On August 10, 2026, a symposium on the development of an independent knowledge system for Chinese criminal law and the relaunch of *Frontiers in Criminal Law* was successfully held at the Institute of Law of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Organized by the Institute of Law at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the conference brought together leading domestic criminal law scholars, judicial practitioners, and senior attorneys for in-depth discussions on core topics such as the construction of an independent knowledge system in Chinese criminal law and the judicial governance of cutting-edge criminal offenses, marking the significant milestone of the official relaunch of the academic journal *Frontiers in Criminal Law*. Attorney Tian Wenchang, Honorary Advisor to the Chinese Society of Criminal Law and Honorary Director of King&Capital Law Firm, and Attorney Liang Yali, Executive Council Member of the Chinese Society of Criminal Law, Senior Partner at King&Capital Law Firm, and Director of the Kyoto Criminal Defense Research Center, were invited to attend this prestigious event. They delivered a keynote speech and participated in a panel discussion, respectively, contributing professional insights from a practical perspective to the development of an independent knowledge system for Chinese criminal law.
Group photo of conference participants
As a highly influential academic platform in China’s field of criminal law, the relaunch of *Frontiers of Criminal Law* is a major event for the criminal law community, marking a further upgrade of the academic research landscape in criminal law. Centered on the theme of “Building an Independent Knowledge System for Chinese Criminal Law,” this symposium featured three thematic sessions that conducted comprehensive discussions spanning legislative improvements, judicial practice, and foundational theory. It not only continues and carries forward academic traditions but also represents a concentrated exploration of the development direction of Chinese criminal law in the new era.
Tian Wenchang Delivers Keynote Address:
Advocating for the Inclusion of Clarifying the Description of Criminal Offenses on the Legislative Agenda
During the keynote session of the first panel, Tian Wenchang delivered a keynote speech titled “Clarifying the Description of Criminal Offenses Should Be Placed on the Legislative Agenda.” As a leading figure in China’s criminal defense field, he drew upon numerous examples from his decades of legal practice to directly address the current problem in criminal law legislation where the descriptions of certain offenses are overly general and vague.
Attorney Tian Wenchang pointed out that the precision of criminal offense descriptions is a fundamental requirement of the principle of legality in criminal law and directly determines the predictability and fairness of criminal law. Currently, in the economic sphere, miscarriages of justice caused by vague criminal offense descriptions occur from time to time, and the criminal legal risks faced by private enterprises are particularly prominent. As the rule of law continues to advance, clarifying the description of criminal offenses has become an urgent and important issue that must be addressed.
I. Three Main Manifestations of Unclear Offense Descriptions
First, there is a proliferation of “blank” offense descriptions. For some offenses, administrative regulations must be invoked to supplement the elements of the crime, which not only violates the principle of the exclusivity of law but also leaves the content of the offense descriptions in a state of uncertainty as administrative norms change.
Second, catch-all provisions are applied too broadly. The fourth subparagraph of the crime of illegal business operations is a typical example: through judicial interpretations, a large number of behaviors have been successively included within the scope of regulation, turning it into a de facto “catch-all offense”; Phrases such as “other methods” and “other serious circumstances” appear frequently in the Criminal Law but lack clear criteria for determination, creating significant uncertainty for corporate compliance.
Third, the descriptions of criminal elements are generally vague. For example, because the crime of issuing fraudulent special VAT invoices did not explicitly require the intent to evade taxes as an element of the offense, a large number of cases without such intent were wrongfully convicted over a period of more than twenty years; this was not corrected until a judicial interpretation was issued in 2024; Offenses such as loan fraud and bill fraud have led to wide disparities in judicial discretion due to the difficulty in establishing “intent to illegally appropriate property”; meanwhile, transitional offenses such as “obtaining loans by fraud”—created to address these issues—suffer from the ambiguity of the phrase “other serious circumstances,” resulting in an unreasonably low threshold for criminal liability and a situation where mere procedural flaws can lead to a conviction; The scope of subjects liable for the crime of “major liability accidents” is prone to misinterpretation, while the crime of “organizing and leading pyramid schemes” is difficult to define due to constantly evolving business models. All of the above issues have undermined market vitality and the credibility of the judiciary.
II. Underlying Causes and Consequences of Vague Criminal Offenses
China’s market economy and rule of law are both in their early stages of development. Both the economic foundation and the legal system are undergoing dynamic evolution. Legislation lacks mature precedents to draw upon, limiting its comprehensiveness; the absence and uncertainty of legal norms are inevitable at this stage. In this environment, private enterprises with weak foundations bear the brunt of these challenges, becoming the primary victims of the consequences of vague criminal offenses. Criminal law is supposed to serve the dual functions of protecting lawful activities and combating unlawful ones; however, vague criminal definitions lead to inadequate protection and inaccurate enforcement, which in turn hinder the development of the market economy.
III. Legislative Pathways to Promote Clear Criminal Definitions
Tian Wenchang urges that clarifying the wording of criminal definitions be placed on the legislative agenda as soon as possible. The primary prerequisite is to shift the concept of the rule of law and acknowledge the real harm caused by vague criminal definitions. On this basis, legislative techniques should be refined in four areas: first, restrict the use of catch-all provisions; where absolutely necessary, clarify the boundaries of their application through judicial interpretation; second, narrow the scope of “blank” criminal charges by clarifying the boundaries of referenced norms and establishing review mechanisms; third, comprehensively review and clarify the wording of criminal charges, providing precise formulations for provisions prone to ambiguity; and fourth, use judicial interpretations and guiding cases to supplement legislation, while ensuring that such interpretations remain consistent with the spirit of the law and strictly prohibiting expansive interpretations.
He emphasized that clarifying the description of criminal offenses is an inevitable requirement for implementing the principle of legality in criminal law and also serves as the institutional foundation for ensuring the healthy development of the market economy. Now, after more than forty years of advancing the rule of law, it has become imperative to systematically address this issue through legislative amendments.
Attorney Liang Yali Delivers a Panel Discussion Remarks:
Responding to Legislative and Theoretical Propositions from a Practical Perspective
As a discussant during the keynote presentation session of the first panel, Liang Yali drew upon her more than thirty years of experience in criminal defense practice. At the symposium, she echoed Professor Tian Wenchang’s advocacy for legislative amendments to clarify the description of criminal offenses. Drawing on practical cases, she focused on the hierarchical status and scope of “provisions” within open-ended criminal offenses and put forward the core argument that “open-ended criminal offenses do not constitute open-ended authorization.”
Liang Yali pointed out that while open-ended offenses are necessary in specialized fields such as finance and workplace safety, the absence of clear boundaries for supplementary regulations can easily lead to two types of expansive deviations in practice: first, horizontal expansion beyond the scope of business regulation; and second, vertical expansion upward through corporate organizational hierarchies.
Regarding horizontal expansion, Liang Yali cited a case in which a securities firm was accused of illegally issuing loans in connection with a stock pledge repurchase transaction: the investigating authorities interpreted financing activities under the securities regulatory framework as “loans” under criminal law and directly used documents from industry associations and normative documents from regulatory authorities as the basis for determining a “violation of state regulations.” She emphasized that regulatory authorization addresses industry governance authority and cannot automatically confer the effect of creating criminal obligations on industry self-regulatory documents. Regulatory authorization is not equivalent to criminal authorization; industry violations cannot be directly elevated to criminal offenses, and Article 96 of the Criminal Law clearly defines the hierarchical status of “state regulations.”
Regarding vertical expansion, Liang Yali analyzed a case involving a major liability accident: After an accident caused by violations by an outsourced construction contractor, the prosecution added charges against executives of the mining company’s parent company. The basis for holding them accountable was not laws or regulations, but the group’s internal safety management system; the prosecution even established criminal liability on the grounds that the company had failed to meet the group’s internal requirements, which were stricter than statutory standards. She argued that internal corporate regulations are, by nature, tools of self-governance; they can only be subject to criminal law evaluation when their content specifically implements statutory obligations and directly corresponds to the risks involved in the case. Otherwise, this would create a perverse logic where “the stricter the regulations, the higher the risk of criminal liability.”
Liang Yali believes that the essence of both types of expansion lies in the overreach of non-criminal law norms, which independently determine guilt or innocence apart from criminal law provisions, thereby fostering a tendency toward “substantive criminalization”—where guilt is established first and legal grounds are sought afterward. Judicial authorities must not merely examine whether conduct violates regulations; they must also scrutinize the hierarchical status of the norms themselves, their scope of application, the subjects of the obligations, and their correspondence to the risks involved in the case. Clarifying the boundaries of “blank criminal charges” essentially involves delineating the boundaries between criminal law and administrative oversight, industry self-regulation, and corporate self-regulation. She supports a systematic review of “blank criminal charges” to clarify, through legislation and judicial interpretations, the hierarchical status, scope, and limits of the referenced norms, thereby ensuring that the principle of legality in criminal law is truly implemented in specialized governance contexts.
Conclusion
This symposium serves as a vital platform for collaboration between academia and the legal profession to advance the development of Chinese criminal law. The participation of attorneys Tian Wenchang and Liang Yali fully demonstrates King&Capital Law Firm’s academic depth and industry influence in the field of criminal law, as well as the firm’s commitment to actively contributing to academic development and supporting the advancement of the rule of law. For a long time, King&Capital Law Firm has consistently prioritized both theory and practice, participating deeply in the nation’s process of building the criminal legal system. In the future, King&Capital will continue to monitor cutting-edge developments in criminal law, leveraging its professional expertise to support the construction of an independent knowledge system for Chinese criminal law, and contribute more wisdom and strength to advancing the criminal legal system.
