JC Master Legal News Issue 1195

  Key Takeaways for This Issue

The National Administration of Financial Regulation has issued new regulations on the procedures for implementing administrative licensing.

On January 21, the National Administration of Financial Regulation issued the “Regulations on the Procedures for Implementing Administrative Licenses of the National Administration of Financial Regulation,” which will take effect on March 1, 2026. At the same time, the “Regulations on the Procedures for Implementing Administrative Licenses of the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission” (Order No. 7 of 2020 of the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission) is hereby repealed.

Four departments have optimized and extended the loan interest subsidy policy for service-sector entities.

On January 19, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Commerce, the People’s Bank of China, and the National Administration of Financial Regulation jointly issued the “Notice on Optimizing and Implementing the Loan Interest Subsidy Policy for Service-Industry Operators.”

The Supreme People’s Court has released the key judicial statistics for courts nationwide in 2025.

On January 19, the Supreme People’s Court released key statistics on judicial adjudication for 2025.

The Supreme People’s Court has released a new batch of carefully selected Q&A on the topic of state compensation.

On January 22, the Supreme People’s Court published a selection of Q&A from the Legal Answers Website (Batch No. 36), focusing on state compensation.

Finance and Capital Markets

FINANCE & CAPITAL MARKETS
 

The China Securities Regulatory Commission is seeking public comments on the draft Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Derivatives Trading.

Recently, the China Securities Regulatory Commission issued the “Notice of the China Securities Regulatory Commission on Soliciting Public Comments on the ‘Administrative Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Derivatives Trading (Trial) (Draft for Comments)’,” with a deadline for comments set for February 16, 2026.

The Draft for Public Comments clearly defines its scope as applying to swaps, forwards, non‑standard options and their combinations, as well as related activities, organized by derivatives trading venues under the supervision of the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC). Derivatives traded over-the-counter among banks and between banks and insurance institutions are excluded from the purview of these measures. The document further specifies that the underlying assets of derivative contracts must meet criteria such as fair pricing, robust liquidity, and resistance to manipulation. It requires reporting to the CSRC for new contract varieties and structural adjustments, and calls for prudent development of contracts with excessively complex structures. With respect to collateralization, the rules mandate dynamic adjustments to margin forms and haircut rates, daily mark‑to‑market management, and obligations to report on the reuse of margin. On the trader side, uniform standards for professional traders are established, and a real‑name account system is implemented. Certain exemptions are provided for entities engaged in risk‑management activities such as hedging. Listed companies and other participants in derivatives trading must comply with internal decision‑making and information‑disclosure requirements, and are prohibited from entering into derivatives transactions whose underlying asset is their own stock. For derivatives market participants, the regulations set forth requirements regarding risk‑control metrics, governance structure, internal controls, risk and compliance management, pricing and valuation mechanisms, business segregation, and the reporting of cross‑border transaction data, while also enumerating prohibited conduct. In terms of infrastructure, the CSRC is tasked with establishing a derivatives trade repository, standardizing mechanisms for trade reporting, disclosure, and cross‑market data sharing, and requiring market infrastructure providers—including trading, clearing, and reporting‑repository entities—and operating institutions to retain relevant records for at least twenty years. Finally, the section on supervision, administration, and legal liability prescribes administrative penalties—such as orders to make corrections, warnings, and fines of up to RMB 200,000—for specific violations, and incorporates compliance records into the securities and futures integrity archives.

The People’s Bank of China and the Bank of Canada have renewed their local currency swap agreement.

Recently, the People’s Bank of China announced the renewal of its bilateral currency-swap agreement with the Bank of Canada.

The latest renewal of the China–Canada bilateral local-currency swap agreement sets the swap size at RMB 200 billion, with a term of five years, renewable upon mutual consent. The agreement provides financial institutions in both countries with access to local-currency financing during periods of liquidity stress, helping to mitigate the impact of exchange-rate volatility on trade settlements and ensuring the safe and stable flow of cross-border funds.

Four departments have jointly launched a special guarantee program worth 500 billion yuan to support private investment.

On January 19, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the People’s Bank of China, and the National Administration of Financial Regulation jointly issued the “Notice on Implementing the Special Guarantee Program for Private Investment.”

The Notice explicitly establishes a special guarantee program for private investment with a total quota of RMB 500 billion, to be implemented over two years. It will prioritize supporting eligible small, medium, and micro enterprises in securing medium- and long-term loans for private investment, covering such areas as the purchase of equipment and raw materials, technological and digital‑intelligent upgrades, factory renovation and expansion, retail‑store fit‑out, working capital, as well as the expansion of consumption‑related sectors including catering and accommodation, elderly care and childcare, cultural tourism, green and digital industries, and retail. Eligible SMEs must not be listed on any abnormal operations or discredited entity lists, nor have they experienced any major safety, quality, or environmental incidents, or engaged in tax evasion or underpayment, over the past three years. In terms of risk sharing, banks will assume at least 20% of loan‑related risks, while the government‑backed financing guarantee system will cover no more than 80%; the guarantee fund will apply tiered caps on its risk‑sharing ratios—30%, 35%, and 40%—based on loan tenor—and raise the maximum indemnity rate from 4% to 5%. Regarding guarantee fees, the central government will subsidize the guarantee fund by halving re‑guarantee fees and providing additional fee‑reduction subsidies, while direct insurers’ guarantee rates shall not exceed 1%. The maximum guaranteed credit line per borrower is capped at RMB 20 million. The central government will inject RMB 5 billion into the guarantee fund to foster equity and business linkages across the three‑tier “national–provincial–municipal” guarantee system, encourage the development of innovative products such as “supply chain + financing guarantee” and “scenario‑based finance + digital RMB,” and require fiscal authorities, financial regulators, and local governments to strengthen oversight, risk compensation mechanisms, and performance evaluation.

The National Administration of Financial Regulation has issued new regulations on the procedures for implementing administrative licensing.

On January 21, the National Administration of Financial Regulation issued the “Regulations on the Procedures for Implementing Administrative Licenses of the National Administration of Financial Regulation,” which will take effect on March 1, 2026. At the same time, the “Regulations on the Procedures for Implementing Administrative Licenses of the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission” (Order No. 7 of 2020 of the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission) is hereby repealed.

The Regulations apply to the procedures implemented by the National Administration of Financial Regulation and its branch institutions for the establishment, amendment, termination, business operations, appointment qualifications, and other statutorily mandated administrative licensing matters of financial institutions, establishing a unified framework governing application and acceptance, review, decision‑making and service of documents, withdrawal, and public disclosure. The document specifies in detail the methods for submitting application materials, the deadlines for making corrections, and the circumstances under which applications will not be accepted; it stipulates that, in principle, cross‑institutional licensing matters such as outbound investments shall be reviewed jointly by the authority responsible for licensing the investee; and it sets forth specific rules regarding the solicitation of opinions, expert reviews, hearings, the suspension and resumption of reviews, as well as situations where certain periods are excluded from the review time limits. Furthermore, it clarifies the legal liabilities associated with denials of licenses, revocations, and cancellations, as well as with applicants who conceal information, submit false materials, or obtain licenses through deception, bribery, or other improper means, and conoffices that electronic application materials, electronic licenses, and electronic service of documents have the same legal effect as their paper counterparts.
 

Business and Corporations

COMMERCIAL & CORPORATE
 

Four departments have optimized and extended the loan interest subsidy policy for service-sector entities.

On January 19, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Commerce, the People’s Bank of China, and the National Administration of Financial Regulation jointly issued the “Notice on Optimizing and Implementing the Loan Interest Subsidy Policy for Service-Industry Operators.”

The Notice extends the implementation period of the interest-subsidy policy for loans to service-sector entities until December 31, 2026. It specifies that, for new loans issued in 2026, the maximum subsidy per borrower will be increased to RMB 10 million, with a subsidy term not exceeding one year and an annual subsidy rate of 1 percentage point, shared between the central and provincial treasuries at a ratio of 9:1. In addition to the original eight consumer sectors—catering and accommodation, health, elderly care, childcare, domestic services, culture and entertainment, tourism, and sports—the scope now includes three new areas: digital services, green initiatives, and retail, while adjustments have been made to the industry classification within the culture and entertainment sector. The range of participating banks has been expanded to encompass 21 nationwide banks, as well as city commercial banks rated 3A or above by financial regulators, provincial and provincial-capital‑level rural commercial banks, and foreign‑funded banks. The document further details the “advance allocation plus settlement” mechanism for disbursing subsidy funds and sets out specific timelines for settlement and clearing during the 2025–2028 period. It mandates that provincial finance departments, relevant industry authorities, and implementing banks establish joint review mechanisms and promote online approval processes, while strengthening oversight of subsidy usage, monitoring of fund flows, information reporting, and coordinated spot checks. For violations such as improper subsidy claims or duplicate receipt of subsidies on the same loan, measures are prescribed, including recovery of funds and suspension of related business activities.

The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has revised and issued the product access requirements for road motor vehicle manufacturers.

On January 21, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology released the “Requirements for the Approval Review of Road Motor Vehicle Manufacturers” and the “Requirements for the Approval Review of Road Motor Vehicle Products.” Both documents will take effect on January 1, 2027.

The “Requirements for the Approval Review of Road Motor Vehicle Products” categorizes vehicles into passenger cars, trucks, buses, special-purpose vehicles, motorcycles, trailers, and more, systematically listing the national and industry standards that apply to each category in areas such as general safety, active safety, passive safety, environmental protection and energy efficiency, new energy, and intelligent connected technologies. It further specifies structural parameters, dimensional tolerances, payload utilization coefficients, gross‑weight matching, and specialized technical requirements for sub‑categories including enclosed trucks, special‑operation vehicles, tankers, box‑type, cage‑type, and dump‑type transport vehicles, container carriers, lift‑axle vehicles, recreational vehicles, breakdown recovery vehicles, small and micro passenger cars, and vans. The “Requirements for the Approval Review of Road Motor Vehicle Manufacturers” addresses, in two parts—general requirements and capability requirements—mandatory review criteria covering investment compliance, product safety, environmental protection, energy efficiency, and anti‑theft compliance; after‑sales service and power‑battery recycling; operational safety monitoring; network and data security management; software‑update management; as well as the configuration of design and development organizations, testing and validation capabilities, stamping, welding, painting, and final‑assembly production capacity; information‑technology and traceability systems; supply‑chain and critical‑component management; production‑consistency control; and certificate‑of‑conformity management. For manufacturers producing intelligent connected vehicles or vehicles equipped with combined driver assistance or autonomous driving functions, as well as new‑energy and fuel‑cell vehicles, additional specialized capability requirements are imposed, including those related to safety monitoring, functional safety, intended‑function safety, high‑voltage safety, and energy‑system testing.

The National Development and Reform Commission has announced new regulations for the accreditation of enterprise technology centers.

Recently, the National Development and Reform Commission issued the “Administrative Measures for the Recognition of Enterprise Technology Centers of the National Development and Reform Commission.”

The Measures shall enter into force on February 1, 2026, and shall repeal the relevant provisions of Order No. 34 of 2016. The designation process is subject to overall quota control and selects the best among the excellent, conducted in principle every two years. It is clarified that applications are to be recommended and submitted by the provincial development and reform authorities (or designated agencies) in coordination with their counterparts at the same level; application materials must include an application report, an evaluation form, and a statement detailing any serious violations of law or breaches of trust. Strict eligibility criteria are established: annual R&D expenditure of no less than RMB 30 million, at least 150 full-time R&D personnel, and R&D equipment with an original value of no less than RMB 30 million. Applicants must also demonstrate no penalties for smuggling, no major tax-related violations or breaches of trust, and other such disqualifying circumstances during the three years immediately preceding the application. Operational evaluations are likewise conducted in principle every two years, with results classified as Excellent, Good, Basically Qualified, or Unqualified; rules are set forth regarding the qualification of parent‑subsidiary technology centers and adjustments to sub‑centers. Provisions require notification of changes such as name alterations or reorganizations; falsified materials will be entered into the National Credit Information Sharing Platform. Qualification may be revoked—and a ban of two to three years imposed—on entities found to be unqualified, late in submitting reports, involved in major accidents, or engaged in smuggling or tax violations.

The National Development and Reform Commission has issued the Administrative Measures for Industrial Technology Engineering Centers.

Recently, the National Development and Reform Commission issued the “Notice on the Issuance of the Measures for the Administration of National Industrial Technology Engineering Centers.”

The Measures apply to the application, establishment, and evaluation of National Industrial Technology Engineering Centers. They stipulate that such centers shall be established by enterprises, research institutions, universities, and other entities with robust R&D capabilities and comprehensive strengths, adopting a “few but excellent” approach to strategic placement. Eligible host organizations must meet specific准入 requirements: possess independently owned intellectual property and engineering‑scale validation capabilities; maintain sound incentive mechanisms and an effective intellectual property management system; and not be subject to joint punitive measures. Centers are generally operated as legal entities; if organized in a non‑legal form, they must be physically institutionalized, with clearly defined boundaries from the host organization in terms of personnel, finances, assets, financial accounting, and asset ownership. The establishment process comprises recommendation by the competent authority, third‑party expert review, a preparatory phase (typically no more than three years, extendable once for up to one year), and final conofficeation; assets acquired during the preparatory period shall be managed, inspected, and accounted for in accordance with state‑owned asset management regulations. Operational assessments are conducted every three years, with dynamic adjustments; failure to participate in an assessment will be deemed a waiver of eligibility. Assessment results are graded into five levels, with disqualification imposed for unsatisfactory performance. Any falsification of submitted materials will be recorded in the credit system and shared across relevant authorities. Grounds for revocation include major quality or safety incidents, smuggling, or serious tax‑related violations and breaches of trust. These Measures shall enter into force on February 1, 2026, with a validity period of five years.

The National Development and Reform Commission has issued the Administrative Measures for National Emerging Industry Innovation Centers.

Recently, the National Development and Reform Commission issued the “Notice on the Issuance of the Measures for the Administration of National Emerging Industry Innovation Centers.”

The Measures apply to the application, establishment, and evaluation of industrial innovation centers, which are positioned as technology‑innovation platforms. In principle, they are led by industry‑leading enterprises, established as corporate legal entities with diversified equity ownership, independent operation, and self‑sustaining financial accountability. The Measures encourage the participation of local funds and social capital; universities and research institutes may contribute technology in kind, and may set up investment funds and talent‑incentive mechanisms. Establishment follows a “one‑at‑a‑time” approach: once a center is ready, it enters a preparatory phase—typically no more than three years, extendable by one year only once—and, upon passing evaluation, is officially designated by the National Development and Reform Commission as an “XX National Emerging Industry Innovation Center,” with notification sent to the General Administration of Customs and the State Taxation Administration for inclusion in the national‑level platform roster. In terms of operations and management, the supervising authority submits an annual report on operational performance by the end of February each year. The NDRC conducts triennial evaluations, with results classified as Excellent, Qualified, or Unqualified; centers receiving an Unqualified rating are granted a three‑year period for improvement, and if still non‑compliant after that, their designation may be revoked. Any material changes must be filed or submitted for approval depending on their impact. Instances of falsification, violations of laws or regulations may result in corrective measures, revocation of designation, recovery of subsidies, and inclusion in the credit information system. These Measures shall enter into force on February 1, 2026, with a validity period of five years, and shall simultaneously repeal the 2018 Work Guidelines.
 

Taxation

TAXATION

Ministry of Finance: Fully Implement Cross-Provincial Reimbursement for Electronic Fiscal Receipts

Recently, the Ministry of Finance issued the “Notice on Fully Implementing Interprovincial Reimbursement for Fiscal Electronic Receipts” (hereinafter referred to as the “Notice”).

The Notice decides, building on earlier pilot programs, to roll out cross‑provincial reimbursement for fiscal electronic receipts nationwide, with the corresponding application functionality scheduled to go live by the end of 2026. The Notice stipulates that all fiscal electronic receipts issued under the supervision of each province must adhere to a unified national format, coding rules, and data standards, and must be integrated in real time into the National Public Service Platform for Fiscal Electronic Receipts, thereby fully encompassing cross‑provincial reimbursement. Furthermore, the Notice clarifies that each province shall, in accordance with the nationally unified standards and requirements and leveraging the National Public Service Platform for Fiscal Electronic Receipts, develop cross‑provincial reimbursement capabilities for fiscal electronic receipts, enabling real‑time nationwide sharing of such receipts and providing the public with services including cross‑provincial receipt aggregation, status inquiry, authenticity verification, reimbursement locking, and reimbursement feedback.
 

Litigation and Arbitration

LITIGATION & ARBITRATION

The Supreme People’s Court has released the key judicial statistics for courts nationwide in 2025.

On January 19, the Supreme People’s Court released key statistics on judicial adjudication for 2025.

According to the report, in 2025, courts nationwide handled over 37 million cases of various types involving adjudication and enforcement, an increase of more than 10% year on year. First-instance filings rose sharply, while second-instance and retrial filings declined. Both the rate of first-instance reversals and remands and the rate of retrial reversals and remands for final judgments fell in tandem. The number of litigation cases pending for more than two years decreased by approximately 20% compared with the previous year. The Supreme People’s Court has refined its judicial quality‑management indicator system: the case‑to‑file ratio fell by 0.07 year on year, reducing derivative cases by over 2.2 million. Indicators such as the appeal rate, the rate of applications for retrial, and the case‑to‑petition ratio have continued to improve. Following pilot programs in eight regions including Zhejiang and Henan, the “One‑Network” case‑handling and office‑management platform has delivered overall trial quality and efficiency that surpasses the national average. Over one million criminal first-instance cases were accepted, and more than 20 million civil and commercial first-instance cases were filed, including over 470,000 intellectual property cases, over 160,000 environmental and resource cases, and approximately 40,000 foreign‑related civil and commercial cases—foreign‑related cases increasing by nearly 50% year on year. There were over 330,000 administrative first-instance cases and more than 210,000 non‑litigation enforcement review cases, with declines observed in both administrative second-instance and retrial filings. More than 10 million enforcement cases were initiated for the first time, with a total of RMB 2.16 trillion enforced; cumulative credit rehabilitation reached over 2.6 million instances, with the number of rehabilitated individuals exceeding the number newly added to the list of discredited entities for seven consecutive quarters.

The Supreme People’s Court has issued a new judicial interpretation on the adjudication of mineral resource dispute cases.

On January 21, the Supreme People’s Court promulgated the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Adjudication of Disputes over Mineral Resources,” which will take effect on February 1, 2026.

The Interpretation comprises twenty-three articles, elaborating adjudicative rules on key issues such as the transfer, assignment, mortgage, cross‑boundary exploration and mining, overburdened mineral resources, and ecological restoration of mining areas. First, it clarifies that contracts for the transfer of mining rights, as well as contracts involving capital contributions, mortgages, and cooperative exploration or mining, generally take effect upon lawful formation; it further specifies the conditions under which such contracts may be terminated and the corresponding liability for breach when registration has not been completed or when access to mining land cannot be obtained, and establishes the registry as the authoritative basis for the establishment, effectiveness, and attribution of mining rights and mortgage rights. Second, it renders negative assessments of contracts entered into for exploration or mining without prior acquisition of mining rights, as well as those conducted within national parks or other nature reserves, thereby declaring such contracts invalid. Third, it systematically sets forth tort liability and the scope of damages arising from cross‑boundary exploration and mining, distinguishing between compensable items available to mining right holders and those available to prospecting right holders. Fourth, it refines the criteria for determining “overburdened mineral resources” and the evidentiary standards for disputed reserve quantities, differentiating between ordinary cases of overburden and instances involving projects of public interest; the former is subject to tort liability, while the latter does not constitute a tort but requires fair and reasonable compensation. Fifth, it explicitly defines compensation obligations in cases where mining rights are prematurely revoked or withdrawn from nature reserves, and stipulates that, once ecological restoration of a mining area has been duly completed and passed inspection, no subsequent civil public‑interest litigation may be brought against the same conduct.

The Supreme People’s Procuratorate has released six typical cases of public interest litigation on personal information protection.

On January 22, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate released typical cases of public-interest litigation concerning the protection of personal information. A total of six cases were published, covering scenarios such as smart parking lots, facial recognition in residential communities, online fraudulent recruitment, “online unboxing” services, the leakage of personal information of deceased individuals and their relatives, and the abusive use of personal information by scalpers and travel agencies.

All six typical cases revolve around the application of the Personal Information Protection Law, covering administrative, civil public-interest litigation, and criminal–civil coordination scenarios, and set forth specific regulatory and judicial requirements for data compliance in a variety of high‑frequency business contexts. In the smart parking case, the procuratorial organs, leveraging big‑data leads, public hearings, and prosecutorial recommendations, facilitated a joint effort by multiple departments to address issues such as excessive data collection, unencrypted transmission, and arbitrary access to location‑tracking records by 18 parking‑app operators, thereby advancing the implementation of “clean QR codes,” access control, and the principle of data minimization. The residential‑community facial‑recognition case underscores that property management entities and real‑estate developers must store facial data locally, transmit it in an encrypted manner, obtain separate consent, and secure parental or guardian consent for minors, while also urging the housing and urban–rural development authorities to issue guidelines delineating clear boundaries for such applications and to rectify risks associated with facial‑recognition systems. In the online false‑recruitment case, a big‑data legal‑supervision model identified 61 leads of fraudulent recruitment, prompting the human resources and social security and market regulation authorities to strengthen their duties of verifying the real identities of recruitment platforms, anonymizing personal information, and monitoring abnormal recruitment practices, thus curbing shell companies and illegal advertisements. In the online “box‑opening” case, building on criminal accountability, the procuratorial organs initiated a civil public‑interest lawsuit, seeking an injunction against infringement, an apology, and shared liability for RMB 100,000 in compensation for public‑interest harm, thereby highlighting civil liability for trading social‑engineering databases, publicly disseminating sensitive information, and inciting online mob violence. The case involving information on deceased persons and their relatives focuses on systemic risks of leakage—such as death‑related data and contact details—in medical institutions and emergency‑response systems, prompting the health authorities to impose administrative penalties on the hospitals and physicians involved, while reinforcing access‑control measures within disease‑prevention and control systems, blocking unnecessary data fields, and improving the management of death certificates. Finally, the tourism‑market case addresses the frequent practice of scalpers and travel agencies using others’ identity information to make reservations and resell tickets, calling on the cultural and tourism authorities to launch special rectification campaigns targeting ticketing irregularities, upgrade anomaly‑detection modules, establish blacklists, and foster inter‑agency collaboration, thereby strengthening personal‑information protection and industry governance in scenarios requiring real‑name registration for scenic‑spot reservations.

The Supreme People’s Court has released a new batch of carefully selected Q&A on the topic of state compensation.

On January 22, the Supreme People’s Court published a selection of Q&A from the Legal Answers Website (Batch No. 36), focusing on state compensation.

This batch of responses provides normative guidance on three specific issues in criminal compensation and judicial compensation for enforcement: First, with respect to cases where the compensating authority unlawfully uses weapons or police equipment resulting in injury or disability, and the victim subsequently seeks compensation for lost wages and medical expenses, it is clarified that claims for lost wages shall be limited to the period up to the day before the determination of the disability rating; thereafter, such losses are addressed through disability compensation and living allowances, and no duplicate claims may be filed for the same harm. As for subsequent medical expenses, if the original final compensation decision did not expressly address them and the compensating authority has already arranged free treatment, whether to grant compensation shall be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account factors such as the victim’s self‑settlement arrangements, the agreed terms, and the necessity and scope of the follow‑up treatment. Second, it is specified that, in criminal compensation cases, operating losses incurred during the period when a motor vehicle is out of service may, by analogy with the “Regulations on Administrative Compensation” and the “Interpretation on Judicial Compensation for Enforcement,” be included within the category of direct losses referred to in Article 36, Paragraph 8 of the State Compensation Law, and shall be compensated according to the actual losses sustained. Third, regarding whether multiple state compensation applications may be filed successively for different enforcement actions or measures in the same enforcement case, the criterion for determining this is whether they are based on the same legal facts and the same compensation claim: no repeated applications may be filed for the same legal facts and the same compensation claim; however, for different legal facts and different compensation claims, separate proceedings may be initiated, or, with consent, the cases may be consolidated for joint adjudication.