Attorney Shao Shiwei | [In-Depth Analysis] The Ministry of Public Security’s New Regulations Target “Long-Arm Policing”! The Chaos of “Cross-Provincial Arrests” Is Finally Being Rectified!

What are China’s current provisions on criminal case jurisdiction?

The above explanation is quite lengthy; let me provide an example to facilitate understanding:

In the article “How Should Enterprises Save Themselves When Facing Profit-Driven “Long-Arm Policing”?,” Attorney Shao mentioned the characteristics of enterprises that are often targeted by “long-arm policing.” These are typically private enterprises located in other regions with certain economic strength. Furthermore, in today’s highly connected society, private enterprises with online business operations registered and operating in economically developed regions such as Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen often become suitable targets for such policing due to their favorable economic performance.

For example, an internet company registered in Shenzhen, with its daily operations also based in Shenzhen, developed a nationally popular game app with users across the country. One day, law enforcement authorities from a fifth-tier city thousands of kilometers away suddenly arrived, claiming that the company’s game involved gambling. They forcibly detained all employees and transported them to the local jurisdiction for interrogation.

Under the current Provisions on the Procedures for Handling Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs (2020 Revision), the handling authority can assert jurisdiction based on a mere “tangential connection,” making it nearly impossible for the parties to challenge whether the local handling authority has jurisdiction over the case. For instance, having local users file police reports claiming fraud by the platform is common in cases handled by Attorney Shao.

Moreover, according to the aforementioned 2018 provisions, even if the locality lacks jurisdiction, because it is the public security organ that “first discovered” the case, the local law enforcement authorities thereby possess jurisdiction granted by law.This is alarming: jurisdiction can be asserted without even a “tangential connection.”

What problems arise from overly broad jurisdictional provisions?

• For cases with economic benefits, they trigger “competition” for jurisdiction among law enforcement agencies in different regions;

• For obvious cases of “profit-driven law enforcement,” defense lawyers find it difficult to adopt corresponding defense strategies regarding jurisdiction in the face of existing legal bases;

• When the objective of handling criminal cases shifts from “combating crime” to “pursuing economic benefits,” can the locality handle cases lawfully and fairly? Could this lead to wrongful convictions?

• Does this involve new types of cases or criminal cases with high requirements for investigation and evidence collection by public security organs (such ascriminal cases involving blockchain and Web3
  )? Do the handling units from fourth- and fifth-tier cities, traveling thousands of kilometers to conduct “long-arm policing” at the involved enterprises, possessthe relevant professional knowledge and technical means
  to investigate such cases?

For example, the Xing Yanjun case (“Trading Life for Innocence—Reflections on the Abnormal Death of a Beijing Programmer During Residential Surveillance”) is a typical case where abuse of jurisdiction by the handling department led to tragedy, urging serious reflection.

The new regulation clarifies that jurisdiction over cross-provincial criminal cases shall be based primarily on the principal place of the crime, with the enterprise’s location serving as a supplementary basis. Therefore, for the Shenzhen enterprise mentioned earlier, since its daily operations and registration are both in Shenzhen, jurisdiction should logically lie with the Shenzhen public security authorities.

Furthermore, the new regulation stipulates that if a reported case is found to fall under the jurisdiction of another province, it should be transferred to the public security organ at the enterprise’s location.

Thus, even if a handling unit in a fifth-tier city claims that there are so-called “victims” reporting in their area, under the new regulation, the receiving unit should transfer the report materials to the Shenzhen public security authorities for jurisdiction and should not continue investigating the case.

When Facing “Long-Arm Policing”?In the article “How Should Enterprises Save Themselves When Facing Profit-Driven “Long-Arm Policing”?

,” Attorney Shao provided relevant suggestions, noting that when facing profit-driven law enforcement by public security organs, enterprises can take a series of measures to ensure prior prevention and proper response and handling during and after the incident. Combining the content of the new regulation and the latest policies, Attorney Shao has summarized the following recommendations:

1. Raise objections to jurisdiction with the public security organs and exercise the right to appeal

According to the new regulation, law enforcement departments shall promptly accept and investigate objections to jurisdiction raised by parties or defense counsel in cross-provincial cases involving enterprises. If the objection is deemed unfounded, they shall inform the party of their right to appeal.

2. Call “12389” to report complaints

According to the new regulation, those who violate regulations by fabricating jurisdiction shall be held legally accountable.

3. Log in to the 12309 China Procuratorial Network to file complaints

In early April 2025, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate launched the “Special Supervision Zone for Irregular Cross-Regional Law Enforcement and Profit-Driven Law Enforcement and Judicial Practices Involving Enterprises” on the 12309 China Procuratorial Network. Parties may log in to report ten types of requests, including crimes suspected of infringing upon the legitimate rights and interests of enterprises, and issues in enterprise-related criminal cases such as failure to file cases that should be filed, filing cases that should not be filed, and failure to withdraw cases that should be withdrawn.

According to media reports [2], since the new regulation was issued in March 2025, local public security systems have been intensively organizing studies and implementation, and many local public security organs are currently conducting special action inspections based on this new regulation.

As a criminal lawyer, I sincerely hope that the new regulation will be effectively implemented, allowing victims of “long-arm policing” to regain their lives, and enabling every ordinary person to feel the continuous progress of the rule of law, with individual rights and interests receiving increasingly comprehensive protection!