中國證券市場的衍生是在政府為推進國有企業改革的而形成，在監管上更多強調於行政權力的管制，憑藉著政府行為來維持證券市場秩序的運作，是以政府主導模式很大程度涵涉著對於市場投資當事人自由意志的干預，這便與上市公司訊息公開的制度之間存在極大的扭曲與衝突，也助長虛假陳述的誘因與動機。加諸中國證券法制的建構一直滯後於證券市場的發展，而證券法上又以行政處罰管制為主軸，歷年來在證券侵權行為的行政處罰案件中，以虛假陳述佔最大宗，且長期忽視於對證券民事賠償責任的關注。最高人民法院於2003年的司法解釋中為受理虛假陳述所引發民事賠償案件提供救濟途徑，惟須經行政處罰或刑事判決確定為前置程序的確定，極大程度阻卻了當事人救濟的管道與時效，往往使得侵權補償難以具體滿足。而現行中國民事訴訟制度中，並無集團訴訟的制度，也讓因虛假陳述的民事訴訟請求難於落實到救濟的實質。

The development of the Chinese stock market comes from the government's reforming State-owned companies. The regulation emphasizes more on the administrative power. Governmental behaviors keep the operation of the stock market and therefore the governmentled model intervenes the free wills of the investors. This model is a huge distortion and conflicts with the modern system where listed companies should provide public information. It fosters the incentives and motivations of false statements. In addition, the legal system has been fallen behind the development of the Chinese stock market. The main shaft of Securities Law is administrative penalty and regulation. Over the years, the biggest group in the administrative penalty cases from securities torts is false statement, but the civil liability for compensation had been long ignored. The Supreme People's Court provided some remedies in its 2003 judicial interpretation if, and only if, the administrative penalty or the criminal judgment of the said case was final. It is a high threshold for a party to get remedies on time and oftentimes causes the unsatisfaction of the tort compensation. The lacking of class action in current Chinese civil litigation also makes it difficult to have a real compensation for the false statement cases.