JC Master Legal News Issue 974

Key Takeaways for This Issue
The China Securities Regulatory Commission has issued the “Regulations on Market Prohibitions in the Securities Market.”
To implement the provisions of higher-level laws, including the new Securities Law and the new Administrative Penalty Law, the China Securities Regulatory Commission recently issued the revised Regulations on Market Entry Bans, which took effect on July 19, 2021. This revision adheres to the guiding principles of “limited scope, problem‑oriented approach, respect for historical context, and stable expectations,” and seeks to refine those provisions that, in light of the higher‑level laws, warrant amendment.
The unveiling ceremony of the Henan Base of the New Third Board and the training conference on promoting high-quality development of Henan enterprises were held in Zhengzhou.
On June 16, 2021, the unveiling ceremony of the Henan Base of the National Equities Exchange and Quotations System (NEEQ), hereinafter referred to as the “NEEQ Henan Base,” together with a training session on promoting high-quality development of Henan-based enterprises, was held in Zhengzhou. Sui Qiang, General Manager of the NEEQ; Xu Xiaojun, Deputy Director of the Henan Securities Regulatory Bureau; and Zhao Jizeng, Chairman of the Central Plains Equity Exchange Center, delivered remarks at the event, which was chaired by Zhang Yunding, Deputy Director of the Henan Provincial Financial Bureau. More than 100 participants attended, including relevant officials from the Public Companies Department of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, representatives of selected listed companies in Henan, heads of key prospective listing (or挂牌) enterprises in Zhengzhou, as well as representatives from intermediary institutions and the media. Additionally, responsible officials from the financial bureaus of all 18 prefecture-level cities in Henan joined the event online via video link.
Decision of the State Taxation Administration on Amending the Measures for the Adjudication of Major Tax Cases
The “Decision of the State Taxation Administration on Amending the Measures for the Examination of Major Tax Cases” was reviewed and approved at the first Bureau Meeting of the State Taxation Administration for 2021 on May 11, 2021. It is hereby promulgated and shall enter into force as of August 1, 2021.
New Supreme People’s Court Regulation: Electronic Documents May Be Used Directly in Litigation
For the first time, the Rules have established an online litigation framework that encompasses all areas of adjudication and covers the entire litigation process. They comprehensively summarize and reflect the achievements of the people’s courts in the field of online litigation over recent years, addressing such key issues as the legal validity of online proceedings, underlying principles, scope of application, and conditions for use. The Rules also set out procedural rules for major stages of litigation, from filing and case registration to judgment and enforcement, providing clear procedural guidance for all parties involved. Moreover, they establish, for the first time, the fundamental principles governing online litigation; clarify the legal effect and review standards of electronic evidence; define the scope and examination criteria for the evidentiary value of blockchain‑based preservation; systematically institute norms for online court hearings; afoffice the validity of asynchronous trial mechanisms; and refine and improve the rules on electronic service.

Finance & Capital Markets

The China Securities Regulatory Commission has issued the “Regulations on Market Prohibitions in the Securities Market.”
To implement the provisions of higher-level laws, including the new Securities Law and the new Administrative Penalty Law, the China Securities Regulatory Commission recently issued the revised Regulations on Market Entry Bans (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”), which will take effect on July 19, 2021.
This revision follows the guiding principles of “limited objectives, problem‑oriented approach, respect for history, and stable expectations,” refining provisions that are demonstrably necessary to amend in light of higher‑level laws. The main revisions include: First, further clarifying the types of market bans. In accordance with Article 221 of the new Securities Law, market ban measures are categorized into two types: (1) a prohibition on engaging in securities business or securities services, as well as on serving as a director, supervisor, or senior manager of a securities issuer—hereinafter referred to as “identity‑based bans”; and (2) a prohibition on trading securities on stock exchanges or other nationwide securities trading venues approved by the State Council—hereinafter referred to as “trading‑based bans.” Enforcement authorities may, based on specific circumstances, choose to apply either type separately or impose both concurrently, as appropriate. Second, further specifying the rules governing trading‑based bans. Drawing extensively on domestic and international regulatory experience and taking into account China’s market realities, it is clarified that a trading‑based ban prohibits the direct or indirect trading of all listed or publicly traded securities—including shares of mutual funds—on securities trading venues, with a maximum duration of five years. At the same time, to ensure policy coherence and effective risk management, exceptions have been established for seven categories of situations, thereby preventing overlapping policies and mitigating secondary enforcement risks. Third, further defining the subjects subject to market bans and the applicable circumstances. In light of recent developments and changes in the market, the scope of entities subject to such bans has been refined. With respect to applicable circumstances, cases where serious violations of information disclosure have resulted in grave adverse consequences are explicitly included among the grounds for lifetime market bans. Additionally, trading‑based bans are expressly applied to conduct that severely disrupts the order of securities trading or undermines trading fairness.
In accordance with the relevant legislative procedures, our association publicly solicited comments from the public on the pertinent provisions of the Regulations from January 15 to February 14, 2021, and carefully reviewed, incorporated, and adopted the feedback received. Based on the results of this consultation, stakeholders generally endorsed the revised approach, the structural framework, and the key institutional provisions of the Regulations, deeming the content comprehensive, well‑considered, and sufficiently mature, and recommending its prompt promulgation. No substantive objections were raised regarding the Regulations’ major institutional arrangements.
Given that trading‑related bans constitute a new category of sanctions introduced under the revised Securities Law and possess distinct characteristics different from identity‑based bans, our Commission, guided by the principles of scientific legislation and a fact‑based approach, has carefully formulated the relevant application rules after thoroughly drawing on both domestic and international experience. Specifically, we have set a maximum five‑year time limit for trading‑related bans; within this cap, enforcement authorities may impose a duration tailored to the specific circumstances of each violation, thereby enabling a flexible response to the complex and varied realities of misconduct and ensuring the smooth implementation of this regulatory mechanism. Based on public feedback, the aforementioned institutional framework has received broad recognition from all market participants.
Going forward, in accordance with the CPC Central Committee and the State Council’s “zero‑tolerance” policy toward illegal and non‑compliant activities in the capital market, we will fully implement the relevant provisions of the new Securities Law, the new Administrative Penalty Law, and the Regulations. We will rigorously enforce the law to crack down on all types of violations and misconduct in the capital market, maintaining a consistently stringent enforcement stance over the long term. At the same time, we will strengthen coordination and cooperation with judicial authorities, comprehensively leveraging civil, administrative, and criminal accountability measures to further raise the costs of unlawful conduct, thereby providing robust legal safeguards to ensure that the capital market better supports the establishment of a new development paradigm.

The China Securities Regulatory Commission has issued five financial industry standards, including the “Coding for Settlement Participants in the Securities and Futures Industry.”
Recently, the China Securities Regulatory Commission issued five financial industry standards—“Coding for Settlement Participants in the Securities and Futures Industry,” “Electronic Disclosure Standards for Listed Companies, Part 1: Classification of Announcements and Framework for Classification Criteria,” “Electronic Disclosure Standards for Listed Companies, Part 2: Periodic Reports,” “Electronic Disclosure Standards for Listed Companies, Part 3: Ad Hoc Reports,” and “Guidelines for Performance Testing of Big Data Platforms in the Securities and Futures Industry”—which shall take effect from the date of their publication.
The securities and futures industry’s settlement participant codes serve as the foundation for all settlement participants to conduct registration and clearing operations. Currently, different trading markets employ distinct coding systems for settlement participants, resulting in inconsistent codes for the same entity across markets. This fragmentation hinders data sharing both among institutions and within individual settlement participants. The implementation of the “Securities and Futures Industry Settlement Participant Code” standard—by assigning a unified code to each settlement participant—can significantly reduce the costs associated with code conversion and adaptation, facilitate data query, statistical analysis, mining, and sharing across institutions and within settlement participants, and further advance industry-wide data standardization while supporting robust data governance efforts.
Information disclosure by listed companies is a vital component of securities market information, serving as an essential channel for securities regulators, investors, and other market participants to access insights into the operating and financial conditions of listed offices, and providing a critical basis for regulatory oversight and investment decision‑making. With the continued adoption of Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) in China’s information‑disclosure landscape, the value of XBRL has gained widespread recognition. To ensure the standardization of electronically generated disclosure documents using XBRL, it is necessary to establish electronic disclosure standards for listed companies, harmonize the format of disclosure announcements, standardize data‑reporting criteria, and provide robust support for the high‑quality collection of underlying data—thereby bolstering big‑data‑driven regulation and enhancing regulatory efficiency. The development and implementation of the industry‑specific series of “Electronic Disclosure Standards for Listed Companies” will facilitate information sharing across the securities sector and among listed entities, fostering the orderly and standardized growth of corporate disclosure practices and the broader securities information services industry.
Currently, big data products are being increasingly adopted in the securities and futures industry. The performance of big data platforms is a key metric in their development, and the results of performance testing provide an objective assessment of platform capabilities. However, guidance documents specific to big data testing remain scarce. The formulation of the “Guidelines for Performance Testing of Big Data Platforms in the Securities and Futures Industry” standardizes performance testing across test processes, methodologies, and content, thereby effectively guiding institutions in the sector to conduct such tests, enhance their testing capabilities, improve testing efficiency, and objectively evaluate the performance of big data platform products based on test outcomes.
Going forward, the China Securities Regulatory Commission will continue to advance the informatization of the capital market, focus on strengthening foundational standards, and steadily elevate the industry’s level of standardization.
Commercial & Corporate

The unveiling ceremony of the Henan Base of the New Third Board and the training conference on promoting high-quality development of Henan enterprises were held in Zhengzhou.
On June 16, 2021, the unveiling ceremony of the Henan Base of the National Equities Exchange and Quotations System (NEEQ), hereinafter referred to as the “NEEQ Henan Base,” together with a training session on promoting high-quality development of Henan-based enterprises, was held in Zhengzhou. Sui Qiang, General Manager of the NEEQ; Xu Xiaojun, Deputy Director of the Henan Securities Regulatory Bureau; and Zhao Jizeng, Chairman of the Central Plains Equity Exchange Center, delivered remarks at the event, which was chaired by Zhang Yunding, Deputy Director of the Henan Provincial Financial Bureau. More than 100 participants attended, including relevant officials from the Public Companies Department of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, representatives of selected listed companies in Henan, heads of key prospective listing (or挂牌) enterprises in Zhengzhou, as well as representatives from intermediary institutions and the media. Additionally, responsible officials from the financial bureaus of all 18 prefecture-level cities in Henan joined the event online via video link.
General Manager Sui Qiang stated that serving technology‑driven, innovation‑oriented small and medium‑sized enterprises is the New Third Board’s historic mission. After more than eight years of exploration and innovation—particularly as the comprehensive deepening of reforms has taken root—the New Third Board has achieved a clearer positioning within the multi‑tiered capital market, with more robust investment and financing functions, a more refined market structure, and smoother connectivity across the tiers. Under the new development paradigm, the New Third Board offers ample room and significant potential to support technology‑innovation enterprises. The National Equities Exchange and Quotations Company will place greater emphasis on fostering innovation, continue to deepen reform of the New Third Board, expand the reach of the capital market and direct financing, improve the market’s investment and financing ecosystem, and enhance the precision and effectiveness of its services. Following the establishment of the New Third Board’s Henan Base, it will fully leverage local advantages to help this vital cluster of technology‑focused SMEs harness the capital market for rapid growth, thereby contributing to Henan Province’s efforts to become an innovation hub in central and western China.
Deputy Director Xu Xiaojun stated that, following the full implementation of deepened reforms, the New Third Board has established a tiered market structure and an interconnected transfer mechanism, significantly enhancing its attractiveness and bolstering market confidence. In 2020, listed companies within Henan’s jurisdiction saw a gradual recovery in overall operations, with increased R&D investment and heightened activity in financing and trading; the number of Innovation‑Level companies in the region rose markedly, and the pool of potential candidates for the Select Tier has grown substantially. He expressed the hope that small and medium-sized enterprises across Henan will proactively embrace both the opportunities and challenges brought by capital market reforms, leveraging the New Third Board to grow stronger, larger, and better. The Henan Securities Regulatory Bureau, in accordance with the CSRC’s unified deployment, will work closely with the National Equities Exchange and Quotations Company to carry out targeted corporate governance initiatives, effectively improving the quality of listed companies. At the same time, it will continue to maintain close communication with the National Equities Exchange and Quotations Company and local financial regulatory authorities, further advancing reform, strengthening institutional frameworks, enhancing services, and reinforcing oversight, thereby forging a concerted effort to support the innovative development of SMEs.
At the unveiling ceremony, the National Equities Exchange and Quotations Company, the Henan Securities Regulatory Bureau, and the Henan Provincial Financial Bureau signed an agreement to establish the Henan Base for the New Third Board. Following the signing and unveiling, officials from the CSRC’s Department of Public Companies and representatives of the National Equities Exchange and Quotations Company provided in-depth briefings to the attending corporate representatives on the New Third Board reform and the Select Tier, as well as on pathways for small and medium-sized enterprises to advance to higher tiers and plans for transferring to other boards.
Going forward, the National Equities Exchange and Quotations Company will leverage the New Third Board Base to proactively integrate into local economic development, continuously enhance its service capabilities, and better support the innovation and growth of small and medium-sized enterprises. First, it will serve as an effective publicity team, strengthening communication with all market participants and broader society to actively and comprehensively disseminate the latest developments and progress in capital market reform. Second, it will cultivate a fertile breeding ground by focusing on specialized, refined, distinctive, and innovative enterprises, establishing ongoing mechanisms for visits, follow-up, and continuous engagement to nurture a pipeline of companies that are both sizable and uniquely positioned for listing. Third, it will act as a skilled adapter, bolstering connections with investment institutions, banks, and other funding sources, as well as with industry players, enterprises, and intermediaries, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of investment‑financing matchmaking for listed companies. Fourth, it will function as a strategic advisory body, drawing on the expertise of capital market specialists and aligning with local industrial and financial characteristics to provide policy recommendations to governments at all levels for formulating multi‑tiered capital market support measures.

Taxation TAXATATION

Decision of the State Taxation Administration on Amending the Measures for the Adjudication of Major Tax Cases
Order No. 51 of the State Taxation Administration
The “Decision of the State Taxation Administration on Amending the Measures for the Examination of Major Tax Cases” was reviewed and approved at the first Bureau Meeting of the State Taxation Administration for 2021 on May 11, 2021. It is hereby promulgated and shall enter into force as of August 1, 2021.

Director of the State Taxation Administration: Wang Jun
June 7, 2021
Decision of the State Taxation Administration on Amending the Measures for the Adjudication of Major Tax Cases
To further enhance the quality of adjudication in major tax cases and better safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of taxpayers and payers, in accordance with relevant provisions of the Administrative Penalty Law of the People’s Republic of China and other laws and administrative regulations, the State Taxation Administration has decided to amend the Measures for the Adjudication of Major Tax Cases as follows:
I. Article 1 is amended to read: “In order to implement the ‘Opinions on Further Deepening the Reform of Tax Collection and Administration’ issued by the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council, to promote scientific and democratic decision-making within tax authorities, to strengthen internal checks and balances on power, to optimize tax enforcement methods, to strictly standardize enforcement conduct, to advance scientific and precise law enforcement, and to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of taxpayers, payers, and other parties subject to tax administration, these Measures are formulated in accordance with the Administrative Penalty Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Tax Collection.”
II. Article 4 is amended to read: “Personnel participating in the adjudication of major tax cases shall strictly abide by state confidentiality regulations and work discipline, and, in accordance with the law, safeguard the commercial secrets, personal privacy, and personal information of taxpayers, payers, and other parties subject to tax administration.”
III. Article 11 is amended to read: “For the purposes of these Measures, ‘major tax cases’ include:”
(1) For major tax administrative penalty cases, the specific criteria shall be formulated by the tax bureaus of each province, autonomous region, municipality directly under the central government, and cities separately listed in the national plan, based on local conditions, and submitted to the State Taxation Administration for record.
(2) Cases subject to oversight pursuant to the Interim Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Major Tax Violation Cases;
“(3) Cases in which an opinion of determination is issued at the request of supervisory or judicial authorities;”
(4) Cases proposed to be transferred to the public security organs for handling;
(5) Cases that the member units of the Adjudication Committee deem to be significant and complex, requiring adjudication;
(6) Other cases that require review by the Adjudication Committee.
“Cases falling under any of the following circumstances shall not be subject to the review procedures for major tax cases:”
(1) Where the public security organ has already initiated a case concerning tax-related violations;
(2) Where the public security organ has not yet initiated a case concerning tax-related violations, but the subject under investigation is a defunct or unreachable enterprise and is suspected of committing a crime;
“(3) Other circumstances prescribed by the State Taxation Administration.”
IV. Article 12 is amended to read as follows: “After review by the Adjudication Committee, cases falling under paragraph 3 of paragraph 1 of Article 11 of these Measures shall have the proposed disposition submitted to the Adjudication Committee of the next higher-level tax authority for record‑keeping. A decision may be rendered five days after such record‑keeping.”
V. Article 14, paragraph 2, is amended to read: “Where a party requests a hearing in accordance with the relevant provisions of laws, regulations, and rules, the Inspection Bureau shall organize the hearing.”
VI. Paragraph 2 of Article 18 is amended to read: “The time spent on supplementary investigations, seeking instructions from higher authorities or soliciting opinions from competent authorities, and submitting proposed handling measures for record‑keeping with the review committee of the next higher tax bureau shall not be counted within the review period.”
VII. Add a new article, to be Article 26: “During the course of the review, if the Inspection Bureau discovers circumstances as stipulated in paragraph 2 of Article 11 of these Measures, it shall notify the Review Committee Office in writing. Upon submission to the Director of the Review Committee or a Deputy Director authorized by the Director for approval, the Review Committee may terminate the review.”
VIII. Article 37 shall be renumbered as Article 38, and paragraph 2 shall be amended to read: “The case files for the adjudication of major tax cases that are required to be archived shall include the tax inspection report, the tax inspection adjudication report, and relevant documents.”
9. Article 41 shall be renumbered as Article 42 and amended to read: “If the last day of a period prescribed in these Measures falls on a statutory holiday, the last day of the period shall be the day following the end of the holiday; if there are three or more consecutive statutory holidays within the period, the period shall be extended by the number of such holiday days.”
“The provisions in these Measures referring to ‘5 days’ shall mean working days and shall not include statutory holidays.”
X. Delete the annex “Model Documents for the Adjudication of Major Tax Cases.”
In addition, the order of the provisions has been adjusted accordingly.
This Decision shall enter into force on August 1, 2021.
The Measures for the Adjudication of Major Tax Cases shall be amended accordingly in accordance with this Decision and re-issued.
Measures for the Adjudication of Major Tax Cases
(Promulgated by Order No. 34 of the State Taxation Administration on December 2, 2014, as amended by Order No. 51 of the State Taxation Administration on June 7, 2021)
Chapter I General Provisions
Article 1 In order to implement the “Opinions on Further Deepening the Reform of Tax Collection and Administration” issued by the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council, this Measures is formulated in accordance with the Administrative Penalty Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Tax Collection, with a view to promoting scientific and democratic decision-making within tax authorities, strengthening internal checks and balances on power, optimizing tax enforcement methods, strictly standardizing enforcement conduct, advancing scientific and precise law enforcement, and safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of taxpayers, payers, and other parties subject to tax administration.
Article 2 This Measures shall apply to the adjudication of major tax cases conducted by tax authorities at all levels below the provincial level.
Article 3: The adjudication of major tax cases shall be based on facts and guided by law, adhering to the principles of legality, reasonableness, fairness, impartiality, and efficiency, and emphasizing the unity of legal outcomes and social impact.
Article 4: Personnel involved in the review of major tax cases shall strictly abide by state confidentiality regulations and work discipline, and, in accordance with the law, safeguard the commercial secrets, personal privacy, and personal information of taxpayers, payers, and other parties subject to tax administration.
Chapter 2: Adjudicating Bodies and Their Responsibilities
Article 5. Tax bureaus at all levels below the provincial level shall establish a Major Tax Case Adjudication Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Adjudication Committee).
The Review Committee consists of a director, deputy directors, and member units, and operates under a director‑responsibility system.
The Director of the Review Committee shall be the Commissioner of the Tax Service, and the Deputy Directors shall be other senior officials of the Tax Service. The member units of the Review Committee include the Policy and Regulations Department, the Tax Administration Department, the Taxpayer Services Department, the Tax Collection and Management Technology Department, the Large Enterprise Tax Administration Department, the Tax Inspection Department, and the Supervision and Internal Audit Department. Tax authorities at all levels may, as needed, designate additional departments relevant to case review as member units.
Article 6 The Adjudication Committee shall perform the following duties:
(1) Formulate the working procedures, rules of procedure, and other internal regulations of this agency’s adjudication committee;
(2) Adjudicating major tax cases;
(3) Provide guidance and oversight over the adjudication of major tax cases by subordinate tax authorities.
Article 7. The Adjudication Committee shall have an office, which shall be located within the Policy and Regulations Department. The Director of the Office shall concurrently serve as the head of the Policy and Regulations Department.
Article 8 The Office of the Adjudication Committee shall perform the following duties:
(1) Organize and implement the review of major tax cases;
(2) Submit preliminary review opinions;
(3) Prepare minutes of the adjudication meeting and the opinion letter on the adjudication;
(4) Conducting statistics, preparing reports, and filing case files related to the adjudication of major tax cases;
(5) Undertake other tasks assigned by the Adjudication Committee.
Article 9: Member units of the Adjudication Committee shall participate in the adjudication of cases in accordance with their respective departmental responsibilities and submit their opinions on the adjudication.
The Inspection Bureau is responsible for submitting evidentiary materials in significant tax cases, formulating proposed tax treatment and penalty recommendations, and conducting hearings.
The Inspection Bureau shall be responsible for the authenticity, legality, and accuracy of the case materials it submits.
Article 10: Personnel involved in the adjudication of major tax cases shall recuse themselves if any circumstances of recusal as prescribed by laws and regulations exist.
The recusal of participants in the adjudication of major tax cases shall be decided by the head of their respective departments; the recusal of heads of member units of the Adjudication Committee shall be decided by the Chairperson of the Adjudication Committee or by a Vice‑Chairperson authorized by the Chairperson.
Chapter 3 Scope of Adjudication
Article 11: For the purposes of these Measures, “major tax cases” include:
(1) For major tax administrative penalty cases, the specific criteria shall be formulated by the tax authorities of each province, autonomous region, municipality directly under the central government, and cities separately listed in the national plan, based on local conditions, and submitted to the State Taxation Administration for record.
(2) Cases subject to oversight pursuant to the Interim Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Major Tax Violation Cases;
(3) Cases in which an opinion of determination is issued at the request of supervisory or judicial authorities;
(4) Cases proposed for referral to the public security organs for handling;
(5) Cases that the member units of the Adjudication Committee deem to be significant and complex, and therefore require adjudication;
(6) Other cases that require review by the Adjudication Committee.
Cases falling under any of the following circumstances shall not be subject to the review procedures for major tax cases:
(1) Where the public security organ has already initiated a case concerning tax-related violations;
(2) Where the public security authorities have not yet initiated a case concerning tax-related violations, but the subject of the investigation is an enterprise that has absconded or lost contact and is suspected of committing a crime;
(3) Other circumstances prescribed by the State Taxation Administration.
Article 12: After the case specified in paragraph 3 of paragraph 1 of Article 11 of these Measures has been reviewed by the Review Committee, the proposed disposition shall be submitted to the Review Committee of the next higher-level tax authority for record‑keeping. A decision may be rendered five days after such record‑keeping is completed.
Article 13: The Inspection Bureau shall, within five days after the end of each quarter, submit the Case Review Status Filing Form to the Review Committee Office for record‑keeping.
Chapter IV Submission and Acceptance
Article 14: The Inspection Bureau shall, within five days after the conclusion of the internal review procedure, submit major tax cases to the Review Committee for adjudication.
Where a party requests a hearing in accordance with the relevant provisions of laws, regulations, and rules, the Inspection Bureau shall organize the hearing.
Article 15: When the Inspection Bureau submits a case to the Adjudication Committee for review, it shall submit the following case materials:
(1) Handover Form for Major Tax Case Review Files;
(2) Submission for Review of Major Tax Cases;
(3) Tax Audit Report;
(4) Tax Audit Review Report;
(5) Hearing materials;
(6) Relevant evidentiary materials.
The submission for the adjudication of a major tax case shall set forth the proposed disposition, and the established facts of the case shall be clearly supported by specific evidence.
Evidence materials shall be accompanied by an evidence inventory.
The Inspection Bureau shall fully transfer all evidentiary materials listed in the evidence inventory; if such materials cannot be transferred on the spot, the location where they are stored shall be specified.
Article 16: Upon receipt of the case materials submitted by the Inspection Bureau for review, the Review Committee Office shall indicate the receiving department and the date of receipt on the Handover Form for Major Tax Case Review Files, and the recipient shall sign the form.
With respect to evidence materials listed in the evidence inventory that cannot be handed over on the spot, the recipient may, when necessary, inspect them at the evidence storage location prior to signing for receipt.
Article 17: Upon receipt of the case materials submitted by the Inspection Bureau for review, the Review Committee Office shall conduct a review within five days.
Based on the review results, the Review Committee Office shall submit its recommendations for disposition to the Director of the Review Committee or to a Deputy Director authorized by the Director for approval.
(1) If the case submitted for adjudication falls within the scope of review prescribed in these Measures and the materials specified in Article 15 of these Measures have been submitted, it is recommended that the case be accepted for processing.
(2) If the case submitted for review falls within the scope of review prescribed by these Measures but the relevant materials have not been submitted in accordance with Article 15 of these Measures, it is recommended that the applicant supplement the required materials.
(3) If the case submitted for adjudication falls outside the scope of review prescribed in these Measures, it is recommended that the case not be accepted.
Chapter Five: Adjudication Procedures
Section 1 General Provisions
Article 18: A major tax case shall be adjudicated and a decision rendered within 30 days from the date of approval of its acceptance. If a decision cannot be rendered within the prescribed time limit, an appropriate extension may be granted upon approval by the Director of the Adjudication Committee or by a Deputy Director authorized by the Director; however, such extension shall not exceed 15 days.
The time spent on supplementary investigations, seeking instructions from higher authorities or soliciting opinions from competent authorities, and submitting proposed handling measures for record‑keeping with the review committee of the next higher tax bureau shall not be counted within the review period.
Article 19: When the Adjudication Committee reviews major tax cases, it shall give priority to examining the following matters:
(1) Whether the facts of the case are clear;
(2) Whether the evidence is sufficient and conclusive;
(3) Whether the law enforcement procedures are lawful;
(4) Whether the applicable law is correct;
(5) Whether the characterization of the case is accurate;
(6) Whether the proposed disposition is lawful and appropriate.
Article 20: Member units of the Review Committee shall conscientiously perform their duties and, in accordance with the provisions of Article 19 of these Measures, submit review opinions. Such opinions shall set forth detailed reasons and clearly cite the relevant legal basis.
Member units of the Review Committee, when reviewing cases, may inspect case files at the Review Committee’s office or at the evidence storage location and obtain relevant information from the Inspection Bureau.
Article 21: The adjudication of major tax cases shall be conducted through a combination of written review and meeting-based review.
Section II: Written Proceedings
Article 22: Within five days from the date of approval to accept a major tax case, the Office of the Review Committee shall forward the Request for Review of Major Tax Cases and the requisite case materials to the member units of the Review Committee.
Article 23: Within ten days from the date of receipt of the case materials forwarded by the Office of the Review Committee, each member unit of the Review Committee shall submit its written review opinion to the Office of the Review Committee.
Article 24: If a member unit of the Adjudication Committee finds that the facts of a case are unclear or the evidence is insufficient and deems further investigation necessary, it shall set forth in its written adjudication opinion the specific issues requiring supplementary investigation and provide the reasons therefor.
The Review Committee Office shall convene the member units that have requested supplementary investigations and the Inspection Bureau to coordinate. If supplementary investigations are indeed necessary, the Review Committee Office shall submit the matter to the Director of the Review Committee or the Deputy Director authorized by the Director for approval, and return the case files to the Inspection Bureau for further investigation.
Article 25: The supplementary investigation conducted by the Inspection Bureau shall not exceed 30 days. In cases of special circumstances, with approval from the Director of the Inspection Bureau, the period may be appropriately extended, but the extension shall not exceed 30 days.
Upon completion of the supplementary investigation, the Inspection Bureau shall resubmit the case materials and carry out the handover procedures in accordance with Articles 15 and 16 of these Measures.
If the Inspection Bureau is unable to complete the supplementary investigation within the prescribed time limit, or if, following such investigation, the facts remain unclear and the evidence remains insufficient, the Office of the Adjudication Committee shall submit a request to the Director of the Adjudication Committee or to a Deputy Director authorized by the Director for approval to terminate the adjudication.
Article 26. During the course of the review, if the Inspection Bureau discovers circumstances as stipulated in paragraph 2 of Article 11 of these Measures, it shall notify the Review Committee Office in writing. Upon approval by the Director of the Review Committee or a Deputy Director authorized by the Director, the Review Committee Office may terminate the review.
Article 27: If the member units of the Review Committee find that the facts of a case are clear and the evidence is conclusive, but the legal basis is unclear or the matters requiring resolution fall outside the jurisdiction of this authority, they shall, in accordance with the prescribed procedures, seek instructions from the higher-level tax authority or solicit the opinions of the competent authorities.
Article 28: Where the member units of the Review Committee have reached a unanimous written opinion, or where, following coordination by the Review Committee Office, they have agreed upon a common position, the Review Committee Office shall draft a review opinion and submit it to the Chairperson of the Review Committee for approval.
Section III: Proceedings of the Meeting
Article 29: Where the written opinions of the member units of the Review Committee diverge substantially and, despite coordination by the Review Committee Office, no consensus can be reached, the Review Committee Office shall report to the Chairperson of the Review Committee or to a Vice‑Chairperson authorized by the Chairperson and submit the matter for deliberation at a Review Committee meeting.
Article 30: The report submitted by the Review Committee Office for consideration at the meeting shall set forth the differences of opinion among the member units, the coordination efforts undertaken by the Review Committee Office, and the preliminary review opinions.
The Office of the Review Committee shall notify the Chair, Vice-Chairs, and member units of the meeting’s time and venue in advance, and shall distribute the case materials to all parties.
Article 31: Member units shall dispatch representatives to attend meetings; a meeting may be convened only if at least two-thirds of the member units are present. The Office of the Review Committee, as well as any other member units concerned with the case, shall attend the meeting.
Case investigators and the staff of the Review Committee’s office shall attend the meeting as observers. When necessary, the Review Committee may request that the tax authority having jurisdiction over the place where the subject of the investigation is located participate in the meeting.
Article 32 The meeting of the Review Committee shall be chaired by the Chairperson of the Review Committee or a Vice‑Chairperson authorized by the Chairperson. First, the Inspection Bureau shall present the case details and its proposed course of action. Following the Report on the Preliminary Review submitted by the Review Committee Office, each member unit shall express its views and set forth its reasons.
The Office of the Review Committee shall maintain accurate minutes of its meetings.
Article 33: Following deliberation at a meeting of the Adjudication Committee, and depending on the specific circumstances, the following decisions shall be rendered:
(1) Where the facts of the case are clear, the evidence is conclusive, the procedures are lawful, and the legal basis is well established, a decision on the merits shall be rendered in accordance with the law.
(2) Where the facts of the case are unclear or the evidence is insufficient, the Inspection Bureau shall reinvestigate the case.
(3) If the administrative enforcement procedures in a case are unlawful, the Inspection Bureau shall re‑examine and re‑process the case.
(4) Where the legal basis applicable to the case is unclear, or where the matters requiring resolution fall outside the jurisdiction of this authority, the matter shall, in accordance with the prescribed procedures, be submitted for instruction to the superior authority or the views of the competent authority shall be sought.
Article 34. The Office of the Review Committee shall prepare minutes of the review proceedings and a written opinion on the review, based on the deliberations at the meeting.
The minutes of the deliberation shall be signed by the Chair of the Deliberation Committee or by a Vice‑Chair authorized by the Chair. Any dissenting opinions or special statements expressed by participants at the meeting shall be recorded in the minutes.
The opinion letter on the case shall be signed and issued by the Chairperson of the Adjudication Committee.
Chapter Six: Enforcement and Supervision
Article 35 The Inspection Bureau shall, in accordance with the opinions set forth in the Review Opinion on Major Tax Cases, prepare the tax handling and penalty decision and other relevant documents, affix the official seal of the Inspection Bureau, and serve them for enforcement.
Within five days of service of the document, the Inspection Bureau shall submit it to the Review Committee Office for record‑keeping.
Article 36: Upon conclusion of the review procedure for major tax cases, the Review Committee Office shall return the relevant evidentiary materials to the Inspection Bureau.
Article 37 The inspection and internal audit departments of tax bureaus at all levels shall strengthen oversight of the adjudication of major tax cases.
Article 38 The Office of the Review Committee shall strengthen the archival management of case files pertaining to major tax cases, assign uniform case numbers in the order in which cases are accepted, and ensure that each case has its own file, with complete documentation, a neat presentation, and proper binding.
The case files for the adjudication of significant tax cases that require archiving include the tax inspection report, the tax inspection adjudication report, and relevant supporting documents.
Article 39: The tax bureaus of all provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the central government, and cities separately listed in the national plan shall, by January 31 each year, submit to the State Taxation Administration a report on the implementation of major tax case adjudication work in their respective jurisdictions during the preceding year, together with the statistical table on major tax case adjudication.
Chapter VII Supplementary Provisions
Article 40: Other cases handled by tax authorities at all levels that require referral to the Adjudication Committee for review shall be governed in accordance with these Measures. Special tax adjustment cases shall be handled in accordance with the relevant provisions.
Article 41: Tax bureaus at all levels may use a special seal for the adjudication of major tax cases in the course of handling such cases.
Article 42: If the last day of a period prescribed in these Measures falls on a statutory holiday, the last day of the period shall be deemed to be the day following the end of the holiday; if the period includes three or more consecutive statutory holidays, the period shall be extended by the number of such holiday days.
The provisions in these Measures referring to “5 days” shall mean working days and shall not include statutory holidays.
Article 43 Tax authorities at all levels shall, in accordance with the plans and requirements of the State Taxation Administration, actively promote the informatization of the adjudication of major tax cases.
Article 44: Tax bureaus at all levels shall increase basic funding for the adjudication of major tax cases, ensure adequate staffing and financial resources, equip themselves with the necessary audio‑video recording, word processing, communications, and other equipment required for case handling, and promote the standardization of the adjudication process for major tax cases.
Article 45: The tax bureaus of provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the central government, and cities separately listed in the national plan may, in accordance with these Measures, formulate specific implementation rules.
Article 46 This Measures shall come into force on February 1, 2015. The “Notice of the State Administration of Taxation on Issuing the Provisional Measures for the Adjudication of Major Tax Cases” (Guo Shui Fa [2001] No. 21) is hereby repealed simultaneously.
Litigation & Arbitration

New Supreme People’s Court Regulation: Electronic Documents May Be Used Directly in Litigation
Original Title: The Supreme People’s Court Issues Rules on Online Litigation; Electronic Documents May Be Used Directly in Proceedings
For the first time, the Rules have established an online litigation framework that encompasses all areas of adjudication and covers the entire litigation process, comprehensively summarizing and reflecting the achievements of the people’s courts in the field of online litigation over recent years.
The Rules cover the legal validity, fundamental principles, scope of application, and applicable conditions of online litigation, as well as the procedural rules governing key stages of the proceedings—from filing and case registration to judgment and enforcement—providing clear procedural guidance for all parties involved in online litigation.
The Rules for the first time establish the fundamental principles of online litigation; clarify the legal effect and review procedures for electronic evidence; define the scope of evidentiary validity and the standards for examining blockchain‑based evidence; systematically set forth norms for online court hearings; afoffice the validity of asynchronous trial procedures; and refine and improve the rules on electronic service.
BEIJING, June 17 — By our reporter Wang Lili: This morning, the Supreme People’s Court held a press conference to release the “Rules on Online Litigation of the People’s Courts” (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”; the full text and Q&A session are available on pages 2 and 3). Li Shaoping, Vice President of the Supreme People’s Court; Liu Zheng, Deputy Director of the Office of the Leading Group for Judicial Reform of the Supreme People’s Court; and He Fan, Deputy Director of the Bureau of International Cooperation of the Supreme People’s Court, attended the conference to present relevant details and answer questions from the media. The press conference was chaired by Li Guangyu, Spokesperson of the Supreme People’s Court.
This “Rules” is the first judicial interpretation issued by the Supreme People’s Court to guide courts nationwide in conducting online litigation. According to Li Shaoping, the promulgation of these Rules represents an important achievement in the people’s courts’ thorough implementation of Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law and their commitment to the national strategy of building a cyber power; it also constitutes a key measure for establishing and refining an internet‑based judicial model that is both uniquely Chinese and world‑leading. For the first time, the Rules have established a comprehensive framework of online litigation rules that spans all areas of adjudication and covers the entire litigation process, systematically summarizing and embodying the achievements of the people’s courts in the field of online litigation over recent years. They proactively address the public’s evolving demands for justice in the digital age, and hold great significance for safeguarding the legitimate litigation rights and interests of parties, enhancing the convenience of litigation for the public, improving the quality and efficiency of trials, and driving a transformative shift in the mode of judicial adjudication.
Li Shaoping stated that the Rules cover the legal validity, fundamental principles, scope of application, and applicable conditions of online litigation, as well as the procedural rules governing key stages of the litigation process—from filing and case registration to judgment and enforcement—thereby providing clear procedural guidance for all parties involved in online proceedings. In terms of content, the Rules feature six major characteristics and highlights.
First, the Rules establish, for the first time, the fundamental principles governing online litigation. They stipulate that online litigation must adhere to five core principles—“fairness and efficiency,” “legality and voluntariness,” “protection of rights,” “convenience and public benefit,” and “security and reliability”—thereby clarifying its value orientation and essential characteristics. In line with these principles, the Rules delineate the scope of cases to which online litigation applies, encompassing civil, administrative, special‑procedure, and enforcement matters; moreover, online procedures may also be employed in certain stages of summary criminal proceedings and in cases involving sentence reduction or parole. At the same time, the Rules require that online litigation be conducted only when the parties consent, the case is suitable for online processing, and the litigants possess the requisite technical capabilities, thereby fully respecting the parties’ right to choose their preferred mode of trial and ensuring both the quality and efficiency of judicial proceedings.
Second, the Rules clarify the legal effect and review procedures for electronic evidence. Adhering to the principle of safety and reliability, the Rules stipulate that electronic materials shall be deemed equivalent to their paper originals. Once approved by the people’s courts, such electronic materials may be directly used in litigation without the need to submit the original documents, thereby enhancing procedural convenience and reducing litigation costs. Furthermore, the Rules set forth distinct review standards and requirements for verifying the formal authenticity of electronic materials and assessing their substantive accuracy, thus helping to prevent and mitigate litigation risks and ensuring that online proceedings are lawful, standardized, and orderly.
Third, the scope of evidentiary validity and the standards for review of blockchain‑based evidence have been established. In light of the distinctive features of blockchain technology, the Rules afoffice that data stored on the blockchain is presumed to be unaltered after being recorded on the chain, and they set forth clear rules for examining and determining both the authenticity of data once it has been added to the chain and the authenticity of data prior to its entry. For the first time, these Rules provide normative guidance on ascertaining the authenticity of blockchain‑stored data, which will help parties make proactive use of blockchain technology to address the challenges of “difficulty in preserving evidence” and “difficulty in authentication” associated with electronic data, enhance the efficiency of evidence admissibility in the people’s courts, and contribute to the refinement of a new system of evidentiary rules suited to the internet era.
Fourth, the system has established standardized procedures for online court hearings. The Rules provide comprehensive and systematic regulations governing online proceedings, clearly defining the conditions and scope of application, as well as the modalities of such hearings. They also institute a mechanism for transitioning between in-person and online formats and set forth specific requirements regarding the online hearing environment, courtroom conduct, public access to proceedings, and the online appearance of witnesses, thereby ensuring the legality, standardization, and authority of online trials.
Fifth, the effectiveness of the asynchronous proceedings mechanism has been afofficeed. To further enhance procedural convenience, the Rules permit all parties to conduct, within a specified time limit, online litigation activities such as mediation, evidence exchange, and fact-finding inquiries in an asynchronous manner. At the same time, the Rules lay out specific provisions for asynchronous hearings, strictly limiting their scope of application, conditions, and modalities, thereby treating them as a special form of hearing under particular circumstances, rather than as the norm for online proceedings.
Sixth, the rules on electronic service have been refined and improved. The Rules comprehensively set forth the conditions for applying electronic service, its scope of content, the methods and means employed, and the criteria for its legal effect. They establish an “implied consent rule,” extending the notion of “consent” to include prior agreements, conduct during the proceedings, and subsequent acknowledgment, thereby encouraging broader application of electronic service. Moreover, the Rules clarify two standards for the effectiveness of electronic service—“arrival‑based effectiveness” and “knowledge‑based effectiveness”—thus striking an effective balance between accuracy and efficiency in service and helping to accelerate and enhance judicial proceedings.
Today, the “Selected Cases of Judicial Reform of the People’s Courts (No. 11),” themed on “Internet‑Based Judicial Development,” was simultaneously released, highlighting the explorations, innovations, and tangible results achieved by 12 local courts in advancing internet‑enabled judicial practices.

JC Master Law Office
Address: 9th Floor, National Water Resources Building, No. 70 Qingjiang South Road, Nanjing City
Postal code: 210036
Phone: 025-84503333
Fax: 025-84505533
Website: www.jcmaster.com
This legal notice is provided solely for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or a legal analysis of any specific case. The transmission of this legal notice does not establish an attorney–client relationship between JC Master Law Office and the user or viewer. JC Master Law Office assumes no responsibility for any third-party content accessible via the internet. If you do not wish to receive this legal notice, please notify us by email at jcm@jcmaster.com.
The copyright of this legal information is owned by JC Master Law Office ©. Without written permission, no organization or individual may reproduce, publish, or cite it in any form.