The Supreme People's Court on April 20 rejected the death sentence for millionaire Wu Ying, who was once considered one of the richest women in China.

While upholding the conviction and the legitimacy of previous judicial proceedings, the top court declined to approve the sentence and referred the case back to the high court of Zhejiang province.

Wu was sentenced to death in 2009 by the local court in Jinhua, Zhejiang province, for illegally raising 770 million yuan ($122 million), more than half of which she lost in failed investments.

Wu's case attracted widespread attention as it came amid complaints about the inadequacy of the nation's monopolistic financial system and difficulties facing private businesses in fundraising.

But as the court said in its judgment, Wu should not be considered a "castaway hero" as she obtained an extremely large sum of money through fraudulent fundraising, causing severe losses to her victims, and also bribed government employees.

Her actions undermined national financial order and created extremely harmful effects. She should be punished in line with the law.

Yet taking into account that Wu's case is the product of China's current financial monopoly system and fully considering all the factors, the SPC stayed the death penalty.

In fact, the reform of China's financial system is in progress. Wenzhou, where Wu operated, is piloting comprehensive reforms that if successful will pave the way for nationwide reform of the financial system.

Without doubt, the monopolistic financial system must be reformed. But that does not mean that Wu's activities make her an anti-establishment hero.

Staying the execution of Wu, whose case is full of controversy, is a far-sighted judicial selection. But even though the SPC saved her life by overriding the death sentence, she is still guilty of crimes.

It is worth mentioning that in recent years there have been a number of similar private fundraising cases in China; Wu's simply grabbed the headlines. The ruling of the SPC in Wu's case can serve as a reference for judicial organs at all levels in trying such kind of cases.