Spc Decisions Outlining Criteria For Distinguishing Negligent Regulatory Noncompliance From Criminal Wrongdoing
Case 1: Guiding Case No. 97 – Wang Lijun Illegal Operation (2017)
Facts:
Wang Lijun, a farmer in Inner Mongolia, purchased corn from local farmers without a grain purchasing license and business license.
Total transaction: 218,288.6 yuan; profit: 6,000 yuan.
Legal Issue:
Whether Wang’s actions, in violation of administrative licensing regulations, constituted criminal illegal operation under Article 225 of the Criminal Law.
Outcome:
SPC emphasized that regulatory violations do not automatically equal criminal wrongdoing.
Wang’s conduct lacked serious social harm; administrative penalties sufficed.
Result: Acquittal.
Significance:
Established criteria: (1) social harm, (2) criminal illegality, (3) necessity of criminal punishment, (4) formal legal basis.
Case 2: Environmental Pollution – SPC Case on Illegal Waste Disposal (2018)
Facts:
A chemical factory discharged industrial wastewater exceeding permitted limits.
Factory managers argued it was due to equipment malfunction, not intentional wrongdoing.
Legal Issue:
Was this negligent regulatory noncompliance or criminal environmental pollution under Article 338?
Outcome:
Court held that minor accidental violations without significant environmental impact fall under administrative regulation.
Criminal liability arises only if the pollution caused substantial harm to public health or environment.
Result: Administrative fine; no criminal conviction.
Significance:
Reinforces the principle that criminalization requires measurable harm, not mere regulatory breach.
Case 3: Tax Evasion vs Misreporting – Guangdong High Court (2016)
Facts:
A small business misreported income due to accounting errors, underreporting taxes by 50,000 yuan.
Legal Issue:
Did the errors constitute tax evasion (criminal) or negligent misreporting (administrative)?
Outcome:
Court found errors were unintentional, lacked intent to defraud, and the amount was below the threshold for criminal tax evasion.
Result: Administrative penalty; no criminal charge.
Significance:
Shows the importance of mens rea (intent) in distinguishing negligence from crime.
Case 4: Food Safety Violation – Jiangsu High Court (2015)
Facts:
A catering company sold food with minor labeling mistakes and slight sanitary breaches.
Legal Issue:
Whether the breach should trigger criminal liability under the Food Safety Law.
Outcome:
Court emphasized that criminal prosecution requires serious risk to consumer health.
Minor errors without harm were administrative violations, not crimes.
Significance:
Demonstrates that risk assessment and potential harm are key in applying criminal law.
Case 5: Pharmaceutical Regulatory Noncompliance – SPC Pilot Case (2019)
Facts:
A pharmaceutical distributor sold medicine without updating registration information.
No patients were harmed.
Legal Issue:
Could this conduct be criminal under the Pharmaceutical Administration Law?
Outcome:
SPC held that lack of intent and absence of public harm meant the act remained a regulatory offense.
Criminal liability requires intentional violation causing significant social danger.
Significance:
Confirms necessity of social harm and intent as essential criteria for criminalization.
Key Takeaways from the Cases
Social Harm Threshold: Regulatory breaches become criminal only if they endanger public safety, health, or economic order.
Intent Matters: Negligent or accidental breaches typically do not trigger criminal liability.
Proportionality and Necessity: Courts apply criminal law cautiously; administrative remedies are preferred when adequate.
Formal Legal Basis: Criminal liability cannot be applied arbitrarily; there must be a clear legal provision supporting it.
Judicial Restraint Principle: Courts aim to prevent over-criminalization of routine business or minor regulatory noncompliance.
RELATED Blog
comments