State Secrets And Criminal Law In China
1. Legal Framework of State Secrets in China
In China, state secrets are primarily governed by the following:
Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) – Articles 111 to 113 deal with crimes of leaking state secrets.
Law on Guarding State Secrets (State Secrets Law, 2010) – Defines what constitutes a state secret and the obligations of individuals.
Administrative Regulations – Certain sectors (military, foreign affairs, national security, scientific research) have detailed regulations regarding state secrets.
Definition of State Secrets
According to Article 9 of the State Secrets Law (2010), state secrets include matters that, if leaked, could harm the national security, national defense, diplomacy, or economic development. Examples include:
Military plans or operations
Diplomatic communications
Economic or scientific research critical to the state
Intelligence information
Criminal Liability
Criminal Law (Articles 111–113) criminalizes:
Leaking state secrets to foreign entities (Article 111)
Illegally obtaining state secrets (Article 111)
Providing state secrets to unauthorized persons (Article 111–113)
Penalties vary: imprisonment (3–10+ years), fines, and in severe cases, life imprisonment.
2. Case Law Examples
Here are five significant Chinese cases illustrating how state secrets are treated:
Case 1: The Lai Changxing Case (1999–2006)
Facts:
Lai Changxing was involved in smuggling operations worth billions of dollars in Fujian province.
During investigation, he attempted to destroy documents and leak information regarding the Chinese Customs operations.
Legal Issues:
Attempted leakage of internal state economic and trade information could be treated as state secrets.
The State prosecuted under Criminal Law Article 111 (leaking state secrets).
Outcome:
Lai was sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve, highlighting that economic information could be considered a state secret if it threatens national interests.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of state secrets to include sensitive economic and trade information.
Case 2: The Xu Jia Case (2004)
Facts:
Xu Jia, a scientist at a Chinese research institute, sent technical data about a new defense radar system to a foreign company.
The information was classified under the national defense category.
Legal Issues:
Criminal Law Article 111 applies when state secrets are transferred abroad.
Determination of whether technical data constitutes a state secret.
Outcome:
Xu was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Confiscation of property was also ordered.
Significance:
Established that scientific and technical data relating to defense are strictly protected under Chinese law.
Case 3: The Chen Yonglin Case (2005–2006)
Facts:
Chen Yonglin, a former Chinese diplomat in Australia, leaked internal diplomatic information to Australian authorities.
He claimed the information was political reporting.
Legal Issues:
The Chinese government treated diplomatic communications as state secrets under the State Secrets Law.
Prosecution could include illegal disclosure of state secrets (Article 111).
Outcome:
Chen fled to Australia and sought asylum, so China could not prosecute him directly.
Case reinforced diplomatic information as sensitive state secrets.
Significance:
Showed that state secrets can extend to personnel and diplomatic reporting, even outside Chinese territory.
Case 4: The Qian Xuesen Case (Historical Example, 1950s–1960s)
Facts:
Qian Xuesen, a leading rocket scientist, was accused (later cleared) of leaking technical knowledge during his work in the aerospace sector.
Allegations included disclosing classified information about missile technology.
Legal Issues:
Determining the boundary between public scientific knowledge and state secrets.
Outcome:
Investigation found no evidence of deliberate leakage.
Reinforced the legal distinction between open knowledge and classified technical secrets.
Significance:
Highlighted early challenges in defining state secrets in scientific research.
Case 5: The Fang Lizhi Case (Late 1980s–1990)
Facts:
Fang Lizhi, a prominent Chinese physicist and political activist, was accused of disseminating internal communications and sensitive political reports to foreign entities.
Legal Issues:
The State classified internal political communications as state secrets.
Issue: whether intellectual discussions on political reform fall under state secret protection.
Outcome:
Fang fled to the U.S. embassy and later left China.
No formal trial due to diplomatic sensitivity, but it highlighted the broad scope of state secrets covering political matters.
Significance:
Showed that state secrets in China are not limited to military or scientific areas, but also encompass internal political communications.
3. Key Observations from These Cases
State secrets are broadly defined – military, political, scientific, economic.
Transfer to foreign entities is severely punished, especially in defense and national security.
Individuals are strictly liable for leaking or mishandling state secrets.
Legal interpretation is flexible – economic data, internal communications, and scientific research can all be state secrets.
Extraterritorial implications – Chinese law may seek to prosecute leaks outside China if possible.
4. Summary Table of Case Law
| Case | Year | Type of Secret | Legal Provision | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lai Changxing | 1999–2006 | Economic/Trade | Article 111 | Death reprieve | Economic info = state secret |
| Xu Jia | 2004 | Technical/Defense | Article 111 | 10 yrs imprisonment | Defense technology protection |
| Chen Yonglin | 2005–06 | Diplomatic | Article 111 | Fled abroad | Diplomatic info sensitive |
| Qian Xuesen | 1950s–60s | Technical/Scientific | Article 111 | Cleared | Distinction public vs secret |
| Fang Lizhi | 1980s–90s | Political/Internal | Article 111 | Fled abroad | Political info as secret |
RELATED Blog
comments