On April 7, 2025, the Ministry of Public Security issued the " Regulations on the Procedures for Fund Analysis and Identification of Public Security Organs (Trial) " (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"), which aims to standardize the fund analysis and identification work of public security organs in handling economic crimes, money laundering, corruption and bribery. The introduction of this regulation marks an important step forward in China's efforts to combat financial crimes and enhance its ability to investigate and collect evidence. This article will introduce the main contents of the Regulations, analyze the background and significance of its introduction, explore its impact on the handling of future criminal cases and the defense work of criminal lawyers, and make a brief summary.
I. Main contents of the Regulations
The Regulations are divided into 10 chapters and 47 articles, including the entrustment, acceptance and implementation of appraisals, the scope and content of fund analysis and appraisals, work procedures, the format and content of appraisal documents, supervision and management, and supplementary provisions, etc., mainly covering the following aspects:
1. Clarifying the definition of capital analysis and appraisal
Funds analysis and appraisal refers to the professional analysis of the flow of funds, transaction records, account information, etc. involved in criminal cases by public security organs in order to find out the nature, source, destination and relevance of the funds and provide evidence support for case investigation.
(II) Standardizing the scope of application of fund analysis and appraisal
The Regulations apply to cases involving the flow of funds, such as economic crimes, money laundering, duty-related crimes, and financial fraud, and emphasize the supervision of new transaction methods such as electronic payments and virtual currencies.
(III) Refining the procedural requirements for fund analysis and appraisal
1. Initiation of the procedure : The case-handling unit submits an application, which is then implemented by professional institutions or personnel after approval.
2. Analysis methods : including fund flow tracking, counterparty analysis, abnormal transaction identification, etc.
3. Formation of appraisal opinion : The appraisal report must be objective, accurate, and supported by relevant data.
4. Strengthen the legal effect of appraisal opinions. Fund analysis appraisal opinions can be used as evidence, but they must comply with the review standards for appraisal opinions in the Criminal Procedure Law to ensure their legality, authenticity and relevance.
5. Strengthen supervision and management and establish internal supervision mechanisms for public security organs to prevent abuse of the power to analyze and identify funds and ensure procedural fairness.
II. Background and Significance of the Provisions
1. Background
The first is that financial crimes are becoming increasingly complex. With the popularity of new transaction methods such as electronic payments, virtual currencies, and cross-border capital flows, criminals are using more covert methods to conceal their funds, making it difficult for traditional investigative methods to effectively respond.
The second is that the original regulations are outdated and lack unified standards. Previously, the public security organs lacked national norms in fund analysis and appraisal, and the operating standards varied from place to place, affecting judicial fairness and case handling efficiency.
The third is that the country has strengthened its anti-money laundering and anti-corruption efforts. In recent years, China has continued to advance anti-corruption and anti-money laundering work, and fund analysis and identification is an important technical means that urgently needs institutional guarantees.
2. Significance
First, the investigative capabilities of public security organs will be enhanced. The Regulations provide clear guidance for public security organs on fund analysis and identification, which will help improve the accuracy of combating financial crimes.
Secondly, standardize law enforcement and ensure judicial fairness. By unifying procedural standards, we can reduce the arbitrariness of law enforcement and avoid invalidating evidence due to procedural flaws.
Finally, adapt to new crime trends and provide effective legal and technical support for new criminal methods such as virtual currency and cross-border capital flows.
III. The impact of the Regulations on the handling of future criminal cases and lawyers’ defense
1. Impact on the handling of criminal cases
For judicial organs, especially public security and judicial organs, the promulgation of the Regulations has three positive significances:
First, improve the quality of evidence and strengthen the prosecution. As professional evidence, the fund analysis and appraisal opinions can more clearly present the flow of funds and help judicial organs identify criminal facts, especially in cases of money laundering, embezzlement and bribery.
Secondly, it can speed up the investigation and handling of cases. Standardized fund analysis procedures can reduce repeated investigations, shorten the case handling cycle, and improve judicial efficiency.
Finally, the scope of investigation may be expanded. Since fund analysis can trace back multiple layers of transactions, more related persons may be involved, and the case investigation may extend from a single crime to a gang crime.
2. Impact on criminal lawyers’ defense work
For criminal defense lawyers, the release of the Regulations has both positive and not-so-positive effects (for example, some criminal defense lawyers are going to lose their hair again). Since the Regulations focus on providing guidance for the work of investigations and criminal prosecution parties, defense lawyers will objectively have one more piece of criminal evidence. But what is the probative force of this "fund analysis and appraisal opinion"? Will it still be like the previous "judicial appraisal opinion" and "price evaluation report" which are superficial opinions but can actually be directly used as evidence in criminal proceedings? At least the following aspects can be thought of by the author at present, which can be paid attention to and understood by criminal defense colleagues:
First, criminal defense lawyers need to strengthen their review of fund analysis and appraisal. For example: Is the appraisal agency qualified? Is the analysis method scientific? Is the data complete? Is the appraisal opinion relevant to the facts of the case?
Second, challenge the evidentiary validity of the expert opinion. Lawyers can question the legality of the fund analysis and appraisal based on the exclusionary rules of expert opinions in the Criminal Procedure Law, such as illegal procedures and unreliable data sources.
Third, they need to master financial and accounting knowledge. Lawyers need to improve their understanding of areas such as capital flows, electronic payments, and virtual currencies in order to conduct effective cross-examination.
Fourth, it may affect the strategy of confession and acceptance of guilt. If the evidence of fund analysis and appraisal is conclusive, the suspect may be more inclined to confess guilt and accept punishment in exchange for leniency. The lawyer needs to formulate a defense strategy based on the evidence.
IV. Conclusion
In general, the promulgation of the Regulations is an improvement in my country's criminal justice field, which will help improve the ability of public security organs to combat financial crimes and standardize law enforcement behavior. At the same time, the Regulations also put forward higher requirements for the defense work of criminal lawyers. Lawyers need to strengthen the review of fund analysis and appraisal and improve their professional capabilities to meet new challenges. In the future, with the implementation of the Regulations, the investigation and handling of economic crime cases will be more efficient and accurate, but it also needs to be continuously optimized in judicial practice to ensure the unity of procedural justice and substantive justice.
