Trafficking Of Women And Children In China
Overview of Trafficking in China
Legal Framework
Criminal Law of the PRC (Articles 240–242):
Article 240: Selling or buying women and children is punishable by imprisonment.
Article 241: Severe cases involving abduction, coercion, or repeat offenses may lead to long-term imprisonment or death in extreme cases.
Criminal Procedure Law: Provides the framework for investigation, prosecution, and sentencing.
Key elements of trafficking:
Recruiting, transporting, selling, or buying women/children.
Using coercion, deception, or illegal means.
Intent to profit or exploit.
Trends and Enforcement
China has historically faced cross-border and domestic trafficking, often involving rural women and children.
Enforcement includes stricter sentencing, rehabilitation, and repatriation of victims.
Case 1: Guo Case (Guangdong, 2004)
Facts:
Guo led a gang that abducted and sold women for forced marriage.
Victims were mostly from poor rural areas.
Legal Reasoning:
Guangdong High Court emphasized the gravity of abduction and sale.
Evidence included witness testimony, police records, and recovered victims.
Outcome:
Guo and main accomplices sentenced to life imprisonment; minor participants received 5–10 years.
Significance:
Early high-profile trafficking case highlighting judicial intolerance of trafficking networks.
Established that organized trafficking leads to severe penalties.
Case 2: Yang Case (Yunnan, 2009 – Child Trafficking)
Facts:
Yang kidnapped children and sold them to families in neighboring provinces.
Police rescued several children after investigation.
Legal Reasoning:
Court noted violation of children’s personal rights and long-term impact.
Article 241 applied for “trafficking minors with coercion.”
Outcome:
Yang sentenced to 20 years imprisonment; accomplices received 10–15 years.
Significance:
Highlighted the protection of children as a priority in Chinese criminal law.
Courts explicitly considered victim impact in sentencing.
Case 3: Li Case (Henan, 2012 – Cross-Border Trafficking)
Facts:
Li smuggled women from rural Henan to northern provinces for forced marriages.
Trafficking was part of a larger network involving multiple provinces.
Legal Reasoning:
Evidence included intercepted communications and recovered victims.
Court applied Article 240 (sale of women) and Article 241 (organized trafficking).
Outcome:
Li sentenced to life imprisonment; property confiscated.
Several lower-level participants sentenced to 7–12 years.
Significance:
Shows cross-provincial trafficking networks face maximum penalties.
Courts began emphasizing dismantling networks, not just punishing individuals.
Case 4: Zhang Case (Guangxi, 2015 – Online Trafficking)
Facts:
Zhang used social media to recruit women under false promises of employment, then sold them to traffickers.
8 women were rescued by police.
Legal Reasoning:
Court recognized modern trafficking methods (internet recruitment) as aggravating factors.
Sentences reflected both deception and exploitation.
Outcome:
Zhang received 15 years imprisonment; accomplices 7–10 years.
Significance:
Demonstrates Chinese courts adapting to technological evolution in trafficking.
Digital recruitment considered as aggravating the crime.
Case 5: Chen Case (Sichuan, 2017 – Child Abduction for Adoption)
Facts:
Chen ran an illegal adoption scheme, taking children from rural families and selling them.
Children were aged 2–6.
Legal Reasoning:
Court highlighted violation of minors’ rights and “profit motive” as aggravating.
CPS Articles 240 and 241 applied; severe sentences due to repeated offenses.
Outcome:
Chen sentenced to 18 years imprisonment; accomplices received 8–12 years.
Children were returned to families.
Significance:
Reinforces principle that trafficking children for profit is very serious.
Courts consider repeat offenders more harshly.
Case 6: Wang Case (Guangdong, 2019 – International Trafficking)
Facts:
Wang trafficked women from China to Southeast Asia for forced labor and marriage.
Cooperation between Chinese and foreign authorities led to arrests.
Legal Reasoning:
Court applied domestic trafficking laws and considered international consequences.
Severe punishment due to cross-border dimension.
Outcome:
Wang received life imprisonment; accomplices received 10–15 years.
Significance:
Shows enforcement against international trafficking networks.
Emphasizes coordination between domestic law and international obligations.
Case 7: Liu Case (Hunan, 2021 – Online Trafficking Ring)
Facts:
Liu operated a website recruiting women under false employment promises, selling them to multiple provinces.
15 women rescued; investigation revealed extensive coordination.
Legal Reasoning:
Court highlighted premeditation, deception, and large-scale trafficking.
Considered voluntary surrender and confession for leniency.
Outcome:
Liu sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, with accomplices 7–12 years.
Significance:
Modern example of online trafficking; courts increasingly consider scale, method, and harm.
Confession and cooperation can reduce sentence, but large-scale crime remains severely punished.
Key Observations from These Cases
Severity of Punishment
Organizers and repeat offenders → life imprisonment.
Minor participants → 5–12 years depending on involvement.
Victim Protection
Courts prioritize return of victims and consider long-term trauma.
Children’s trafficking receives especially harsh penalties.
Modern Challenges
Use of social media and online recruitment is recognized as aggravating.
Cross-border trafficking incurs severe punishment due to international dimension.
Legal Principles Emphasized
Profit motive, organization, deception, and repeated offense increase sentence.
Voluntary confession and cooperation can mitigate punishment in some cases.
RELATED Blog
comments