JC Master Legal News Issue 1184

Key Takeaways for This Issue

The National Administration of Financial Regulation has recently adjusted the regulatory levels for certain administrative licensing and reporting matters. In a notice titled “Notice on Authorizing the Adjustment of Regulatory Levels for Certain Administrative Licensing and Reporting Matters,” the Administration clarified that each financial regulatory bureau may delegate the regulatory oversight of specific administrative licenses and reporting requirements to its subordinate branch bureaus, with such adjustments expected to be completed by the end of 2027 in principle.

The Ministry of Finance plans to revise the “General Rules on Corporate Finance.” On November 3, the Asset Management Department of the Ministry of Finance issued a notice soliciting public comments on the “General Rules on Corporate Finance (Draft for Public Comment),” with the deadline for submitting feedback set for December 8, 2025.

On November 3, the Supreme People’s Court released a set of typical cases on the protection of construction project quality, covering issues such as the determination of liability for construction quality and the use of judicial recommendations to promote source‑level governance.

Finance & Capital Markets 
The National Administration of Financial Regulation has recently adjusted the regulatory levels for certain administrative licensing and reporting matters. In a notice titled “Notice on Authorizing the Adjustment of Regulatory Levels for Certain Administrative Licensing and Reporting Matters,” the Administration clarified that each financial regulatory bureau may delegate the regulatory oversight of specific administrative licenses and reporting requirements to its subordinate branch bureaus, with such adjustments expected to be completed by the end of 2027 in principle. 
The Notice stipulates that financial regulatory sub‑bureaus may accept applications for administrative licensing matters, such as name changes of branches of Chinese‑funded commercial banks and relocations of branch offices of insurance companies, and shall assume regulatory oversight over reporting requirements related to branch office relocations, personnel appointments, and name changes. Upon taking on these matters, the sub‑bureaus shall be responsible for issuing and managing the relevant licenses. Each financial regulatory bureau is required to assess the capacity of its sub‑bureaus, appropriately allocate system access rights, and dynamically adjust the scope of delegated authority, thereby ensuring the standardization and effectiveness of market access.

Commercial & Corporate 
The State Administration for Market Regulation has clarified the regulatory requirements following the expiration of the transitional period for renewing health food registration certificates. Recently, the General Office of the SAMR issued Document No. [2025] 1254, providing a response to the Guangdong Provincial Administration for Market Regulation regarding products that have not been renewed after the transitional period expired. The document stipulates that non‑nutrient‑supplement health foods that have already been registered or filed must comply with the new catalog within five years of the issuance of Announcement No. 38 of 2023. During the transitional period, provincial authorities will continue to issue production licenses in accordance with existing regulations; products approved for registration or conversion to filing must be manufactured in compliance with the new technical requirements, while products produced prior to the transition may be sold until their expiration dates. Products that have not yet completed renewal must be brought into compliance and obtain updated certificates before production can resume. Enterprises are required to strictly adhere to the registered or filed formulations and manufacturing processes, fulfill their principal responsibilities, and ensure full compliance. Local regulatory authorities will strengthen oversight to guarantee product safety and quality.

The National Intellectual Property Administration has issued the “Measures for Promoting the Development of the Private Sector through Intellectual Property.” The Measures will take effect from the date of their promulgation. 
The Measures set forth seven key areas, including: improving the system for granting and confirming intellectual property rights, enhancing the quality and efficiency of examination, and innovating patent and trademark examination models; protecting the intellectual property rights of private-sector entities in accordance with the law, rigorously addressing infringement, and prohibiting the abuse of intellectual property rights to restrict competition; providing one-stop services for expedited preliminary review, right confirmation, and rights protection, refining mechanisms for diversified dispute resolution, and strengthening risk prevention and information services related to foreign affairs; encouraging private-sector entities to adopt diversified approaches to leveraging intellectual property, supporting collaborative models such as patent pools and open licensing, and facilitating the commercialization of scientific and technological achievements; upgrading public service platforms, promoting data openness and sharing, and enhancing digital service capabilities; bolstering talent development, particularly the cultivation of legal professionals specializing in international matters; and clarifying legal liabilities, ensuring that infringements are subject to administrative, civil, and criminal accountability in accordance with the law.

The Ministry of Finance plans to revise the “General Rules on Corporate Finance.” On November 3, the Asset Management Department of the Ministry of Finance issued a notice soliciting public comments on the “General Rules on Corporate Finance (Draft for Public Comment),” with the deadline for submitting feedback set for December 8, 2025. 
The “General Provisions (Draft for Public Comment)” applies to all legal‑person enterprises within China, establishing a national, unified corporate financial system under the overarching framework of these general provisions. The document comprises eight chapters and 46 articles, covering such areas as capital raising, asset management, investment activities, profit distribution, oversight and evaluation, and legal liability, with a focus on strengthening financial management, risk prevention and control, internal supervision, information disclosure, and legal accountability. It explicitly prohibits enterprises from engaging in unlawful practices such as fabricating transactions, manipulating profits, deliberately delaying payments, or establishing “slush funds”; violations will be subject to penalties including warnings and fines.

Taxation

The State Taxation Administration is soliciting public comments on several administrative guidelines for the collection and administration of the land value-added tax. To further enhance the certainty of policy implementation, standardize tax collection and administration, and improve taxpayer services, the State Taxation Administration has drafted the “Announcement of the State Taxation Administration on Several Administrative Guidelines for the Collection and Administration of the Land Value-Added Tax (Draft for Public Comment).” The public consultation period runs from October 31, 2025, to November 29, 2025. 
The Notice comprises eight provisions, with the following key contents: Article 1 specifies the start and end dates for filing preliminary land value-added tax returns. Article 2 defines the tax base for the preliminary land value-added tax. Article 3 sets the cut-off date for aggregating clearance revenue and sales area. Article 4 stipulates that expenditures incurred outside the project’s planning scope, provided they meet the relevant criteria, may be deducted. Article 5 provides that stamp duty and local education surcharges paid in connection with the transfer of real estate are deductible. Article 6 establishes the filing deadline for the land value-added tax on the sale of remaining inventory units. Article 7 outlines the method for calculating unit costs and expenses in the context of selling remaining inventory units. Article 8 clarifies that, when levying land value-added tax on the sale of remaining inventory units, taxpayers who satisfy the conditions for applicable preferential policies may apply for an exemption.

A notice has been issued by three departments on the “Administrative Measures for the Selection and Appointment of Asset Valuation Agencies by Administrative Institutions, State-Owned Enterprises, and Listed Companies.” The Ministry of Finance, the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council, and the China Securities Regulatory Commission recently released the “Notice on the Issuance of the Administrative Measures for the Selection and Appointment of Asset Valuation Agencies by Administrative Institutions, State-Owned Enterprises, and Listed Companies.” 
The Administrative Measures stipulate that the evaluation criteria for selecting an asset appraisal agency shall include, but are not limited to, the agency’s fee quotation, its qualification requirements, its record of professional integrity, its internal management and quality‑control capabilities, its work plan, the allocation of human and other resources, information security management, its capacity to assume risks, and its experience in relevant projects. When assessing an asset appraisal agency’s quality‑control capabilities, the selecting entity shall place particular emphasis on the agency’s quality‑control system and its implementation, its level of professional ethics, the quality‑control measures applied during the course of engagement, the mechanisms for resolving disagreements, the outcomes of quality inspections conducted by regulatory authorities over the past three years—including any rewards or penalties—and the availability of supporting practice‑assistance systems.

LITIGATION & ARBITRATION

On November 3, the Supreme People’s Court released a set of typical cases on the protection of construction project quality, covering issues such as the determination of liability for construction quality and the use of judicial recommendations to promote source‑level governance. 
This release features six typical cases, including: – A case in which pre‑mediation was used to remedy construction defects, underscoring the judicial principle of prioritizing the protection of project quality and safety—Li v. a certain Resources Company, a dispute over a construction contract; – Where quality defects arise in the main structural components of a project within the reasonable period of use, the contractor is legally obligated to fulfill its warranty obligations—A certain Automobile Company v. a certain Construction Company, a dispute over a construction contract; – Even if concealed works have passed acceptance inspection, if quality defects persist, the contractor must, in accordance with the law, perform its warranty duties—A certain Construction and Installation Company v. a certain Construction Investment Company, a dispute over a construction contract; – When a contractor knowingly proceeds with construction based on a design containing defects, it shall jointly bear liability for quality with the project owner—A certain Town People’s Government v. a certain Construction Company, a dispute over a construction contract; – Where the use of borrowed qualifications results in construction quality defects, both the borrower and the lender shall bear joint and several liability—A certain Food Company v. Shi et al., a dispute over a construction contract; – Judicial recommendations were employed to address the “three guarantees and one subcontracting” issue, thereby promoting source‑level governance of construction quality problems—Zhu v. a certain Labor Service Company, a dispute over a construction contract.

The Supreme People’s Court recently released four typical retrial cases involving the protection of property rights and the rights and interests of private enterprises and entrepreneurs, comprising three criminal cases and one civil case. These cases underscore the lawful rectification of wrongful convictions related to corporate property rights and the strengthened safeguarding of the legitimate rights and interests of private enterprises and their entrepreneurs. 
The key aspects of the cases include: First, in cases involving false reporting of registered capital, misappropriation of state-owned assets, bribery, and embezzlement by a public official, the retrial resulted in acquittals, with the amended Company Law’s subscribed‑capital regime applied; second, in cases of contract fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation of funds, and concealment of accounting records, retrials led to acquittals due to insufficient evidence or the absence of intent to unlawfully appropriate property, underscoring the need to distinguish between economic disputes and criminal offenses; third, in civil matters, the courts recognized the equal legal status of private and state‑owned enterprises, reversed the original judgments, upheld the legitimate claims of individual right holders, and clarified joint and several liability for repayment.

On November 5, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate released seven typical cases of crimes endangering food and drug safety, which were prosecuted by procuratorial organs in accordance with the law. These cases cover areas such as health supplements, beef, and traditional Chinese medicine. From January to September 2025, procuratorial organs nationwide approved the arrest of 1,693 individuals in 1,025 cases involving food safety offenses and 443 individuals in 279 cases involving drug safety offenses. They also instituted public prosecution against 7,316 individuals in 3,762 food safety cases and 2,668 individuals in 1,354 drug safety cases. 
Key points of the case include:

I. Conduct comprehensive, end-to-end crackdowns across all stages—production, transportation, wholesale, and retail—to completely dismantle the criminal supply chain.

II. The procuratorial organs, in coordination with the public interest litigation department, conducted a concurrent investigation and, in accordance with the law, instituted criminal proceedings accompanied by civil public interest litigation to remedy the harm to the public interest.

III. Leveraging big data to establish a legal oversight model for barring individuals from engaging in food safety-related activities, thereby prompting administrative authorities to impose restrictions on law‑violating practitioners.

IV. The criminal policy of combining leniency with strictness, which entails differentiated treatment of individuals at each stage of the criminal chain;

V. Promote the improvement of the administrative–criminal coordination mechanism for food and drug safety, and strengthen comprehensive social governance.

On November 6, 2025, the Public Interest Litigation Prosecution Department of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate released a set of typical cases demonstrating how big-data legal supervision models can support public interest litigation. These cases cover areas such as ecological and environmental protection, food and drug safety, protection of state-owned assets, workplace safety, and antitrust enforcement. 
This release features six typical cases in which procuratorial organs have leveraged big‑data models to precisely identify issues such as fraudulently obtaining medical insurance funds, tax evasion at gas stations, illegal dumping of construction waste, safety hazards associated with special‑purpose equipment, unauthorized retail sales of prescription drugs, and administrative monopolies. These efforts have prompted administrative agencies to implement corrective measures and refine industry‑wide regulatory frameworks. Across the country, procuratorial organs have collaborated with relevant departments to establish mechanisms for data sharing, referral of leads, and evaluation of remediation, thereby enabling the rapid identification of public‑interest violations, holding responsible parties accountable, and addressing systemic problems. This work has helped enhance industry compliance and strengthen risk‑prevention capabilities.

The Supreme People’s Court has released a new batch of selected Q&A on lawyers’ litigation, focusing on this issue. On November 6, the Supreme People’s Court published in the People’s Court Daily “Selected Q&A from the Legal Answers Website (Batch No. 29) — Special Issue on Safeguarding and Regulating Lawyers’ Litigation Conduct.” 
Clarification to questions:

1. In the same trial proceedings, a defendant may generally change defense counsel no more than twice; during the court hearing, the defendant may reject the appointed counsel twice in open court, but may replace the counsel only once.

2. If an attorney applies to reschedule a court hearing on legitimate grounds, such as scheduling conflicts, the court may grant the request and notify the parties promptly.

3. Trainee lawyers may not independently inspect, excerpt, or duplicate case file materials; they may only assist attorneys in performing ancillary tasks.

4. Judicial documents may not designate trainee lawyers as defense counsel or agents; they may only be referred to as legal assistants. In exceptional circumstances, such as when the trainee is a close relative, they may be designated as defense counsel or an agent.