Taihe Research | Key Principles of Criminal Complaints: Details, Logic, and Perseverance

Criminal law is a safeguard, the ultimate bulwark of our everyday life and work. Yet, as the saying goes, “All men are born free, yet all are in chains.” While protecting our rights and interests, criminal law also imposes the strictest obligations of compliance. Violations of criminal law carry grave consequences; therefore, we must discern them clearly, deliberate thoughtfully, and act with steadfast resolve.

National criminal legal norms are inherently principled and, once promulgated, are deemed to be known and binding on all. Therefore, it is essential to stay informed about national regulations and to understand how these general principles are applied in specific incidents or cases. In the economic and financial spheres, safeguarding economic vitality and fostering financial innovation are fundamental imperatives; however, financial innovation invariably entails associated criminal risks. Consequently, we must carefully delineate the boundaries of the law.

In light of this, Taihe Law Firm has launched a “Criminal Legal Risk Prevention” column. We will keep abreast of the latest criminal laws and case law, engage in virtual discussions with our readers, and work together to clarify issues, think carefully, and act with conviction.

Abstract: It is widely acknowledged that filing a criminal complaint is highly challenging; nevertheless, numerous successful cases demonstrate otherwise. Meticulous, well‑crafted, and targeted preparation is essential for achieving a favorable outcome. We must pay close attention to the details of the evidence, ensure the logical structure of the complaint, and maintain unwavering confidence.

When our legitimate rights and interests are infringed upon, we naturally expect state organs to provide robust protection, particularly for judicial authorities to hold the perpetrators criminally liable. However, some criminal acts are highly concealed—especially in the realm of economic crimes—and require a meticulous examination of both the conduct and its consequences before they can be identified and prosecuted. Consequently, certain offenses may not be detected promptly at the outset or may be deemed legally ambiguous by the judiciary, necessitating that we file criminal complaints. For the same reason, a criminal complaint must withstand scrutiny by the judicial authorities and assist them in establishing the factual basis of the crime.

I. The Prudent Approach of Judicial Authorities to Criminal Complaints

From the perspective of practical experience, judicial authorities adopt an extremely cautious approach to criminal complaints, primarily for the following reasons.

First, it is necessary to determine whether an act constitutes a crime by examining its constituent elements. The principle of legality is a fundamental tenet of criminal law; to establish that a particular conduct amounts to a crime, the act must be compared with the statutory provisions, and any points of contention must be further interpreted to avoid erroneous conclusions. For example, to charge someone with fraud, one must assess whether their conduct satisfies the logical structure of fraud: the perpetrator commits a deceptive act; the victim forms a mistaken belief; the victim, relying on that mistake, delivers property; and as a result, the victim suffers a financial loss. If any one of these steps is missing or does not meet the required criteria, the offense of fraud will not be established. Accordingly, after an initial consultation with the complainant, the judicial authorities typically arrive at a preliminary assessment: if any element is questionable or the evidence appears insufficient, they tend to advise the complainant to pursue resolution through civil litigation.

Second, there is variability in the interpretation of conduct. In practice, disputes frequently arise as to whether a particular act constitutes a crime—particularly with respect to innovative activities in the market and economic spheres. In such cases, the accuser may contend that the conduct is criminal, while the judicial authorities initially conclude that it cannot be so characterized; alternatively, in order to safeguard the dynamism of the market economy, certain innovative behaviors may be deliberately refrained from being classified as criminal. This gives rise to divergent outcomes.

Third, the concealment of evidence. Establishing criminal liability requires a rigorous evidentiary framework; taking the three‑tiered theory of crime as an example, it demands solid and sufficient proof that the act occurred, that it satisfies the statutory elements of the offense, that it was committed by the accused, and that the accused acted with subjective intent—specifically, in cases of intentional crimes—and pursued a particular purpose. Consider this: even when public security organs, vested with criminal investigative authority, may spend several months investigating a suspected offense before reaching a conclusion, the evidence submitted by the complainant typically falls far short of what is needed to establish criminal liability, amounting at best to mere preliminary leads. Although the law permits criminal complaints to be filed based on such leads, for the judiciary, these initial indications may carry little weight, or experience suggests that subsequent investigations are highly likely to yield findings different from the preliminary evidence—or may fail to uncover any admissible evidence at all. Under these circumstances, public security authorities generally decline to accept the complaint.

Fourth, the severity of criminal procedure. Since criminal proceedings impose restrictions on an individual’s liberty, their initiation must be approached with utmost caution. In the realm of economic crimes, the need to prevent the use of criminal means to intervene in civil disputes is frequently emphasized. The aim is to ensure that public security organs do not employ criminal investigations to gather evidence for related civil disputes or to impede parties from exercising their rights. Accordingly, such concerns also exist within the public security authorities, particularly when the relevant facts have already been brought before civil litigation.

The foregoing represents only a portion of the concerns encountered in judicial practice, which to some extent impede the initiation of preliminary inquiries and investigative proceedings following a criminal complaint. Accordingly, to enhance the likelihood of success of a criminal complaint, the complainant must meticulously prepare both evidence and the complaint itself, thereby enabling the receiving officials of the judicial authorities, upon reviewing the complaint materials, to form a preliminary assessment that there is a substantial likelihood of criminal conduct.

II. Criminal Leads and Facts of the Crime

Before sorting through the evidence, it is essential to distinguish between two concepts: criminal leads and criminal facts. A criminal lead merely suggests the possible existence of a criminal act; however, establishing that a crime has been committed requires thorough examination and verification of the lead, as well as consideration of any defenses raised by the accused, before determining whether criminal facts actually exist. Consequently, in filing a criminal complaint, the complainant typically provides only criminal leads. To enhance the likelihood of success, the complainant must carefully analyze these preliminary leads, anticipate potential areas of doubt or objections that the accused may raise, and strive to transform the leads into concrete facts.

III. Review of Evidence Details

To transform a lead into concrete evidence, the complainant must unearth compelling proof. Take a criminal complaint for fraud as an example: Suppose Person A claims to be able to secure school placement and enrollment for a child, yet by the time school begins, the child remains unable to enroll. From a commonsense legal perspective, Person A’s conduct would appear to constitute fraud. However, in filing a criminal complaint, the public security authorities must first establish that Person A fabricated facts. If Person A merely promised to arrange enrollment and secure student status but failed to deliver, this would not amount to fraud; rather, it would constitute a mere false promise—a minor administrative violation. Yet in such cases, the perpetrator typically relies on verbal assurances, leaving the complainant unable to even prove that the accused made any promise, let alone that the accused fabricated facts. Consequently, the criminal complaint often fails. In one particular case, however, the complainant discovered a photograph sent by the accused, which purportedly showed that the child had already been enrolled. This photograph became the central piece of evidence in the criminal complaint. Based on it, the public security authorities summoned the accused and facilitated a criminal settlement between the parties. Thus, identifying and isolating the core evidence is paramount to the success of a criminal complaint.

IV. A Complaint with Clear Logic

The complaint serves as a tool through which the complainant sets forth the basic facts of the case, the evidentiary framework, and the grounds for alleging a specific offense. To enable judicial authorities to grasp the case details, assess the evidence submitted by the complainant, and make a preliminary determination as to whether the elements of the alleged offense are satisfied, the complainant should convey this information to the receiving officer in the most concise language possible. To this end, the logical structure of the complaint must be carefully planned. Generally, the following format may be used as a reference.

First, list the basic information of the accused, ideally including clear and valid contact details. Second, specify the charges being alleged to enable the receiving officer to promptly retrieve the elements of that offense, along with the criteria for filing a case and relevant judicial policies, thereby establishing an initial framework for assessment. Third, provide a concise summary of the facts, focusing on the accused, the modus operandi, the location of the conduct, and the resulting harm. Fourth, develop a thorough analysis based on the logical structure of the specific offense—for example, how the perpetrator fabricated false facts, how they gained the complainant’s trust, and the amount of money defrauded. In addition, the complaint should employ professional terminology and avoid everyday language whenever possible.

In summary, a precise, concise, and logically structured complaint is the cornerstone of any accusation, serving to convey the case’s key details to the reception staff. If the complaint is obscure or fails to clearly set out the core facts and provide adequate supporting arguments, the reception staff will be unable to swiftly assess the factual basis of the case and may very well dismiss it as a mere ordinary dispute.

V. Continuous and Effective Information Communication

After the complaint is accepted, the complainant should maintain regular communication with the investigating officers to stay informed of the case’s progress and to provide any additional evidence as required. It is undeniable that judicial authorities may harbor a degree of reluctance toward criminal complaints, owing to concerns that the outcome could diverge from their initial assessment. Regarding the challenges inherent in this process, even the people’s courts have issued specific guidance; for instance, the “Minutes of the Ninth National Judicial Conference” stipulates that, in cases referred by the people’s courts to public security organs for investigation, if the latter determine that no crime has been committed, the people’s court may seek coordination through the Political and Legal Affairs Commission. Accordingly, when filing a criminal complaint—whether on behalf of an individual or an entity—the complainant must persist in engaging with the investigating authorities and continue to furnish relevant leads or evidence.

VI. Remedies

Upon receiving a complaint, the public security authorities conduct a preliminary review; however, such a review neither constitutes acceptance of the case nor triggers the initiation of criminal proceedings. Only after the public security authorities formally open a criminal investigation can the complaint be considered to have achieved initial success. If the public security authorities refuse to accept the complaint, the Criminal Procedure Law does not provide any avenue for redress. Conversely, if a criminal case is initiated and subsequently dismissed, the complainant may file a supervisory application with the People’s Procuratorate, requesting that the procuratorate examine whether criminal liability should be pursued against the alleged offender. Should the procuratorate determine that no criminal facts exist or that criminal liability should not be imposed, the criminal complaint procedure will thereby conclude; if, on the other hand, the procuratorate finds that criminal liability ought to be pursued, the public security authorities must reopen the case.

The foregoing represents only some of the fundamental elements of a criminal complaint. From the perspective of alleging a crime, filing such a complaint is essentially a process by which the complainant seeks to persuade the judicial authorities to hold the accused criminally liable; accordingly, it is inherently quite challenging. However, provided that the facts are clearly established and the evidentiary framework is complete, a criminal complaint can certainly be accepted by the judicial authorities.

(This article reflects the author’s personal views and is intended solely for informational purposes; it does not constitute legal advice or an interpretation of the law by Taihe Law Firm. This disclaimer is hereby made.)

Attorney Sun Guanzhong

Attorney Sun Guanzhong, The firm’s principal practice areas include criminal defense in economic and official‑duty crimes, representation in criminal complaints, the establishment of corporate criminal risk management systems, as well as litigation and non‑litigation legal services related to securities compliance for listed companies, criminal–civil intersections in large‑scale trade, and the prevention and control of criminal risks.

Lawyer Shi Qiao

Managing Partner, Taihe Law Firm

Attorney Shi Qiao, The firm’s principal practice areas include securities compliance for listed companies, commercial litigation involving bulk commodity traders, and legal services at the intersection of criminal and civil law; legal advisory services for state-owned enterprises, as well as the establishment of compliance frameworks and equity investments; and non‑litigation and litigation services related to the recovery of distressed claims and the commercial disposal of such assets in the banking and construction sectors.

Attorney Dai Feiyang

Taihe Law Firm Partner

Attorney Dai Feiyang, The firm’s principal practice areas include: securities compliance for listed companies; commercial litigation involving bulk commodity trading; cross‑border criminal–civil legal services; recovery and commercial disposal of non‑performing claims in construction projects, financial leasing, banking, and other sectors; as well as the design of supply‑chain finance structures and risk‑mitigation strategies for bulk commodity trading, financial leasing, and related fields—covering both non‑litigation and litigation matters.

This article is published by Jiangsu Taihe Law Firm. The author is Jiangsu Taihe Law Firm, and the copyright belongs to the author. Please cite the original source when reprinting; violations will be prosecuted.

Follow us