中文

检测到您当前使用浏览器版本过于老旧,会导致无法正常浏览网站;请您使用电脑里的其他浏览器如:360、QQ、搜狗浏览器的极速模式浏览,或者使用谷歌、火狐等浏览器。

下载Firefox

Big Data Justice

/根目录 /Home /View Points /Big Data Justice

Stringent Regulation and Risk Mitigation: Addressing Profit-Driven Motives in Cross-Jurisdictional Civil Enforcement

time:2025-01-22

Author Information

Zhang Xinbao,Professor at Renmin University of China Law School

Abstract

On December 5, 2024, the Supreme People's Procuratorate formulated and issued the Opinions on Comprehensively Deepening Procuratorial Reforms and Further Strengthening Procuratorial Work in the New Era, emphasizing the need to supervise and rectify illegal practices such as the investigation, seizure, and freezing of properties, as well as cross-jurisdictional profit-driven enforcement and judicial misconduct. It also called for preventing and correcting the use of criminal means to intervene in economic disputes.Profit-driven enforcement and other chaotic practices in cross-jurisdictional law enforcement involving civilians have severely infringed upon the legitimate rights and interests of private enterprises and entrepreneurs, undermined the business environment, and damaged government credibility. These issues have attracted high-level attention from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and widespread public concern.Addressing these chaotic practices requires translating central policies into specific legal norms to restrain law enforcement agencies through the rule of law. Regarding jurisdictional issues, the effectiveness of artificially established jurisdiction by public security organs should be denied. Public security organs with weak jurisdictional connections must obtain approval from their superior organs before conducting cross-jurisdictional enforcement involving civilians. In cases of jurisdictional disputes, the involved organs should negotiate or allow their common superior organ to designate jurisdiction conducive to case handling.Regarding the handling of involved properties, public security organs should avoid illegal sealing, seizure, freezing, or transfer of assets. The use of compulsory measures against private enterprises and entrepreneurs should be restricted to maintain normal business operations. Confiscated properties should be turned over to the treasury of the common superior authority of the enforcement and the enforced parties or to the central treasury. Operational expenses for case handling must not be covered by confiscated properties. The lawful properties of victims should be fairly returned, and their rights and interests must be equally protected.