Against the backdrop of fully advancing the rule of law, and in order to thoroughly implement the directives of the Third Plenary Session and the Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the Party regarding the improvement of the two-way linkage mechanism between administrative penalties and criminal penalties, on December 13, 2025, the School of Law at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade will host an event co-organized by the Institute of Criminal Justice at China University of Political Science and Law, the Integrated Research Base for Civil, Criminal, and Administrative Law at Xinglai Institute, Beijing Xinglai Law Firm, and the Guangdong Institute for the Rule of Law at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade. Seminar on Reforming and Improving the Mechanism for Linking Administrative Law Enforcement with Criminal Justice Held successfully in Guangzhou.

The meeting conducted an in-depth discussion on the key and difficult issues encountered in the operation of the mechanism for linking administrative law enforcement with criminal justice, providing theoretical support and guiding pathways to address practical challenges in the two-way linkage between administrative law enforcement and criminal justice.

More than 120 experts and scholars, representatives from practical departments, and teachers and students from numerous institutions—including the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, the Guangdong Provincial People's Procuratorate, the Zhuhai Municipal People's Procuratorate of Guangdong Province, the Baiyun District People's Procuratorate of Guangzhou, Renmin University of China, China University of Political Science and Law, China People's Public Security University, Guangzhou University, Anhui University, Guangdong Police College, and Beijing Xinglai Law Firm—gathered together to discuss the innovative development of a two-way coordination mechanism between criminal prosecution and execution.

The opening ceremony of the seminar was chaired by Gao Jingfeng, a professor at the School of Law of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade. Ge Xiaoyue, Deputy Secretary of the Party Committee of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade; Sun Maoli, member of the 14th National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, former member of the Party Leadership Group and Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Public Security; and Sun Qian, Director of the Advisory Committee of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, former member of the Party Leadership Group and Deputy Chief Prosecutor, attended the opening ceremony and delivered speeches respectively.

Ge Xiaoyue, Deputy Secretary of the Party Committee of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade, on behalf of the university, extended a warm welcome and heartfelt gratitude to all the leaders, experts, scholars, and guests who have graced the event with their presence. She pointed out that, in the new stage of building a country ruled by law, the mechanism for coordinating criminal and administrative enforcement is directly linked to the effectiveness of national governance and the public’s sense of fairness and justice. Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, relevant reforms have continued to deepen; however, many challenges still remain in practice. This seminar focuses on key issues and holds great significance for promoting institutional and theoretical innovation and advancing the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity. She emphasized that hosting this seminar is both an honor and a responsibility for the university. Taking the 60th anniversary of its founding as a new starting point, the university will continue to pool high-quality resources and build high-level platforms, working hand-in-hand with all sectors to contribute the “Guangwai Approach” to perfecting the socialist rule-of-law system with Chinese characteristics. She also expressed her best wishes for the seminar to achieve abundant and fruitful outcomes.

Sun Maoli, a member of the 14th National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, former member of the Party Leadership Group and Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Public Security, pointed out that the topic selected for this seminar is both theoretically and practically significant. Currently, China’s crime structure has undergone significant changes: traditional crimes have declined, while administrative offenses and statutory offenses are gradually becoming the primary focus of governance. There is an urgent need for coordinated efforts between administrative supervision and criminal justice to prevent such offenses and crack down on them in accordance with the law. Drawing on his experience in public security work, he offered three key insights: First, administrative regulatory agencies must strengthen their awareness of analyzing and transferring criminal leads; second, public security, procuratorial, and judicial organs should enhance their coordination and cooperation with administrative regulatory agencies and provide timely feedback and suggestions to help improve front-end supervision; third, complementary measures for the linkage between administrative and criminal enforcement should be refined to promote mutual support among the two sides in terms of technology, resources, and capacity, thereby addressing challenges such as high appraisal costs and heavy reliance on specialized expertise. Administrative law enforcement and criminal justice should join forces to enhance governance effectiveness.

Sun Qian, Director of the Advisory Committee of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, former member of the Party Leadership Group, and former Deputy Chief Prosecutor, stated that this seminar, which focuses on the mechanism for linking administrative and criminal enforcement, is an important step in implementing Xi Jinping’s thought on the rule of law and responding to the national strategy of comprehensively governing the country according to law. Drawing on his many years of experience in procuratorial work, he shared three key insights: First, the evolution of the linkage between administrative and criminal enforcement reflects the development of China’s social governance and rule-of-law system. It has shifted from the unidirectional linkage—initially established during the early stages of reform and opening-up—to prevent “using fines in lieu of criminal penalties”—to a two-way linkage between administrative and criminal penalties. Moreover, in line with the principle of restraint in criminal law, the mechanism now ensures smooth channels for cases to be transferred back from criminal prosecution procedures to administrative penalties. Second, it is crucial to clearly define the boundaries of authority and responsibility between administrative and judicial organs, preventing criminal offenses from being dismissed solely through administrative penalties while also ensuring the appropriate handling of minor violations. Third, attention must be paid to issues such as failure to transfer serious crimes in accordance with the law, inconsistent standards for determining guilt versus innocence, and lack of smooth coordination between prosecutorial and administrative powers. To address these challenges, both the academic and practical communities need to join forces and continue making sustained efforts.

• Several Key Issues in the Mechanism for Linking Administrative Law Enforcement with Criminal Justice

The keynote speech session was chaired by Professor Zhou Xin from the School of Law at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade. Professors Chen Weidong, Wu Yuzhang Distinguished Professor at Renmin University of China and Executive Vice President of the Chinese Association for Research in Criminal Procedure Law; Xiong Qiuhong, Director of the Institute of Procedural Law at China University of Political Science and Law, Professor, and Vice President and Secretary-General of the Chinese Association for Research in Criminal Procedure Law; Wu Qiaobin, Deputy Director of the Office of Legal Policy Research at the Supreme People's Procuratorate; and Yang Zhikun, Associate Dean and Professor at the Guangdong Institute for Rule of Law at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade, each delivered keynote speeches on the theme of “Several Important Issues Concerning the Mechanism for Linking Administrative Enforcement with Criminal Justice.”

Professor Chen Weidong, Wu Yuzhang Distinguished Professor at Renmin University of China and Executive Vice President of the Chinese Association for Research in Criminal Procedure Law, pointed out that the seamless connection between criminal investigation and execution is a key and challenging aspect of building a rule-of-law society. Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, progress has been made; however, in practice, problems such as "cases not being transferred despite their existence" and "difficulties in transferring cases that should be transferred," coupled with an overemphasis on criminal prosecution, remain prevalent, and the mechanism itself often operates in a purely formalistic manner. The seamless connection between criminal investigation and execution faces five major challenges: an incomplete regulatory framework, inefficient procedural operations, inadequate rules on evidence, barriers to information sharing, and insufficient prosecutorial oversight. To address these challenges, improvements should be made in five key areas: First, strengthen the regulatory framework by enhancing top-level design and issuing unified documents to eliminate conflicts; second, streamline procedural operations by clarifying transfer standards and establishing a checklist system to standardize reverse connections; third, refine evidence rules by adhering to the principle of limited transfers and clearly defining the scope and criteria for evidence conversion; fourth, enhance information sharing by jointly building integrated platforms and establishing a comprehensive data security mechanism throughout the entire process; and fifth, optimize prosecutorial oversight by expanding its scope, improving its effectiveness, and leveraging digital technologies to achieve precise supervision.

Professor Xiong Qiuhong, Dean of the Institute of Litigation Law at China University of Political Science and Law and Vice President and Secretary-General of the Chinese Association for Research in Criminal Procedure Law, pointed out that, at the normative level, China’s system of coordination between administrative and criminal enforcement has entered a new stage of normative development characterized by “two-way emphasis.” Starting from the 2001 State Council document, which first introduced the concept of “coordination between administrative and criminal enforcement” and laid down provisions for “positive coordination,” to the 2018 amendment of the Criminal Procedure Law, which added provisions for “reverse coordination,” the system has evolved toward a more balanced and comprehensive approach. At the theoretical level, while adhering to the foundational “dual-system” framework of administrative and criminal penalties, we should introduce the “unified integration theory” as a complementary perspective, thereby addressing the growing trend of blurring boundaries between administrative offenses and criminal offenses resulting from the expanding scope of both categories. At the operational level, we could draw on Germany’s experience, aiming to build a mechanism for coordination between administrative and criminal enforcement that ensures the accuracy of legal application, the completeness of procedural requirements, and the simultaneous pursuit of judicial fairness and efficiency. Under the principle of criminal priority, both criminal offenses and administrative violations should undergo a dual review process. In terms of transitioning from criminal proceedings to administrative violation proceedings, we should differentiate among various stages of litigation and different case circumstances when handling issues of coordination between administrative and criminal enforcement. Conversely, when transitioning from administrative violation proceedings to criminal proceedings, we should distinguish based on whether the administrative authority has already imposed an administrative penalty, and further refine mechanisms such as the transfer of leads, conversion of evidence, and receipt of feedback, so as to achieve efficient collaboration between administrative enforcement agencies and criminal prosecution authorities.

Wu Qiaobin, Deputy Director of the Office for Legal and Policy Research at the Supreme People's Procuratorate, pointed out that the relationship between administrative and criminal law, the interaction between administrative enforcement and criminal justice, and the linkage between administrative and criminal liability all exhibit both complexity and relevance to contemporary times, highlighting the significant value of studying the mechanism for seamless coordination between administrative and criminal proceedings. As the structure of criminal offenses evolves, the traditional “from administrative to criminal” linkage can no longer meet the needs of modern administrative offenses, making it increasingly difficult to address the blind spots where offenses go unpunished despite being administratively liable. Therefore, establishing a reverse linkage between administrative and criminal procedures has become particularly essential. The core principle here is to refer to the competent authorities those acts that have not yet led to criminal prosecution but still warrant administrative responsibility, adhering to the principle that "exemption from criminal punishment does not equate to exemption from administrative penalties." Although the current institutional framework has been gradually refined and has achieved practical results, challenges remain, including gaps in substantive regulations, obstacles in procedural implementation, and insufficient rigidity in oversight mechanisms. To address these issues, he recommended adopting the guiding principle of "placing equal emphasis on punishing crimes and governing society," upholding principles such as independent determination and comprehensive evaluation. By standardizing penalty criteria, streamlining linkage procedures, strengthening technological empowerment, and deepening collaborative synergy, we can continuously enhance the quality and efficiency of the reverse linkage between administrative and criminal procedures.

Professor Yang Zhikun, Vice Director of the Guangdong Institute for Rule of Law at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade, pointed out that the coordination between administrative enforcement and criminal justice is not merely a matter of procedural techniques or case-by-case referrals. Rather, it should be understood within the broader framework of the constitutional division and collaboration of state powers. Administrative enforcement and criminal justice each play distinct roles in addressing various types of “illegal” conduct; this division of labor not only reflects professional specialization and efficiency but also requires coordinated collaboration to uphold the unity of the legal order and the integration of the governance system. As the body responsible for legal supervision, the procuratorial organs should play a pivotal role in the coordination mechanism, promoting cross-departmental collaborative operations through platform development and process optimization. At the substantive level, they must distinguish between homogeneous and heterogeneous regulatory frameworks: in homogeneous areas, they should achieve substantive “coordination” in handling “illegal” conduct; in heterogeneous areas, they should emphasize coordination guided by the principle of proportionality, thereby preventing situations such as disconnects in responsibility or inverted penalties in practice. Ultimately, through typological and contextualized approaches, they can effectively bridge the gap between administrative enforcement and criminal justice.

• Reform and Improvement of the Mechanism for Positive Coordination Between Administrative Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

This seminar features two main thematic sessions. The first session, titled “Reform and Improvement of the Positive Coordination Mechanism Between Administrative Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice,” is chaired by Wu Qiaobin, Deputy Director of the Office for Legal and Policy Research at the Supreme People’s Procuratorate.

Ye Zuhuai, member of the Party Leadership Group and Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the People's Procuratorate of Zhuhai City, Guangdong Province; Zhang Zetao, Professor at the School of Law, Guangzhou University; Cheng Xiaolu, Chair of the Partners’ Meeting at Beijing Xinglai Law Firm and Director of the Integrated Research Base for Criminal, Civil, and Administrative Law at the Institute of Criminal Justice of China University of Political Science and Law & Xinglai Law Firm; Yang Fan, Professor at the School of Law, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade; Li Ce, Lecturer at the School of Law, China People’s Public Security University; and Zhi Jiayi, Lecturer at the School of Law, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade, each delivered keynote reports in turn. Chen Kexiang, Associate Professor and Director of the Institute of Regional Rule of Law at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade, participated in the discussion.

Ye Zuhuai, Deputy Chief Prosecutor and member of the Party Leadership Group of the People's Procuratorate of Zhuhai City, Guangdong Province, stated that Zhuhai is a pioneer in the "linkage between administrative and criminal laws": In 2012, Zhuhai established the province's first city- and district-level networked information-sharing platform for the linkage between administrative and criminal laws. Moreover, the "Regulations on the Coordination between Administrative Enforcement and Criminal Justice in the Zhuhai Special Economic Zone" is the nation's first local regulation systematically standardizing the coordination between these two legal systems, and it has yielded remarkable practical results. However, at present, there are still several challenges in advancing this linkage work, including insufficient legislative support, lack of uniform standards for case referrals, and low data conversion rates on the platform. To further deepen the positive linkage work, efforts can be made along three key fronts: First, promote platform upgrades to break down information barriers; second, refine standard guidelines to enhance the quality and effectiveness of the linkage; and third, strengthen legislative support to bolster the rigidity of oversight.

Professor Zhang Zetao from the School of Law at Guangzhou University argues that the traditional unidirectional linkage model focuses solely on the linear transfer of cases from administrative authorities to judicial organs, neglecting the subsequent administrative oversight and regulation following criminal proceedings. As a result, this approach fails to establish a closed-loop governance system that integrates both punishment and prevention, leading to the coexistence of “using fines in place of criminal penalties” and “using criminal penalties in place of fines,” the lack of proper evidence conversion procedures, and fragmented interdepartmental cooperation. To address these issues, we should take the theory of collaborative governance as our guiding principle and build a closed-loop system encompassing the following stages: "clues about administrative violations—criminal case filing and investigation—criminal prosecution—follow-up administrative supervision." This system can be strengthened by enacting unified legislation that clearly defines the powers and responsibilities of the relevant entities, establishes standardized criteria for case transfers, and specifies rules for evidence conversion. Moreover, administrative supervisory obligations following criminal proceedings should be codified into law. We should also set up a cross-departmental big data sharing platform and a regular joint conference mechanism, and involve diverse stakeholders—including industry associations, social organizations, and public whistleblowers—to create a multi-stakeholder governance framework involving "government, judiciary, and society." Furthermore, the linkage work should be incorporated into performance evaluation and accountability systems, thereby truly achieving end-to-end governance of both administrative violations and criminal offenses.

Lawyer Cheng Xiaolu, Chair of the Partners’ Meeting at Beijing Xinglai Law Firm, took the high-profile Changchun vaccine case as an example to explore the conflicts and potential solutions in the practical implementation of the criminal-administrative coordination mechanism. She pointed out: After a criminal procedure has been initiated, if the administrative authority prematurely imposes the maximum administrative fine of 9.1 billion yuan, does this violate the principle of “criminal proceedings taking precedence”? This situation reflects the deep-seated tension between “efficiency” and “procedural justice,” and serves as a typical microcosm of the blurred boundaries of power in the criminal-administrative coordination process. The case highlights two major issues: First, the criteria and timing for initiating criminal investigations may be influenced by public opinion and other factors; second, there is overlap between administrative penalties and criminal prosecution procedures, which not only blurs the boundary between administrative and judicial powers but also carries the risk of “double punishment,” potentially causing irreversible harm to the rights and interests of enterprises. Lawyer Cheng emphasized that the strict punishment of illegal acts must be firmly grounded in the rule of law and adherence to procedural fairness. She called for the establishment of a systematic framework characterized by clear division of powers and responsibilities and smooth coordination: After administrative enforcement agencies refer cases to the judiciary, they should respect the primacy of judicial proceedings and, only after the criminal proceedings have concluded, determine—in accordance with the law—whether and how to impose supplementary administrative penalties (such as disqualification penalties). Only by upholding both substantive and procedural justice can every sanction demonstrate both severity and withstand scrutiny under both law and history.

Professor Yang Fan from the School of Law at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade believes that we need to further reflect on the absolute effectiveness of referring cases to judicial authorities and the necessity of timely referral. Currently, the criteria for determining criminal suspicion are not clearly defined and require further clarification. After a case is referred, judicial authorities still rely on the professional judgment of administrative agencies; therefore, terminating the administrative investigation may not necessarily enable the judiciary to fully grasp the details of the case. Moreover, administrative enforcement enjoys a certain degree of independence, and it remains to be discussed whether the judicial authorities’ decision not to prosecute will inevitably lead administrative agencies to issue administrative penalty decisions accordingly.

Li Ce, a lecturer at the School of Law of the People's Public Security University of China, stated that the traditional paradigm of case referral is characterized by passivity, ex post facto nature, and fragmentation, making it ill-suited to meet the demands of new types of crime governance and risk prevention. We should take the principle of risk prevention as the core theoretical framework, shifting the focus of criminal justice coordination from post-event accountability to proactive risk prevention. This can be achieved by standardizing risk alerts, implementing tiered and coordinated interventions, establishing closed-loop optimization mechanisms, and leveraging real-world big data and AI-powered self-learning to continuously refine risk models. At the same time, we should promote the elevation of local practices into central legislation, fully harnessing the role of digital technologies in preventing illegal and criminal activities. By doing so, we can facilitate a paradigm shift in the operation of public power—from “case handling” to “risk prevention,” thereby providing foundational technological support for the modernization of the rule of law.

Zhi Jia, a lecturer at the School of Law of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade, stated that the current standard for transferring cases—“suspected of constituting a crime and legally requiring criminal prosecution”—is extremely difficult for frontline administrative law enforcement officers to determine. We could draw on the approach used in the field of intellectual property rights, which stipulates that “a case may be transferred as long as there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” By adopting a “loose entry, strict exit” model, we can both avoid substituting fines for criminal penalties and fully leverage the professional investigative strengths of public security organs. At the same time, legislation should grant administrative agencies the authority to handle minor cases and to exonerate individuals from criminal liability, clearly defining the boundaries of their powers and the applicable procedures. Furthermore, the procuratorial organs should strengthen their oversight over the entire process of case transfer and filing, improve the joint conference system, broaden the scope of transfer of assets and evidence involved in cases, and achieve two-way complementarity and standardized uniformity between administrative and criminal evidentiary rules.

Associate Professor Chen Kexiang, Director of the Institute for Regional Rule of Law at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade, pointed out that the core issues in the coordination between administrative enforcement and criminal justice are “what needs to be transferred” and “how to transfer it.” From the perspective of substantive standards, the low hierarchical status of regulatory norms makes it difficult to achieve seamless alignment. Therefore, higher-level legislation is needed to establish common standards that can be jointly enforced by administrative agencies and procuratorial organs. This not only promotes the clarification of substantive standards but also calls for further refinement of these standards tailored to specific fields. From a procedural standpoint, the application of collaborative governance models such as joint meetings and joint offices should be guided by scenario-based designs that clearly delineate the respective jurisdictions of different agencies, thereby preventing any overreach into the authority of other agencies merely for the sake of coordination. As for technological applications, the information-sharing challenges in the coordination between administrative enforcement and criminal justice—characterized by the situation of "having platforms but lacking true sharing"—stem primarily from ambiguities in legislative authority. Hence, it is essential to further clarify the entities involved in data sharing, the scope of such sharing, and the associated responsibilities, so as to fully harness the potential of existing platforms and solidify the technological foundation for bidirectional coordination between administrative enforcement and criminal justice.

• Reform and Improvement of the Reverse Coordination Mechanism Between Administrative Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

The thematic report for Unit Two, titled “Reform and Improvement of the Mechanism for Reverse Coordination Between Administrative Enforcement and Criminal Justice,” was chaired by Wang Jun, Director of Beijing Xinglai Law Firm and Executive Director of the Integrated Research Base for Civil, Criminal, and Administrative Law at the Institute of Criminal Justice of China University of Political Science and Law & Xinglai Law Firm.

Professor Liu Jihua from the Law School of Renmin University of China, Professor Yuan Yi from the School of Comparative Law at China University of Political Science and Law, Deputy Director Xiao Yajing of the Second Prosecution Department of the People's Procuratorate of Baiyun District, Guangzhou, Lecturer Zheng Lizhou from the Law School of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade, and doctoral candidate Tian Yuan from the Law School of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade delivered keynote reports one after another. Associate Professor Xia Wei from the School of Criminal Justice at China University of Political Science and Law and Lecturer Liu Tiantian from the School of Law at Anhui University participated in the discussion.

Professor Liu Jihua from the Law School of Renmin University of China stated that the two-way linkage between administrative enforcement and criminal justice is a new issue receiving high attention from the central government, involving comprehensive coordination between administrative law enforcement and criminal justice. This mechanism requires that individuals prosecuted for administrative violations that also constitute criminal offenses be held accountable under both administrative and criminal legal systems, thereby avoiding any one-sided approach to liability. He pointed out that in practice, some cases—though lacking victims yet already constituting criminal offenses—are not referred to public security organs, which has hindered the initiation of public prosecution procedures. Even after the procuratorial organs refer such cases back to administrative authorities, they should still bear the subsequent responsibility of submitting prosecutorial opinions and continuously tracking the outcomes of the handling process. He also discussed issues such as the failure to include the issue of court judgments exempting defendants from criminal punishment within the scope of this two-way linkage, as well as the lack of guidance from typical cases. He suggested that the relevant departments jointly draft appropriate documents to address these challenges.

Professor Yuan Yi from the School of Comparative Law at China University of Political Science and Law stated that the criminal procedure law of the Russian Federation shares a similar structure with China’s criminal procedure law, and its fixed legislative features can provide valuable insights for revising China’s criminal procedure law. Secondly, Russian law includes two provisions related to the reverse linkage mechanism: First, Russia has added a special chapter stipulating that in cases where criminal liability is waived, a procedural fine may be imposed—a measure that aligns perfectly with the direction of reverse linkage. Second, when minors are exempted from criminal responsibility, they are instead subjected to administrative coercive measures, specifically including three categories: educational rehabilitation, compulsory educational rehabilitation measures, and specialized closed-type educational institutions. These provisions are detailed and highly targeted. To ensure the effective implementation of reverse linkage, it is necessary to establish comprehensive legal regulations at the legislative level. It would be advisable to start by focusing on minors or other vulnerable groups and further refine the relevant application standards.

Xiao Yajing, Deputy Director of the Second Prosecution Department of the People's Procuratorate of Baiyun District, Guangzhou City, stated that in the operation of the reverse coordination mechanism, challenges such as unclear transfer entities for cases involving smuggling and tax evasion, inconsistent evidentiary standards, insufficient institutional rigidity, and reversed penalties have emerged. She suggested that at the legislative level, substantive and procedural provisions for reverse coordination should be systematically coordinated. At the same time, procuratorial personnel’s knowledge base in cross-disciplinary areas—including customs anti-smuggling, financial foreign exchange, and cybercrime—should be enhanced. On the level of collaborative governance, it is recommended that reverse coordination be incorporated into the assessment indicators for rule-of-law development and public safety initiatives, thereby breaking the current predicament of over-reliance on the procuratorate’s unilateral efforts and achieving a deeper shift from handling individual cases to addressing similar cases and promoting social governance.

Lecturer Zheng Lizhou from the School of Law at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade stated that the mechanism for reverse coordination between criminal and administrative procedures in handling seized assets reflects the hierarchical nature of criminal and administrative responsibilities and underscores the importance of achieving efficiency. In judicial practice, there are barriers between criminal justice and administrative law enforcement in areas such as information sharing, standardization, and division of responsibilities, leading to ambiguity regarding the parties’ rights to participate in the proceedings. To improve this reverse coordination mechanism, it is necessary to establish an information-sharing platform, refine the collaborative mechanism between "law enforcement and judicial authorities," and ensure that the parties’ rights to be informed, to express their views, and to seek procedural remedies are fully protected. Moreover, attention should be paid to maintaining consistency in the application of the principle of proportionality—from administrative law to criminal law.

Dr. Tian Yuan, a doctoral candidate at the School of Law of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade, points out that under China’s dual-track sanctioning model—combining administrative and criminal penalties—non-prosecution in criminal cases does not equate to the elimination of administrative violations. Moreover, the expansion of minor offenses has further widened the institutional vacuum of “no punishment without criminal prosecution.” Therefore, the reverse linkage between administrative and criminal sanctions has become an inevitable necessity for completing the governance chain. She argues that the current mechanism for reverse linkage between administrative and criminal sanctions faces three core issues: First, there is a lack of clear legal regulations, blurred boundaries between administrative and criminal sanctions, and blind spots in the application of the system; second, there is an imbalance in administrative and criminal penalties, with a lack of orderly coordination in the severity of punishments, leading to the phenomenon of “reverse linkage” between administrative and criminal sanctions; third, there are procedural bottlenecks, including difficulties in identifying the transferring entity, inadequate integration of evidence, and a lack of standardized procedures, which make it challenging to effectively implement administrative penalties. To address these issues, we should work collaboratively on both substantive and procedural levels: Substantively, we need to clarify the criteria for distinguishing between administrative and criminal sanctions, fill gaps in administrative penalty provisions, and adhere to the principle of proportionality to ensure that the severity of penalties is appropriately matched; procedurally, we should specify the initiating entities and jurisdiction rules, unify standards for evidence conversion, standardize the scope of clue transfers, and optimize feedback processes, thereby achieving effective integration between administrative violations and criminal justice.

Xia Wei, an associate professor at the School of Criminal Justice of China University of Political Science and Law, stated that reverse linkage not only serves a accountability function but also embodies the value of error correction: administrative agencies may impose improper penalties due to flawed evidence or erroneous findings. Once judicial authorities identify such problems during criminal review, they should, through the reverse linkage mechanism, urge administrative agencies to reinvestigate, revoke, or modify the original penalty decisions. It is recommended that legislation clearly define the procuratorial organs’ power to initiate error correction, the administrative agencies’ obligation to reprocess cases, and the corresponding deadlines. By expanding reverse linkage from a mere “accountability tool” into a multifaceted system that combines “multi-level governance with rights protection,” we can both safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved and enhance the standardization of administrative law enforcement, thereby achieving the rule-of-law goal of “correcting all errors and holding those responsible accountable without exempting them from liability.”

Liu Tiantian, a lecturer at the School of Law of Anhui University, stated that in 2024, procuratorial organs across the country issued prosecutorial recommendations for administrative penalties against 162,000 individuals who were not prosecuted, accounting for 40% of the total number of non-prosecuted cases. In regions such as Ningxia, the response rate from administrative authorities regarding these penalties approached 90%, effectively addressing the issue of "no punishment without criminal liability." However, there still lacks a unified standard for determining punishability, evidence conversion rules remain inconsistent, and the depth of technological empowerment is insufficient. It is recommended that, at the conceptual level, we emphasize the integration of "punishment commensurate with responsibility" with social governance; at the institutional level, we promote statutory procedures, standardized criteria, and a systematic checklist for evidence conversion; and at the innovation level, we leverage big data platforms to achieve full-chain digitalization—automatically generating, delivering, reminding about, and evaluating prosecutorial recommendations—thereby strengthening the rigidity of supervision and ensuring that the reverse linkage moves from quantitative growth toward qualitative improvement.

The closing ceremony was chaired by Professor Zhou Xin from the School of Law at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade. Professor Gao Jingfeng from the School of Law at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and International Trade delivered the concluding remarks for the seminar.

Professor Gao Jingfeng fully affirmed the effectiveness of this conference, noting that it showcased several notable highlights: First, the conference attracted a wide range of participants, including experts and scholars from political and legal organs at all levels, academia, and the practical field, resulting in lively exchanges of views that were both insightful and highly valuable for research and reference. Second, the discussions demonstrated both depth and breadth—delving into the essence of the core issue of coordination between criminal and administrative enforcement while comprehensively covering key dimensions such as substantive regulations and procedural operations, thus ensuring that the discussion content was systematic and thorough. Third, the viewpoints put forward were characterized by foresight, theoretical rigor, and practical applicability; they not only addressed current practical challenges with precision but also offered innovative ideas with an eye toward long-term development. Fourth, the research perspectives were diverse and broad—grounded in domestic law enforcement and judicial practice to draw on accumulated experience, yet enriched by comparative studies of legislative examples from China and abroad, thereby providing significant inspiration for future reforms of the criminal-administrative enforcement coordination mechanism and related research.

Subsequently, Professor Gao Jingfeng, drawing on the outcomes of the conference discussions, identified five key issues that require further in-depth exploration: First, the nature of prosecutorial supervision in the positive linkage between criminal and administrative enforcement—specifically, whether such supervision falls under criminal case filing oversight or administrative prosecution, and the legislative appropriateness of relevant institutional norms; second, the delineation of boundaries between prosecutorial power and administrative power—particularly clarifying the legal effect of prosecutorial opinions on administrative penalties proposed by the procuratorate in reverse linkage, and defining the scope of prosecutorial authority; third, the hierarchical status and applicative relationship between prosecutorial opinions and prosecutorial recommendations—requiring a clear understanding of their logical relationship in judicial practice; fourth, the coordinated adaptation between reverse linkage and the system of sealing criminal records—including the coordination of evidence sealing, transfer of materials, and sealing requirements following non-prosecution decisions, as well as the specific rules for sealing administrative penalty records; and fifth, the standardized development of a digital platform for linking criminal and administrative enforcement—requiring that platform construction adhere to the principle of promoting the public good, clarify the relationship between the construction of information platforms and the principle of decentralization in information development, uphold the principle of two-way transparency in information sharing, and safeguard the principle of citizens’ freedom.

Finally, Professor Gao Jingfeng expressed his gratitude to the university leaders who provided strong support for this seminar, as well as to the leaders of political and legal authorities at all levels, university scholars and experts, practitioners from relevant departments, young scholars, and graduate and doctoral students who actively participated in the conference. He also extended his most heartfelt thanks to all members of the conference organizing committee for their hard work and dedication in ensuring the smooth running of the event. He emphasized that this seminar focused closely on the core issue of reforming and improving the mechanism for linking administrative law enforcement with criminal justice, effectively fostering consensus among multiple parties, sparking vibrant intellectual exchanges, and providing practical and actionable insights, thus achieving fruitful outcomes. He looked forward to colleagues taking this conference as an opportunity to continue deepening theoretical research and practical exploration in related fields, and working together to contribute more wisdom and solid strength toward perfecting China’s distinctive system of linking administrative and criminal law enforcement and advancing the construction of a country ruled by law.

Source: Chinese Legal Review