringes upon the personal bet365 voucher of unspecified citizens，The harmfulness of this behavior to social and public interests has become increasingly prominent。As far as this case is concerned，There are three issues still worthy of further discussion: First，Defining the scope of public interest litigation incidental to criminal proceedings；Second，Defining the scope of qualified defendants in public interest litigation in similar cases；Third，Differences and connection issues between the concept of personal bet365 voucher in the "Criminal Law" and other departmental laws。

About the first question，There are two main views in the academic community。Expansion theory，The current practice is to determine the scope of a case only based on the Civil Procedure Law and relevant judicial interpretations，Not in line with the need to relieve public interests，The possibility of using this type of litigation in more areas should be further explored。Limited theory holds that，Incidental public interest litigation should be conducted without affecting criminal proceedings，Specific details include: filing of lawsuit，Should be strictly based on the Civil Procedure Law；In scope of application，Only when “national or social public interests” are left unprotected，In order to file a public interest litigation，That is, the object should be unspecific。From the perspective of judicial practice，The restriction theory is more reasonable: incidental civil public interest litigation is certainly formal in nature，However, attention should be paid to the substantial independence of incidental civil public interest litigation，That is, the lawsuit is still a civil lawsuit，It’s just because the victims are scattered and other reasons，Filed by the procuratorate and others on behalf of others，This means that the filing of public interest litigation should be based on departmental laws such as the Civil Procedure Law。Generally speaking，The “law of last resort” nature of the Criminal Law determines the conditions for its activation、The scope of application is stricter than other departmental laws，It is inappropriate to rashly exceed the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law and file a public interest lawsuit。To this，Some scholars pointed out，“Interests not protected in civil matters，If the conduct directed against this interest is formally characterized as a crime，The public’s freedom of movement will be unduly restricted”。Therefore，Even if there are indeed interests, there is a lack of reasonable protection，It is more appropriate to seek solutions through establishing and improving prepositional laws。

About the second question，In accordance with the provisions of the "Personal bet365 voucher Protection Act"，A qualified public interest litigation defendant is "processing of personal bet365 voucher、Personal bet365 voucher processor that infringes upon the rights and interests of many individuals”。This provision has limited subject matter，It also stipulates that the rights and interests of multiple individuals must be infringed。Combined with the relevant provisions of the "Criminal Law"，The eligible subject should be a personal bet365 voucher processor that handles personal bet365 voucher in violation of regulations and infringes on the rights of multiple people。In this case，Qin who betrayed citizen bet365 voucher、Li Mouyin only has flight bet365 voucher provided by the buyer，So after obtaining the bet365 voucher of all the passengers on the flight, sell them together，In addition to the "designated person", there is also the whereabouts bet365 voucher of other people in the same shift、Personal bet365 voucher, etc.，There is no doubt that the personal bet365 voucher of an unspecified person has been infringed，Also because of the particularity of his work，Both of them are personal bet365 voucher processors，Can be a qualified defendant in public interest litigation。The buyer Zhang、Xu’s purpose is to obtain the whereabouts bet365 voucher of a specific person，When obtaining bet365 voucher about others other than the "designated person"，Although the risk of other people’s personal bet365 voucher being used has already arisen，Dan Zhang、Xu did not sell the above bet365 voucher、Use and other behaviors，It should be considered that the infringement is still the personal bet365 voucher of a specific subject。At the same time，Zhang、Xu and others are not personal bet365 voucher processors，Not a qualified defendant in public interest litigation。

About the third question，What should be analyzed is the objective fact that there are differences in the definition and classification of citizens’ personal bet365 voucher in different departmental laws。In pre-existing laws such as the Civil Code, Personal bet365 voucher Protection Law, and Cybersecurity Law，The core characteristic of personal bet365 voucher is “identibility”，In the "Criminal Law" and related judicial interpretations，Except for the feature of “recognizability”，Also includes requirements such as “involving citizens’ personal privacy” or “reflecting the activities of specific natural persons”。This difference stems from the different normative purposes of different departmental laws，The relevant provisions of the "Criminal Law" directly affect the conviction and sentencing of violations of citizens' personal bet365 voucher，So the requirements are more stringent、More precise description。

The different characterizations of different personal bet365 voucher in the "Criminal Law" directly determine the identification of "serious circumstances" and "particularly serious circumstances" in Article 253 of the "Criminal Law"，The characterization of different personal bet365 voucher in other departmental laws affects the judgment of “violation of relevant national regulations”。In "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringement of Citizens' Personal bet365 voucher"，Adopt a qualitative plus quantitative description mode，Divide bet365 voucher into three categories，According to different types of personal bet365 voucher，Separately set standards: illegal acquisition、For Sale、Provide whereabouts、Communication content、Credit bet365 voucher、More than 50 pieces of property bet365 voucher；Accommodation bet365 voucher、Communication records、Healthy physiological bet365 voucher、More than 500 pieces of personal bet365 voucher of citizens such as transaction bet365 voucher and other items that may affect personal and property safety；More than 5,000 pieces of other citizens’ personal bet365 voucher other than the above bet365 voucher，This constitutes "serious circumstances" as stipulated in Article 253-1 of the "Criminal Law"。

Take the definition of “sensitive personal bet365 voucher” as an example，Sensitive bet365 voucher in the "Personal bet365 voucher Protection Act"，Includes biometrics、Religious beliefs、Specific identity、Medical Health、Financial Account、Travel and other bet365 voucher as well as personal bet365 voucher of minors under 14 years old，The corresponding "sensitive personal bet365 voucher" in the "Criminal Law" only covers whereabouts bet365 voucher、Communication content、Credit bet365 voucher、Property bet365 voucher。There is a cross-relationship between the classification of personal bet365 voucher with different levels of sensitivity in the "Criminal Law" and the definition of "sensitive bet365 voucher" in other departmental laws，But not completely coincident，This may cause confusion in application。Take specific identity bet365 voucher as an example，In the "Personal bet365 voucher Protection Act"，Specific identity bet365 voucher is sensitive bet365 voucher，So obtained illegally、For Sale、provided this bet365 voucher，Belongs to “violation of relevant national regulations”，However, specific identity bet365 voucher is not listed in the "Criminal Law"，Therefore, the criterion that more than 50 items is considered serious cannot be applied，Which criterion applies to 500 items or more than 5,000 items，Judiciary agencies still need to make their own decisions in practical activities。Similar to this there is bet365 voucher on religious beliefs、bet365 voucher of minors under 14 years old, etc.，None of them are clearly stipulated in the Criminal Law，Such a mismatch may affect the efficient development of judicial activities。Therefore，In the process of connecting the Criminal Law and the prepositional law，It is necessary to emphasize the status of the "Criminal Law" as the "final law"，Correctly classify bet365 voucher types，We must also pay attention to avoid confusion in legal application due to inconsistency with the classification in the prepositional law。

(Author’s unit: School of Criminal Justice, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law)