This post is the second and final part of our coverage of China’s revised Public Security Administration Punishments Law (PSAPL) [治安管理处罚法], approved by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC) on June 27 and set to go into effect on New Year’s Day. As introduced in Part 1 in more detail, the PSAPL authorizes the police to punish what are deemed minor offenses against the public order through administrative processes outside the criminal justice system. Part 1 focuses on several broader issues that arose during the revision process: the use of administrative detention, the availability of detention hearings, and the vagueness of certain offenses. This part will more comprehensively survey the changes in the revision, though it is still not intended to be exhaustive.
The PSAPL can be roughly divided into three parts: general rules on liability and punishment; offenses and penalties; and procedures for investigating and penalizing public security violations. This post will proceed in the same order. We will draw on Jeremy Daum’s overview of the revision’s first draft as well as a recent explainer by the NPCSC Legislative Affairs Commission (LAC).1 For additional information on the revised PSAPL, please see this English translation by China Law Translate or this Chinese-language comparison chart we have prepared. Inline page citations are to the LAC article, while inline statutory references are to the revised PSAPL unless context indicates otherwise.
New Principles: Jurisdiction, Leniency, Self-Defense & Record Sealing
Asserting limited extraterritorial jurisdiction. Designed to preserve domestic public order, the current (i.e., pre-revision) PSAPL follows the territorial principle and does not apply outside mainland China. This has created enforcement gaps in practice. Because foreign ships and aircraft are considered extensions of the territories of their flag states or states of registration, China’s public security authorities have been reluctant to enforce the PSAPL on board—even when the ship or plane is in PRC territory and the shipmaster or pilot has given authorization (p. 35). Instead, they have preferred mediation to avoid potential jurisdictional challenges in subsequent administrative litigation. The revision fills this gap, extending the PSAPL to reach any violation on foreign vessels and aircraft over which the PRC exercises jurisdiction under the relevant international treaties (art. 5).
Improving leniency rules. Chapter II of the PSAPL lays down several rules that afford leniency to certain violators, whether due to their personal characteristics or the circumstances of their violations. Leniency can take the form of exemption from punishments, “reduced punishments” [从轻处罚] (at the lower end of the applicable statutory range), or “mitigated punishments” [减轻处罚] (below the otherwise applicable statutory range). The revision updates the leniency rules in the following ways.
- Violators with diminished mental capacity.Under the current PSAPL, violators with mental illness are exempt from punishment when they are “unable to recognize or control their own conduct,” but their guardians must be ordered to “strengthen care, management, and treatment” (art. 13). The revision extends the exemption to violators with intellectual disabilities who cannot recognize or control their conduct (id.). It also allows violators with mental illness or intellectual disabilities who “have not fully lost their ability to recognize or control their own conduct” to receive, at the police’s discretion, reduced or mitigated punishments (id.).
- Violators with diminished blameworthiness. Under the current PSAPL, violators who are less culpable (because, for example, their violations are trivial or were coerced) or who have taken remedial or cooperative actions after committing the offenses (for example, by surrendering themselves to the police) may receive mitigated punishments or be exempted from punishments (art. 20). The revision also adds reduced punishments as an available form of leniency (id.). In addition, it lists “obtaining the victim’s forgiveness” as an independent ground for leniency, no longer requiring the violator to simultaneously removing or mitigating the consequences of their action, which remains a separate ground for leniency (id. items 2–3). The LAC emphasizes that the generally applicable exemptions from punishments under the Administrative Punishments Law [行政处罚法] (art. 33)—lacking subjective fault, for example—also apply in public security cases (p. 36).
- Violators who admit guilt and accept punishment. The revision introduces a version of China’s “plea leniency” system for criminal cases into the PSAPL, authorizing leniency for those who “voluntarily and truthfully recount their own illegal conduct to public security organs, concede the facts of the violation, and are willing to accept punishment” (art. 21). The first draft of the revision would also have codified the “quick processing” [快速办理] rules that the MPS had adopted for plea leniency cases (Aug. 2023 Draft arts. 107–108). Because the legislature considers that those rules are consistent with the PSAPL’s procedural requirements and within the MPS’s discretion, codification was not necessary (p. 36).
As discussed in detail in Part 1, the revision also narrows the exemptions from detention now available to minors and the elderly.
Recognizing self-defense. Cases involving batteries and assaults are the most common in practice, according to the LAC (p. 35). In part due to the lack of an express provision for self-defense, victims often dare not fight back or, when they do, the police sometimes close the case by simply punishing both sides without inquiring into details. The revision therefore immunizes any “action taken to protect oneself against an ongoing unlawful infringement, but which thereby causes harm” (art. 19). But if the self-defense “exceeds the necessary limit and causes relatively large harm,” it is still considered a public security violation, though punishment will be mitigated or, if the circumstances are relatively minor, exempted (id.).
Sealing records of all PSAPL violations. The MPS initially proposed sealing the records of PSAPL offenses committed by minors only (Aug. 2023 Draft art. 136). Then, in July 2024, the Communist Party’s Third Plenum called for “introducing a system to seal the records for minor crimes [轻微犯罪].” Because public security violations are, by definition, less serious than crimes (see art. 3), yet the employment barriers the resulting punishments have created for violators and even their families have been disproportionate to the offenses (p. 48), there appeared to be little objection to sealing all PSAPL records, consistent with the Plenum’s decision.
The revision therefore forbids the disclosure of PSAPL records to any entity or individual, unless the relevant state organs need them to handle cases, or the relevant entities are authorized by law to make inquiries. As to the latter exception, the LAC provides one example (p. 49): Under the Minors Protection Law [未成年人保护法] (art. 62), entities working in close contact with children must conduct background checks of prospective employees, inquiring whether they have PSAPL (and criminal) records involving sexual assault, abuse, human trafficking, or violence.
New Offenses: From Stalking to Promoting “Cults,” From Illegal Drone Use to Keeping Dangerous Pets
The revision has added approximately 30 new offenses and modified two dozen existing ones. This section discusses only a selected subset of these changes. The penalties prescribed for each offense are generally not noted. For a detailed discussion of the amended offense of “picking quarrels and making trouble” and the new offenses of glorifying wars of aggression and disrespecting heroes and martyrs, please see Part 1.
Offenses Against Public Order
Facilitating cheating on official exams. Article 27 makes it an offense to facilitate cheating on state examinations, including organizing cheating, providing tools for cheating, selling test questions and answers, and taking exams for others (or letting others do so for oneself). This provision corresponds to Article 284-1 of the Criminal Law [刑法], but has a broader scope: It also applies to tests prescribed by administrative regulations (e.g., patent agent qualification exam), in addition to those prescribed by statutes (e.g., civil service exam). Article 27 also partially overlaps with the anti-cheating provisions of the Education Law [教育法] (see art. 80). The latter penalize additional conduct such as leaking or disseminating test questions or answers before an exam is over, and apply only to state education examinations, such as the gaokao. If an act violates both statutes, the Administrative Punishments Law requires imposing only the higher fine available.
Requiring intent for spreading rumors, etc. The current PSAPL prohibits “intentionally disturbing public order by spreading rumors, by making false reports of dangers, epidemics, or police emergencies, or by other means” (art. 29, item 1). The revision additionally prohibits making false reports of disasters (id.). More importantly, it also adds an intent element, requiring that prohibited acts be done “intentionally”—that the violator knows the rumor or report is false (id.).
Promoting “cults” or “superstitious sects.” Article 31 adds the offense of “producing or disseminating” materials that promote “cults” [邪教] or “superstitious sects” [会道门] (item 3). The first draft of the revision would have outlawed mere possession with intent to distribute those materials (Aug. 2023 Draft art. 30, para. 1, item 3), but this clause was deleted in subsequent drafts. Article 31 also newly proscribes “organizing, instigating, coercing, inducing, or inciting others to engage in . . . illegal religious activities” (in addition to cults and superstitious sects) (item 1).
Intruding on or tampering with computer systems. Article 33 adds two new types of computer trespass: (1) unlawfully obtaining the “data stored, processed, or transmitted in computer information systems” or unlawfully controlling such systems; and (2) providing programs or tools specifically designed for intruding on or unlawfully controlling computer systems or knowingly aiding others in committing such acts (items 1, 5).
Organizing, etc., pyramid schemes. Article 34 authorizes administrative detention for “organization or leading” pyramid schemes or “coercing or enticing others” to participate in such schemes. This provision supplements the State Council’s 2005 Regulations on Prohibiting Pyramid Schemes [禁止传销条例], which already provide for fines and the forfeiture of ill-gotten gains. As noted in Part 1, the revision also adds a provision clarifying that detention should be given only for more serious violations (art. 141, para. 3).
Offenses Against Public Safety
Obstructing operation of public transportation. Article 40 adds a new offense of stealing, damaging, or moving without authorization the facilities or equipment of public transportation while in use (except aircraft), or interfering with the normal operation of public transportation by seizing control devices or assaulting drivers (para. 3). (Endangering civil aviation is a separate offense with stiffer penalties (id. para. 1).)
Endangering subway safety. Articles 41 and 42 prohibit various acts that damage or otherwise tamper with railway facilities and trespass on restricted railway areas. The revision extends these prohibitions to cover urban rail transits as well.
Releasing sky lanterns. Article 43 adds the offense of putting up airborne items with open flames, such as sky lanterns, thereby creating a risk of fire, although such conduct is punishable only if it violates a statute or a regulation (issued by the State Council or a local people’s congress) and the violator refuses to heed dissuasion (item 4).
Throwing things from heights. Article 43 also bans throwing things from buildings or other heights, thereby posing a threat to personal safety, property safety, or public security (item 5). An equivalent crime requiring more serious circumstances was enacted in 2020 as Article 291-2 of the Criminal Law.
Violating drone regulations. Article 46 authorizes detention for flying civilian drones and aerial sports equipment or releasing balloons or similar airborne objects, in violation of statutory or regulatory provisions on airspace management, including those in the State Council and Central Military Commission’s 2023 regulations on the use of civilian drones. This Article also prohibits flying those devices or objects to cross national borders unlawfully.
Offenses Against Persons and Property
Exploiting minor in adult entertainment venues. Article 48 adds the offense of organizing or coercing minors to provide paid companion services, such as accompaniment in drinking or singing, in business venues unsuitable for minors.
Stalking. Article 50 newly prohibits disturbing the normal lives of others through “harassment, pestering, or stalking,” in addition to sending them lewd, insulting, or threatening information (para. 1, item 5). This Article also newly authorizes the police to order the harassers, pesterers, and stalkers to stop contact with the victims within a specified period (para. 2). A violation of such an order constitutes an independent offense punishable by 5–10 days in detention with an optional fine of up to RMB 1,000 (id.). In a change likely aimed at offering greater protections for victims, the finalized revision no longer requires the police to determine that the prohibited acts “endanger the personal safety of others” before issuing a restraining order (June 2024 Draft art. 50, para. 2). The LAC later explains, however, that restraining orders should indeed “primarily” target violators who “pose a real danger to the personal safety of others” (p. 44). They are not meant for non-physically threatening acts such as ordinary debt-collection activities—and certainly not for “petitioners exercising their rights to appeal, complain, or report,” it warns (p. 45).
Abusing persons under one’s care. Article 53 makes it an offense to abuse persons under one’s guardianship or care, including minors, the elderly, the sick, and persons with disabilities (item 2). Unlike the offense of abusing family members (item 1), this new provision does not require the victim to file charges before punishments may be given. It functions as a less serious counterpart to the crime under Article 260-1 of the Criminal Law.
Selling or unlawfully obtaining personal information. Article 56 authorizes detention for unlawfully selling or providing, or stealing or otherwise unlawfully obtaining, personal information, supplementing the monetary penalties under the Cybersecurity Law [网络安全法]. Criminal charges are also available for more serious violations under Article 253-1 of the Criminal Law.
Clarifying police’s role in responding to school bullying. The revision does not make school bullying an independent offense, though bullying may violate other PSAPL provisions when it involves assaults, insults, or threats. In these circumstances, Article 60 clarifies that the police must enforce the PSAPL or the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Law [预防未成年人犯罪法] (when the bullies are exempt from public security punishments, as discussed in Part 1) against the perpetrators (para. 1). Schools otherwise bear the primary responsibility for addressing bullying. Under the Minors Protection Law and its implementing regulations, they must, among other things, discipline the bullies and report instances of serious bullying to the police and education departments. Under Article 60 of the revised PSAPL, the police may order schools to cease violating those obligations and refer them to the competent authorities for disciplinary actions (para. 2). The second draft of the revision would have allowed the police to issue warnings—a type of public security punishments—to responsible school officials, though this provision was later deleted (June 2024 Draft art. 46).
Offenses Against Social Management
Operating illegal civil society organizations. The current PSAPL bars anyone from (1) unlawfully running a “social group” [社会团体] without registering and continuing to engage in activities after being shut down; or (2) continuing to engage in activities in the name of a social group after it has been deregistered (art. 65, para. 1, items 1–2). The revision extends the prohibitions to all three types of civil society organizations: social groups, foundations, and “social service organizations” [社会服务机构] (the last is expected to eventually replace the category “private non-enterprise units” [民办非企业组织]) (id.).
Serving unidentified hotel guests. Article 67 creates a new offense for providing lodging to guests who are unidentified or refuse to register identity information, subjecting the responsible managers and other directly responsible personnel to warnings or fines of up to RMB 1,000 (para. 1). The Counterterrorism Law [反恐怖主义法] imposes an identical duty on hotels to verify and record the identities of their guests, though it provides for much harsher penalties: fines of up to RMB 500,000 for the establishments and up to RMB 100,000 for responsible individuals (art. 86, para. 2). Because of the overlap, the revised PSAPL clarifies that the Counterterrorism Law applies only to violations that “obstruct counterterrorism efforts” (art. 67, para. 2). Whether that is the case may depend on the region, time period, or the guest’s relationship to terrorism or extremism, the LAC suggests (p. 52).
Conducting unlawful surveillance. Article 70 makes it an offense to unlawfully install, use, or provide “specialized equipment for eavesdropping and secret photography.” Unlawful use leading to “serious consequences” constitutes a crime under Article 284 of the Criminal Law.
Violating official prohibition orders. Article 73 adds new offenses for violating three types of orders or measures issued by authorities: (1) court-imposed injunctions or employment bans as part of criminal verdicts; (2) police-issued “warning letters” [告诫书] against domestic violence or sexual harassment of women under, respectively, the Anti–Domestic Violence Law [反家庭暴力法] and Women’s Rights and Interests Protection Law [妇女权益保障法]; and (3) measures taken by criminal justice organs to prohibit contact with witnesses and their families.
This provision is especially notable in transforming the police’s warning letters to domestic abusers into “a form of protection order for preventing further violence.” While the police are supposed to issue such letters only when the abuse does not amount to a punishable offense, in practice they are often “used in place of punishment even where more severe measures were justified to protect victims.” The revised PSAPL now gives the warning letters more teeth, making failure to comply with this preventive measure itself punishable by a punitive “warning” [警告] or a fine of up to RMB 1,000; or, when the circumstances are serious, by 5–10 days in detention and a discretionary fine of up to RMB 1,000.
Escaping from custody. Article 74 authorizes additional detention of up to 15 days for those who abscond while detained for non-criminal violations. (Under Article 316 of the Criminal Law, convicts, defendants, and suspects who escape from custody may be imprisoned for up to 5 years.)
New minor drug offenses. Article 84 has previously authorized detention and fines for minor drug offenses such as possessing small amounts of drugs and using drugs. The revision also authorizes the police to prohibit drug users from entering entertainment venues or having unauthorized contact with others who have violated drug laws for 6 months to 1 year (art. 84, para. 3). Those who violate such an order may be detained for up to 5 days or fined up to RMB 1,000.
Article 86 adds a new offense of unlawfully manufacturing, trading in, purchasing, or transporting raw materials or regents used for making drugs. This corresponds to the crime under Article 350 of the Criminal Law.
Violating “social noise” regulations. The current PSAPL subjects violations of laws on “social noises” [社会生活噪声]—defined elsewhere to encompass all noises generated by humans except from industrial activities, constructions, and transportation—to warnings at first and, if the violator refuses to desist, to a fine of RMB 200–500 (2012 PSAPL art. 58). Enforcement of this provision is said to have created an immense burden on the police’s resources (p. 41). As revised, Article 88 creates a buffer between the police and the violators, allowing community organizations, property managers, and other governmental authorities to first intervene. If the violator continues to disturb others’ normal lives, work, and studies despite the intervention, the police may then impose detention of up to 5 days or a fine of up to RMB 1,000. More serious violations may result in detention of 5–10 days and a concurrent fine of up to RMB 1,000.
Keeping dangerous pets. Article 89 adds the offense of selling or raising “dangerous dogs” [烈性犬] or other dangerous animals, but only if it violates a statute, regulation, or local government rule (para. 2). The initial penalty is a warning, while detention and fines are available for recalcitrant offenders. Those who unlawfully sell or keep dangerous animals, resulting in the animals’ injuring others, are also subject to the aggravated penalties (id.). This Article also newly penalizes the failure to implement safety measures for animals (whether or not dangerous), resulting in injuries to others (para. 3).
New Procedures: Questioning, Collecting Biological Samples, Deferring Detention & More
As we have discussed in Part 1, the PSAPL is a special law vis-à-vis the Administrative Punishments Law (APL) [行政处罚法] and the Administrative Coercion Law (ACL) [行政强制法]. It incorporates the latter’s procedures by reference except where it lays down special rules in light of the volume and characteristics of public security cases and law enforcement’s actual needs in this context (p. 45). The PSAPL also supplements the two general statutes with additional procedures that are less relevant in other areas of administrative law enforcement. In addition to the following procedural reforms, the revision also modestly expands the hearing rights of those facing administrative detention, as discussed in Part 1.
Clarifying PSAPL’s applicability in other contexts. A new Article 141 makes clear that the PSAPL applies in two additional contexts: (1) when the police impose administrative detention under other statutes, such as the Environmental Protection Law [环境保护法]; and (2) when the police enforce the administrative punishments under other laws or regulations that “directly relate to public security and social order,” such as the Firearms Control Law [枪支管理法] and the Regulations on the Management of the Safety of Civilian Explosives [民用爆炸物品安全管理条例] (para. 3). Not only will the PSAPL’s procedural rules apply, but its general provisions on punishments, such as the leniency rules discussed earlier, will as well (see p. 49).
Endorsing lower approval authority for compulsory summons. When a violator refuses to comply with a police summons to show up for investigation, the current PSAPL authorizes the use of “compulsory summons” [强制传唤]—akin to arresting a criminal suspect for interrogation—without specifying the level of approval required (2012 PSAPL art. 82, para. 3). The MPS has long vested the approval authority in the leaders of a public security organ’s “case-handling departments”—who are also authorized by the PSAPL to issue the initial summons (art. 96, para. 1). Such departments include both the internal divisions of public security organs at or above the county level and local police stations [派出所]. The problem with the MPS’s provision is that, under the ACL’s default rules (art. 18, item 1), administrative compulsory measures like compulsory summons must be approved by the leadership of a public security organ itself—not an internal division or a local station. Agreeing that a lower level of approval is necessary to ensure efficiency (p. 45), the NPCSC codified the MPS rule, creating an exception to the ACL’s general requirement (art. 96, para. 2). At the same time, it rejected the MPS’s proposal to allow police officers to carry out compulsory summons on the spot due to “urgent situations” before seeking retroactive approvals (Aug. 2023 Draft art. 94, para. 2).
Refining rules on questioning. As a default rule, the current PSAPL limits the questioning of a violator to 8 hours, though it may be extended up to 24 hours if “the circumstances are complicated” and the violator may be subject to detention (art. 97, para. 1). The revision newly authorizes questioning of up to 12 hours when the case involves “a large number of people” or the violator’s identity is unclear (id.).
In addition, when questioning occurs on police premises, the revision requires that the whole process be simultaneously recorded in audio and video (id. para. 2). It also requires that the police ensure the violator’s legitimate needs, including food, water, and necessary rest time (id. para. 3). According to the LAC, such “legitimate needs” could also include taking medication on time, breastfeeding, finding care for one’s young children or close relatives who cannot care for themselves, and making arrangements for important matters with deadlines, such as major tests and application deadlines (p. 48). The goal is to “avoid unnecessary harm to the violator” and prevent “unreasonable situations” where the administrative enforcement measure (questioning) causes greater harm than the administrative punishment itself (id.).
Collecting biological samples. The revision authorizes the police to inspect the body of a violator or victim and collect their photographs, fingerprints, and biological samples such as blood and urine (art. 102). But, compared to the initial draft, the finalized revision puts in some guardrails against abuse. First, such exams and collections may be conducted only to “ascertain the facts of a case and determine certain characteristics, injuries, or physiological states” of the violator or victim—and only if “necessary” for handling a given case. Second, the revision appears to limit biometrics collection to photographs and fingerprints only, as it deleted the MPS’s catch-all phrase “and other human biometrics information.” Third, the revision requires the victim’s or their guardian’s consent for body inspections and information collections.
Expanding procedural protections for juvenile offenders. Under the current PSAPL, parents or other guardians have the right to be present when the police question juvenile offenders (art. 98, para. 2). The revision also allows for the presence of other “appropriate adults” when parents and other guardians are unavailable, including adult relatives and representatives from the minor’s school, neighborhood committee, or a child welfare organization (id. para. 3). This provision mirrors Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Law [刑事诉讼法], which similarly authorizes the presence of appropriate adults at the interrogation and trial of juvenile offenders. In addition, the revision requires the police to hear the comments of a juvenile offender’s parents or other guardians (though not other appropriate adults) before making a punishment decision (art. 112, para. 3).
Any minor under the age of 18 will benefit from these new provisions, as opposed to those 16 years or younger under the current PSAPL.
Allowing limited single-officer enforcement. The APL (art. 42) and ACL (art. 19) lay down the general requirement that administrative punishments and administrative compulsory measures be implemented by at least two officers. The revised PSAPL incorporates this default rule (art. 108, para. 1), while creating three exceptions. First, a single police officer may resolve public security violations arising from private disputes (such as brawling and property damage) through mediation, as an alternative to imposing punishments (art. 9, para. 1; art. 108, para. 1). Second, a single officer may also conduct questioning, seizure, and identification at official case-handling sites that are “properly established and strictly managed” (art. 108, para. 1). Third, a single officer may issue a punishment decision at the scene if the violator does not object to the proposed punishment or the facts, reasons, and basis therefor—in addition to meeting the general requirements for on-the-spot decisions (i.e., the facts are clear, the evidence is irrefutable, and the penalty is a warning or a fine of up to RMB 500) (arts. 119–120).
In all three situations, the revision requires that the officer’s actions be simultaneously recorded in audio and video (art. 108, para. 2; art. 120, para. 2). For activities on police premises, if the recording does not cover the whole process or is destroyed or lost, the related evidence cannot be used as the basis for punishment (art. 108, para. 2).
Deferring or suspending detention. The current PSAPL allows a violator to apply for deferring administrative detention only when they have initiated administrative reconsideration or judicial review of the punishment (art. 126, para. 1). The police are directed to grant the request if they believe that deferring detention will not “create a danger to society” and if the violator or a close relative finds an eligible guarantor or posts a bond of RMB 200 per day of administrative detention (id.).
The revision additionally allows for deferring detention when the violator is taking an entrance exam, has a newborn child, or has a close relative who is critically ill or has died, if they also meet the non-dangerous and guaranty requirements (id.). And if a current detainee encounters any of these situations, the revision allows for suspending detention as well (id. para. 2).
- 张义健 [Zhang Yijian], 2025年《治安管理处罚法》修订解读 [Explaining the 2025 Revision to the Public Security Administration Punishments Law], 中国法律评论 [China L. Rev.], no. 4, 2025, at 32. ↩︎