Time: November 29, 2016, 10:00 AM

　　 Location: Supreme People's Court Press Conference Hall

　　 Attendees: Yan Maokun, Director of the Research Office of the Supreme People's Court

　　　　　　　Teng Wei, Deputy Chief Judge of the Supervision Division of the Supreme People's Court

　　　　　　　Wang Ling, Deputy Director (Inspector) of the Office of the Leading Group for News and Publicity Work of the Supreme People's Court

　　 Posted content: Introduce the main contents of the “Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Fully Leveraging the Role of Judicial Adjudication to Effectively Strengthen Judicial Protection of Property Rights” and the “Implementation Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Properly Handling Property Rights Cases Formed in the Past in Accordance with the Law,” and answer questions from reporters.

Live stream address

Yan Maokun, Director of the Research Office of the Supreme People's Court

　　 I. The Background for the Formulation of the “Opinions”

　　The property rights system is the cornerstone of the socialist market economy, and protecting property rights is an essential requirement for upholding the fundamental economic system of socialism. Since the 18th National Congress of the Party, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has attached great importance to the work of protecting property rights. The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Plenary Sessions of the 18th Central Committee of the Party explicitly stated that the state shall protect the property rights and legitimate interests of all forms of ownership, emphasizing the need to establish and improve a property rights protection system guided by the principle of fairness and to promote the rule of law in property rights protection. On August 30, 2016, the Central Leading Group for Deepening Reform reviewed and approved the "Opinions on Improving the Property Rights Protection System and Protecting Property Rights According to Law" (hereinafter referred to as the "Property Rights Protection Opinions"). On November 4, the CPC Central Committee and the State Council issued the "Property Rights Protection Opinions," providing comprehensive arrangements and setting forth clear requirements for improving the property rights protection system and advancing the rule of law in property rights protection.

　　Protecting property rights in accordance with the law through trial and enforcement activities and promoting the improvement of the property rights protection system are both the statutory duties and important missions of the people’s courts. The Party Group of the Supreme People’s Court and President Zhou Qiang attach great importance to the implementation of the “Opinions on Property Rights Protection.” Immediately after the Central Commission for Deepening Reform reviewed and approved the “Opinions on Property Rights Protection,” the Party Group of the Supreme People’s Court convened a meeting at the earliest opportunity to convey and study the spirit of the Central Commission for Deepening Reform and to deliberate on and deploy relevant work for implementing the “Opinions on Property Rights Protection.” The Party Group called for recognizing fully the significance and urgency of thoroughly studying and implementing the “Opinions on Property Rights Protection” from the perspective of comprehensively advancing the “Five-in-One” overall layout and coordinated promotion of the “Four Comprehensive” strategic layout. It also urged that, based on the functions of the people’s courts and in light of the realities of judicial work, specialized documents be formulated to clearly define specific measures for implementing the “Opinions on Property Rights Protection” and effectively strengthening judicial protection of property rights.

　　To this end, after thoroughly studying the spirit of the “Opinions on Protecting Property Rights” and comprehensively sorting out issues that have drawn widespread attention from all sectors of society regarding judicial protection of property rights, and after repeated research and deliberation, the Supreme People’s Court has formulated and issued the “Opinions on Fully Leveraging the Role of Judicial Functions to Effectively Strengthen Judicial Protection of Property Rights,” which are officially released today.

　　 II. Main Contents of the “Opinions”

　　The “Opinions” adopt a problem-oriented approach and, from the perspectives of strengthening the basic principles of judicial protection of property rights, judicial policies, and mechanism development, put forth clear requirements for relevant trial and enforcement work through seventeen articles.

　 　Part One: Uphold the fundamental principles of judicial protection of property rights. This section, in light of the practical realities of judicial work, elaborates on the principles of equal, comprehensive, and law-based protection of property rights set forth in the “Opinions on Property Rights Protection.” It requires treating all types of property right holders equally in terms of their litigation status and the applicable laws, placing particular emphasis on the equal protection of non-public-sector property rights, and ensuring that the litigation rights and substantive interests of both domestic and foreign parties are protected on an equal footing. Through trial and enforcement activities, it calls for the lawful punishment of all kinds of illegal and criminal acts that infringe upon property rights—especially those involving the abuse of public power to violate private property rights—and for the comprehensive protection of property rights, creditor’s rights, equity interests, intellectual property rights, and other various intangible property rights. Furthermore, it stresses the importance of accurately grasping the spirit of legislation, administering justice strictly and impartially, and properly handling all types of cases involving property rights protection, taking into account the economic development trends and policies of each specific period.

　　 Part Two: Accurately grasp and strictly enforce the judicial policies for property rights protection. This section addresses public concerns and sets forth ten judicial policies aimed at strengthening property rights protection—these constitute the core content of the “Opinions.” First, we will punish all types of crimes that infringe upon property rights in accordance with the law, providing equal protection for property rights across all forms of ownership. We emphasize that while we must strictly punish crimes involving infringement upon state-owned and collectively-owned assets, we must also step up criminal-law protection for non-public property. Specifically, we will prosecute according to law those crimes that violate the property rights of non-public enterprises as well as those that harm the property interests of investors, managers, and employees in the non-public economy. Second, we will objectively view any irregularities in business operations and acquit those whose guilt is not sufficiently established under the law. We stress the importance of adopting a historical and developmental perspective, strictly adhering to principles such as legality of crimes and punishments, presumption of innocence in cases of doubt, and applying the principle of leniency when dealing with old laws and regulations. We will handle relevant cases fairly and in accordance with the law. With regard to all economic activities, unless explicitly prohibited by laws or administrative regulations, they shall not be treated as criminal offenses. For cases that involve violations but do not amount to criminal offenses, or where it remains unclear whether an act constitutes a crime or not, we shall acquit the defendants in accordance with the law. Third, we will strictly distinguish between economic disputes and criminal offenses, firmly preventing economic disputes from being treated as criminal offenses. We emphasize fully taking into account the characteristics of the non-public economy, rigorously applying the criteria for identifying criminal offenses, and resolutely avoiding treating economic disputes as criminal offenses. For all kinds of economic disputes, regardless of the extent of actual losses, we will always adhere to lawful procedures and fair trials. Fourth, we will exercise caution in the use of coercive measures and measures such as seizure, detention, and freezing, minimizing their adverse impact on the normal production and business activities of enterprises. In criminal trials, if a defendant who has been arrested meets the conditions for release on bail or house surveillance, we should change the coercive measures accordingly. In criminal, civil, and administrative trials, where it is indeed necessary to take measures such as seizure, detention, or freezing, except for enterprises required by law to close down, we may, depending on the circumstances, reserve necessary working capital and current accounts for enterprises. Fifth, we will strictly regulate the handling of property involved in cases, safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the enterprises and individuals involved in accordance with the law. We require strict differentiation between illegal gains and lawful property, between personal property and corporate legal person property, and between the personal property of those involved in the case and the property of their family members. In line with the requirements of openness, fairness, standardization, and efficiency, we will strictly enforce and continuously improve the systems for the custody and disposal of property involved in cases. Sixth, we will conduct administrative agreement cases fairly and in accordance with the law, promoting the building of a government based on the rule of law and administrative integrity. We emphasize that for disputes arising from investment promotion, government-social capital cooperation, and other similar activities, we must carefully examine the reasons why agreements cannot be fulfilled and the responsibilities for breach of contract. If the government violates its commitments—especially when breaches occur solely due to changes in government administration or shifts in leadership—we will firmly support the legitimate demands of the administrative counterparties in accordance with the law. Seventh, we will handle property expropriation and requisition cases fairly and in accordance with the law, protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the administrative counterparts. We require that the scope of public interest applicable to expropriation and requisition be reasonably defined, firmly preventing the expansion of the concept of public interest. We will follow the principle of timely and reasonable compensation, fully protecting the legitimate rights and interests of those whose property is expropriated or requisitioned. Eighth, we will punish intellectual property-related crimes and violations in accordance with the law, intensifying judicial protection of intellectual property rights. We require timely issuance of judicial interpretations and guiding cases, and promote the application of punitive damages systems in accordance with the law. We will strengthen the protection of brand reputation, handle anti-unfair competition disputes in accordance with the law, and intensify punishment for chain-based and industrialized intellectual property crimes. Ninth, we will handle appeals related to historically formed property rights in accordance with the law, firmly implementing the requirement that any errors must be corrected. We require the establishment of specialized working mechanisms and the prompt identification and correction of a batch of property rights dispute appeals that have drawn strong public attention. For cases found after review to have unclear facts, insufficient evidence, or incorrect application of the law, we will promptly correct them in accordance with the law and compensate the parties for their losses. It should be noted that the “Opinions” only provide general guidelines on this issue. The Supreme People’s Court has specifically formulated the “Implementation Opinions on Properly Handling Historically Formed Property Rights Cases in Accordance with the Law.” Deputy Chief Judge Teng Wei from the Supervision and Trial Division will now give a detailed introduction. Tenth, we will improve the efficiency of trial and enforcement, effectively preventing litigation delays from affecting enterprise production and operations. We require strengthening management of trial deadlines, further perfecting the mechanism for differentiating between simple and complex cases, and promptly and effectively resolving disputes. We will intensify enforcement efforts, increase enforcement speed, and promptly and effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of winning parties.

　　 Part Three: Strengthening the Mechanism for Protecting Property Rights. This section puts forward requirements for further improving and strengthening the institutional framework for property rights protection from four aspects. It emphasizes the need to uphold Party leadership and actively participate in the coordination mechanism for property rights protection, led by Party committees and involving joint participation by the People’s Congress, the government, and judicial authorities. It also calls for optimizing resource allocation, enhancing the professionalism and credibility of trials involving property rights protection cases, conducting thorough judicial research to continuously refine judicial policies on property rights protection, and intensifying publicity about the rule of law to foster a positive social atmosphere conducive to protecting property rights.

　　Perfecting the property rights protection system and safeguarding property rights in accordance with the law are of great and far-reaching significance for enhancing the public’s sense of security regarding their property and wealth, boosting social confidence, fostering positive expectations, stimulating entrepreneurial and innovative vitality among various economic entities, upholding social equity and justice, and ensuring the sustained, healthy development of the economy and society as well as the long-term stability and prosperity of the nation. The Supreme People’s Court and people’s courts at all local levels will fully implement the spirit of the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Plenary Sessions of the 18th Central Committee, thoroughly study and carry out the spirit of General Secretary Xi Jinping’s series of important speeches, resolutely follow the decisions and deployments of the Party Central Committee, fully leverage the role of judicial functions, and effectively strengthen judicial protection of property rights, thereby providing robust judicial guarantees for building a moderately prosperous society in all respects and realizing the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

Teng Wei, Deputy Chief of the Supervision Division of the Supreme People's Court

　　Dear journalists:

　　Hello, everyone! I’d now like to brief you on the “Implementation Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Properly Handling Property Rights Cases Arising from Historical Issues in Accordance with the Law” (hereinafter referred to as the “Implementation Opinions”).

　 　I. Background and General Requirements for the Issuance of the Implementation Opinions

　　The property rights system is the cornerstone of the socialist market economy. Strengthening property rights protection is an inevitable requirement for upholding the fundamental socialist economic system, a necessary condition for fully building a moderately prosperous society, an essential step for consolidating the social foundation upon which the Party’s long-term governance rests, and a crucial imperative for ensuring the country’s enduring stability and security. The Party Central Committee, with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core, attaches great importance to property rights protection, and this has been explicitly emphasized in the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Plenary Sessions of the 18th Party Congress.

　　On November 27, the CPC Central Committee and the State Council issued the "Opinions on Improving the Property Rights Protection System and Safeguarding Property Rights in Accordance with Law," which laid out major strategic arrangements specifically aimed at perfecting the property rights system and ensuring its legal protection. The document also designated the proper and lawful handling of property rights cases arising from historical circumstances as a key task for the people's courts. To thoroughly study and grasp the spirit of the central authorities and effectively implement their strategic decisions, the Supreme People's Court has drafted these "Implementation Opinions."

　　The "Implementation Opinions" hold that properly handling, in accordance with the law, property rights cases that have arisen historically is an important component and a major initiative of the central government’s strategic plan to strengthen property rights protection. Doing this work well is of great significance for perfecting the modern property rights system and promoting the rule of law in property rights protection; for enhancing people’s sense of security regarding their wealth, boosting social confidence, and fostering positive expectations; for creating a fair, just, transparent, and stable rule-of-law environment and stimulating the entrepreneurial and innovative drive of various economic entities; and for upholding social fairness and justice and promoting the sustained, healthy development of the economy and society.

　　The “Implementation Opinions” require that people’s courts earnestly study and thoroughly grasp the guiding principles of the Central Committee, accurately understand the policy implications, and swiftly align their thinking and actions with the Central Committee’s decisions and deployments. From the perspective of comprehensively promoting the “Five-in-One” overall layout and coordinated implementation of the “Four Comprehensive” strategic layout, they should enhance their sense of responsibility and mission, demonstrate a spirit of courage and willingness to take on responsibilities, muster the determination to overcome difficulties, fully leverage their judicial functions, and resolutely fulfill this major political task.

　　Based on extensive consultations with various stakeholders, the Implementation Opinions have defined the guiding principles, methods, and steps for handling cases, ensuring that case proceedings fully reflect policy orientation and achieve positive legal, social, and political outcomes. This will effectively enhance the precision of property rights protection and promote the rule of law in property rights protection.

　　 II. Main Contents of the Implementation Opinions

　　The “Implementation Opinions” comprise six sections—comprehensive understanding of the importance of properly handling, in accordance with the law, property rights cases that have arisen historically; objectives and overall requirements; working principles; procedures for identifying and rectifying such cases; judicial policies; and implementation measures—totaling 22 articles.

　　First, the scope of case handling and key areas of work must be clearly defined. In accordance with central directives and taking into account the actual situation of trial supervision work in people’s courts, the “Implementation Opinions” explicitly state that for effective judgments rendered since the reform and opening-up period involving property disputes over major asset disposals, as well as criminal and illegal acts committed by private enterprises and investors, if the parties involved or third parties file appeals, the people’s courts shall promptly review such appeals and carefully examine their merits. If errors are indeed found, they shall be resolutely corrected in strict compliance with the law. Special emphasis should be placed on identifying, correcting, and publicizing major and typical cases. Attention should be paid to thoroughly clarifying the facts of the case and the key issues at stake, sorting out relevant legal and policy questions, gaining a clear understanding of the case background and societal reactions, accurately applying the applicable laws and policies, and ensuring proper handling of each case. For key cases, a comprehensive work plan—including filing, retrial, enforcement, and post-case follow-up—should be formulated on a case-by-case basis.

　　Second, we must correctly grasp the four fundamental working principles. First, we must adhere to the principle of seeking truth from facts. We should respect history, be grounded in reality, and adopt a developmental perspective to objectively assess and properly address—within the bounds of law—the irregularities that have emerged in the operations of various enterprises, especially private ones, since the reform and opening-up. Second, we must uphold the principle of equal protection. We should provide equal judicial protection to all types of property rights holders, ensure that everyone is equal before the law, keep channels for filing complaints about property rights open and unimpeded, standardize the application of retrial procedures, and guarantee equality in litigation status, equal litigation rights, and equal application of the law. Third, we must follow the principle of correcting errors in accordance with the law. We must base our decisions on facts and use the law as the guiding standard, strictly adhering to principles such as non-retroactivity of laws, the principle of legality of crimes and punishments, and the rule of applying the older law when there is a conflict between old and new laws, while rigorously observing statutory procedures. For appeal cases meeting the conditions for retrial, we must initiate retrial procedures in strict accordance with the law; for final judgments found to be indeed erroneous, we must resolutely correct them, uphold fairness and justice, and enhance public trust in the judiciary. Fourth, we must combine correction with prevention. By identifying and rectifying wrongful and unjust property rights cases, we can strengthen judicial supervision and judicial remedies, thereby compelling preventive measures against errors and ensuring uniform application of the law. We must implement the judicial accountability system and reinforce preventive measures at the source.

　　Third, we must strictly refine and standardize the procedures for identifying and rectifying cases. We shall safeguard the litigant’s procedural rights in accordance with the law, keep complaint channels open and provide high-quality litigation services. We must fully respect and legally protect the parties’ rights to file applications, lodge complaints, obtain information, make statements, present defenses and arguments, and exercise their right to dispose of matters. We should implement requirements for initial interviews, improve interrogation methods, and thoroughly listen to the complainants’ views. We need to strengthen supervision at each level of trial; where higher courts have the authority to take up a case for review and overturn the original judgment, they should avoid ordering retrials or remanding cases for further proceedings. Moreover, we must intensify oversight and guidance over lower courts’ handling of property rights cases to prevent procedural inefficiencies and ensure that processes are effectively implemented.

　　Fourth, we must prudently grasp the policies for identifying and correcting judicial errors. We must accurately define the legal boundaries between criminal and non-criminal conduct. We must strictly distinguish among economic disputes and economic crimes—particularly between contract disputes and contract fraud; between legitimate financing by enterprises and illegal fundraising; and between economic disputes arising from private enterprises’ participation in mergers and reorganizations of state-owned enterprises and cases involving malicious misappropriation of state-owned assets. We must accurately determine the threshold for criminalizing economic violations, precisely identify the nature of economic disputes and economic crimes, and resolutely correct erroneous judgments that treat economic disputes as criminal offenses. For economic activities conducted in production, operation, financing, and other endeavors, if such activities were not explicitly prohibited by laws or administrative regulations at the time yet were treated as criminal offenses, or if they constituted violations of laws and regulations but did not rise to the level of criminal offenses yet were still prosecuted as crimes, these cases must be corrected in accordance with the law. We must firmly correct erroneous judgments resulting from the intervention of criminal enforcement in civil disputes. Where criminal measures have been used to coerce parties into making statements of intent, thereby leading to erroneous civil judgments, such judgments must be resolutely corrected. With regard to investors in private enterprises who are involved in criminal cases, their civil rights—including property rights—must be legally protected during periods when they are subject to coercive measures or serving prison sentences. If an investor in a private enterprise has had their personal freedom severely restricted, thus significantly impairing their ability to exercise civil litigation rights, and after the restriction on personal freedom is lifted, new evidence emerges regarding the facts of the civil case that could overturn the original judgment, the people’s court shall, on its own initiative, investigate and verify the matter. If the case meets the conditions for retrial, the court shall initiate a retrial in accordance with the law. We must also, in accordance with the law, identify and retry property rights appeals arising from government actions. When identifying and retrying property rights cases, for all types of contracts lawfully signed with investment entities in activities such as investment promotion and public-private partnerships, if such contracts are breached due to changes in government administration or shifts in leadership, thereby infringing upon the legitimate rights and interests of the investment entities, or if statutory reasons lead to changes in government commitments and contractual agreements without providing lawful compensation for the property losses suffered by the investment entities, the people’s courts shall, in accordance with the law, retry and revise the judgments. As for erroneous judgments issued by the courts during the process of land, housing, and other property expropriation and requisition, where the expropriated or requisitioned parties have not received fair and reasonable compensation according to the prescribed scope, form, and standards, the people’s courts shall, in accordance with the law, review such judgments and initiate retrials. During the retrial review and adjudication processes, special attention should be paid to utilizing administrative settlement and mediation mechanisms as well as civil mediation methods to properly resolve property disputes.

　　In addition, the Implementation Opinions also lay down provisions addressing issues that have drawn considerable public attention, such as the handling of property involved in cases during trial and enforcement proceedings, as well as state compensation.