November 23, 2025, The seminar on the further revision of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, hosted by the Beijing Lawyers Association and organized by the Specialized Committee on Criminal Procedure Law, was successfully held in Beijing. This seminar brought together renowned scholars from numerous universities, including China University of Political Science and Law, Renmin University of China, and Beijing Foreign Studies University, as well as nearly a hundred senior lawyers from the criminal law practice community. Participants engaged in an in-depth exchange centered on the revision of both the general provisions and specific provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law.

 

Lawyer Wang Jun, director of Beijing Xinglai Law Firm and a member of the Criminal Procedure Law Specialized Committee of the Beijing Lawyers Association, participated in the seminar on the “Specific Provisions” section and delivered a keynote speech on the topic of “Procedural Safeguards for the Handling of Property Involved in Cases by Non-Parties.” The following content has been compiled and published based on the remarks made at the scene.

Dear colleagues:

Good afternoon, everyone! It’s truly an honor to have the opportunity to share and report my thoughts and insights with you all here today. The issue I’m focusing on is the handling of property involved in a case by parties outside the formal legal proceedings.

This issue is closely related to both the general provisions and the specific provisions of criminal law. At present, the problems of improper jurisdiction across jurisdictions and profit-driven law enforcement and judicial practices are particularly prominent. Since the beginning of this year, the Supreme People’s Court has issued the “Notice on Upholding Strict and Impartial Judicial Standards in the Trial and Enforcement of Enterprise-Related Cases,” the Supreme People’s Procuratorate has released the “Work Plan for the Procuratorial Organs to Carry Out Special Supervision on ‘Improper Cross-Jurisdictional Law Enforcement and Profit-Driven Law Enforcement and Judicial Practices,’” and the Ministry of Public Security has promulgated the “Regulations on Jurisdiction over Inter-Provincial Criminal Cases Involving Enterprises.” All these measures are aimed at curbing or regulating, to the greatest extent possible, the alienation phenomena that have emerged recently.

I believe that the core issue underlying profit-driven justice may lie in the handling of property. The investigative authorities’ control over property disposal powers—and their mastery of the initiative in such disposals—are the most significant driving forces behind this phenomenon. If the Criminal Procedure Law could clarify and strengthen the existing procedures for objections to third-party property, it might, to a large extent, prevent problems before they arise.

Next, I’d like to share two suggestions for amending the Criminal Procedure Law.

With regard to the right of third parties to participate in litigation, although such rights are not explicitly stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Law, they are nonetheless addressed in the "Opinions on Further Standardizing the Handling of Property Involved in Criminal Proceedings," issued in 2015 by the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council, as well as in the Interpretations of the Criminal Procedure Law. Taken together, these two sets of provisions grant third parties a range of substantive rights, including the right to raise objections to the ownership of property involved in the case, the right to be informed of their relevant litigation rights, the right to participate in the proceedings and court hearings, and even—after the court has rendered its judgment—the right to request the procuratorate to lodge a protest or to file an appeal. Judging from these litigation rights, they are indeed concrete and enforceable. However, it is regrettable that these provisions have not been incorporated into the Criminal Procedure Law itself, and not all of them are “as they should be” (especially the right of third parties to participate in litigation, which largely depends on the judge’s discretionary power). As a result, in practice, the scope and effectiveness of these provisions remain rather limited.

Next, let’s examine the section on defense and representation in the General Provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law. Currently, the regulations stipulate that litigation agents representing victims in public prosecution cases, parties in ancillary civil lawsuits, and private prosecutors in private prosecution cases may appoint lawyers as their litigation agents; however, there is no provision allowing non-parties to appoint lawyers as litigation agents. This lack of a clear legal framework results in insufficient systemic safeguards regarding various aspects, such as the involvement of litigation agents, applications to participate in court hearings, and the appointment of lawyers by non-parties. For instance, although non-parties are permitted to participate in litigation, they currently lack a statutory basis for appointing a lawyer as their litigation agent—though, from a broad perspective, such an appointment would not be entirely prohibited. Therefore, I propose adding to Chapter 4, “Defense and Representation,” of the General Provisions a legal provision explicitly permitting non-parties to appoint lawyers as their litigation agents, as well as granting non-parties a statutory right to participate in litigation. By dovetailing with existing provisions and further clarifying these points, we can more effectively safeguard the rights of non-parties to participate in court hearings and access subsequent remedies.

This concerns the content of Part IV—Enforcement—and Part III—Trial—of the Special Provisions. With regard to the enforcement of property-related matters in criminal cases, the Supreme People’s Court issued the “Several Provisions on the Enforcement of Property-Related Portions of Criminal Judgments” in 2014. In recent years, the scope of these provisions’ application has been steadily expanding, and lawyers have been increasingly citing them in their practice. The provisions explicitly state that, in addition to parties being able to raise objections to enforcement actions, they also distinguish between two important groups: stakeholders and third parties. Stakeholders primarily raise procedural objections to the enforcement process, and their remedies include filing a request for reconsideration with the higher-level court, among other options. Third parties, by contrast, focus more on substantive rights, raising objections to the subject matter of enforcement—that is, determining whether the property involved is indeed related to the case or legally belongs to the third party. As for issues concerning the substantive ownership of the property, third parties seek redress through the avenue of objections to enforcement proceedings filed by third parties.

The remedy available to third parties who raise objections to the subject matter of enforcement is outlined in Article 15 of the “Regulations on Property-Related Matters”: If a third party or victim believes that the criminal judgment has either incorrectly determined whether certain property involved in the case constitutes stolen goods or proceeds, or failed to make such a determination when it should have been made, and after filing an objection with the enforcement court, the enforcement court may, if it deems that the error can be corrected by way of an order, refer the matter to the trial division that rendered the original judgment for handling. However, if the error cannot be corrected by an order, the available remedies are clearly defined and highly circumscribed—such cases can only be remedied through the supervisory review procedure. Yet in practice, initiating the supervisory review procedure is extremely difficult; even the parties who have already been sentenced find it challenging to get the process started, let alone third parties who were not involved in the trial and do not enjoy substantive rights in the proceedings—they do not even have the right to access the case files, may not necessarily be able to attend the trial, and cannot offer targeted opinions. Despite all this, they are expected to argue in the appeal process that the property in question belongs to them rather than being part of the case—so the difficulty they face is self-evident.

From a legislative perspective, it makes logical sense to seek redress through the trial supervision procedure. However, in practice, this approach has not received sufficient attention nor been effectively implemented. In reality, even when third parties proactively request to participate in court proceedings, courts tend to hesitate repeatedly before ultimately deciding against allowing their participation. Therefore, although the “Provisions on Property-Related Matters” are commendable, if they could be better aligned with the Criminal Procedure Law and coordinated with the current judicial landscape—integrating the handling of property involved in a case into the court’s investigation and debate phases and granting third parties clear procedural rights—the protection of their rights would become more concrete and actionable. Even in future appeals, third parties would have solid legal grounds to rely on.

The above recommendations do not represent a fundamental overhaul of the Criminal Procedure Law. The judicial interpretations concerning organized crime and gang-related cases have long included provisions for court investigation and debate on assets involved in such cases in accordance with the law. Moreover, the Interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Law already stipulates the right of third parties not directly involved in the case to participate in litigation. The “Provisions on Property-Related Matters” further clarify issues related to enforcement procedures and explicitly indicate that these matters may be handled by directly referring to the Civil Procedure Law. Based on these existing legal provisions, granting third parties definite procedural rights and eliminating judges’ discretionary power in this regard are essentially consistent with previous practices. Although this is a minor adjustment, it can significantly enhance the protection of third-party rights and help address the issue of justice being driven by self-interest.

Those are my suggestions—thank you all!

Beijing Headquarters Address: Floor 17, China Resources Building, No. 8 Beidajie, Jianguomen, Dongcheng District, Beijing

Wuhan Branch Office Address: Room 1001, Floor 10, Huangpu International Center, Jiang'an District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province