Exhibit 1 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:2613
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

INVENTUS POWER, INC., and ICC

ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) LTD., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SHENZHEN ACE BATTERY CO., LTD., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-03375 

Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. 

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cummings 

 

DECLARATION OF JIANWEI FANG 

Jianwei Fang, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declares as follows: 

1. I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind, and otherwise competent to 

make this Declaration. The evidence set out in the foregoing Declaration is based on 

my personal knowledge. If called to testify as a witness thereto, I could do so 

competently under oath. 

2. I am an attorney at the Shanghai Office of the Zhong Lun Law Firm in 

China. I received my Bachelor of Law degree from East China University of Politics 

& Law in 2003, and my Juris Doctor and Master of Laws degrees from Columbia 

University in the United States in 2010 and 2007, respectively. I am a member of both 

the Chinese Bar and the New York State Bar. I have been licensed to practice law in 

China for more than 9 years. Before that, I served as a judge in a basic-level trial court 

in Zhejiang Province in China. In my current law practice, I specialize in dispute 

resolution, corporate compliance and government regulation. I have published several 

articles on China’s state secrets and data protection laws and regulations. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:2614
2

3. I submit this Declaration in support of Inventus’s Motion to Compel 

Discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

4. I have reviewed Judge Dow’s order granting Inventus’s motion for 

expedited discovery, which states that “inspections of devices used by the individuals 

in question while working for Defendant seems a highly logical place to focus attention 

in determining whether any of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets have been disclosed to and used 

by Defendant. Neither language nor nationality present compelling barriers to 

proceeding; translators easily can be employed and the use of remote technology is 

increasingly prevalent in every phase of litigation, especially during the pandemic.” 

Dkt. 48 at 30-31. I have also reviewed the Forensic Examination Protocol Order (the 

“Protocol Order”) signed by Judge Jeffrey Cummings on November 9, 2020 (Dkt. 99). 

The scope of the inspection includes at least the laptops of key AcePower employees, 

as well as any other media or devices they used during their employment at AcePower, 

including external storage devices, shared servers, cloud storage, emails, instant 

messages (collectively the “Requested Media”). 

5. In my opinion, making the Requested Media available for forensic 

inspection by a third-party examiner will not conflict with Chinese law. First, 

engaging an independent third party to conduct forensic inspection on the Requested 

Media is unlikely to be deemed as “investigation and evidence collection (调查取证) 

within the territory of the People’s Republic of China” stipulated by the Paragraph 3 of 

the Article 277 of the Civil Procedural Law. Second, Article 277 is not a “blocking 

statute” as AcePower required to show. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc. v. Janssen-Counotte, 

104 F. Supp. 3d 1150, 1161 (D. Or. 2015) (citing United States v. Vetco Inc., 691 F.2d 

1281, 1289 (9th Cir. 1981)) (“A party claiming the shelter of foreign law to avoid 

discovery must first show that foreign law in fact bars production.”). And based on 

my years of experience and legal research, I am not aware of any Chinese entities being 

sanctioned or penalized under Article 277 due to their compliance with foreign courts’ 

discovery orders. Indeed, Chinese companies have frequently engaged in discovery 

before U.S. courts under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Chinese companies 

have produced documents and written discovery responses, made their witnesses 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:2615
3

available in jurisdictions such as Hong Kong and Macau, made media available for 

inspection, and participated in forensic investigations for purposes of U.S. litigation. 

6. It is also my opinion that seeking discovery in this case under the Hague 

Evidence Convention would frustrate the purpose of the Court’s order to forensically 

inspect the Requested Media due to the requirement that the discovery sought be 

described in detail. The delay caused by the Hague Evidence Convention also makes 

the process an impractical endeavor. 

I. Article 277 of Chinese Civil Procedure Law Does Not Prohibit the 

Proposed Forensic Investigation in This Case 

7. Article 277 of the Chinese Civil Procedure Law does not prohibit the 

proposed forensic inspection as laid out in the Court’s Protocol Order and does not 

require that the parties pursue discovery through the Hague Convention. Article 277 

provides: 

Chapter 27: Judicial Assistance 

Article 277 The request for the providing of judicial assistance shall be effected 

through channels provided in the international treaties concluded or acceded to by 

the People's Republic of China; in the absence of such treaties, they shall be effected 

through diplomatic channels. 

A foreign embassy or consulate accredited to the People's Republic of China may 

serve documents on its citizens and make investigations and collect evidence (调查

取证) among them, provided that the laws of the People's Republic of China are not 

violated and no compulsory measures are taken. 

Except for the conditions provided in the preceding paragraph, no foreign 

organization or individual may, without the consent of the competent authorities of 

the People's Republic of China, serve documents or make investigations and collect 

evidence (调查取证) within the territory of the People's Republic of China. 

8. It is my opinion that engaging an independent third party to conduct 

forensic inspection on the Requested Media is unlikely to be deemed as “investigation 

and evidence collection (调查取证) within the territory of the People’s Republic of 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:2616
4

China” stipulated by the Paragraph 3 of the Article 277 of the Civil Procedural Law. 

The relevant PRC laws and regulations are silent on what activities in civil cases could 

be deemed as “investigation and evidence collections (调查取证) within the territory 

of People’s Republic of China”, as stipulated by the Paragraph 3 of Article 277 of the 

Civil Procedural Law. The term shall be interpreted in accordance with the legislative 

intent, precedents, practices, etc. 

9. The legislative intent of the Article 277 of Civil Procedural Law is to 

protect the integrity of PRC judicial sovereignty and prohibit foreign judicial authorities 

(e.g., foreign courts) from exercising judicial power within the territory of China. 

Indeed, I know of no general prohibition in Chinese law preventing a Chinese litigant 

in the United States from voluntarily providing access to documents and information 

that might be used in civil judicial proceedings in a foreign country. Article 277 could 

have prohibited voluntary participation by Chinese parties in civil proceedings in the 

United States – but it does not do so. The legislative intent behind Article 277 is clear 

when contrasted with, for example, the International Criminal Judicial Assistance Law 

(2018) (a true and correct copy of which is attached to my declaration as Exhibit 1), 

which applies only to criminal litigation and expressly states: “[N]o institution, 

organization or individual within the territory of the People's Republic of China may 

provide evidentiary materials and assistance prescribed by this Law to foreign 

countries.” See Exhibit 1 at Article 4 (emphasis added). This criminal law prohibits 

anyone inside the PRC territory, whether Chinese nationals or foreigners, from 

providing evidence without permission, whether voluntary or not, in conjunction with 

foreign criminal proceedings. In contrast, Article 277 only prohibits a “foreign agency 

or individual” from performing certain tasks inside China. Thus, Article 277 does not 

prohibit a Chinese litigant from voluntarily producing documents or other types of 

discovery to foreign courts from China, or otherwise cooperating with discovery in a 

foreign civil proceeding like that at issue here. 

10. Further, it is clear from the legislative intent that the act of “making 

investigation and collecting evidence” within the meaning of Article 277 refers mainly 

to the exercise of investigative power reserved for the Chinese judicial authorities. The 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:2617
5

act of “making investigation and collecting evidence” under Article 277 does not 

include the production of documents or disclosure of information by one party to an 

independent third-party examiner for the purpose of resolving a dispute in or out of 

court, because these acts do not encroach on the supremacy of Chinese judicial 

authorities. Thus, engaging an independent third party to conduct forensic inspection 

on the Requested Media is unlikely to be deemed as “investigation and evidence 

collection (调查取证) within the territory of the People’s Republic of China” and 

Article 277 should not be applied in the present case. 

11. According to the Protocol Order, the forensic examiner will be jointly 

selected by both parties, and the examiner is neutral from either party and the court. 

The mission of the examiner is, as an independent third-party, to review Requested 

Media provided by AcePower, at the facilities of AcePower. Therefore, there is no basis 

to say that such examiner is controlled by the U.S. court or such inspection is an 

evidence collection conducted by the U.S. court. Thus, engaging an independent third 

party to conduct forensic inspection on the Requested Media is unlikely to be deemed 

as “investigation and evidence collection (调查取证) within the territory of the 

People’s Republic of China” and Article 277 should not be applied in the present case. 

Further, because the forensic inspection would be implemented by Chinese nationals, 

this is an additional reason that Article 277 is inapplicable. 

12. In my opinion, Article 277 is not a blocking statute. I understand that for 

there to be a conflict of laws or for there to be a blocking statute, there must be more 

than general allegations or mere speculation of risk for punishment in violation of a 

foreign statute. Autodesk, Inc. v. ZWCAD Software Co., No. 5:14-CV-01409-EJD, 

2015 WL 1928184, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2015); Phoenix Process Equip. Co. v. 

Capital Equip. & Trading Corp., No. 3:16CV-00024-RGJ-RSE, 2019 WL 1261352, at 

*13 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 19, 2019). Based on my over 9 years of experience practicing 

law in China, my prior experience working as a judge in China, and my legal research, 

I am not aware of any instances in which the Chinese government punished or 

sanctioned an entity for complying with foreign discovery under Article 277. Indeed, 

Article 277 does not include any provisions, or even mention, penalties or sanctions for 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:2618
6

non-compliance. It is thus my expert opinion that Article 277 does not conflict with 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is not a blocking statute here. 

13. In fact, many Chinese companies have been routinely involved in U.S. 

litigations as both plaintiffs and defendants, including in cases involving production of 

substantial documents and things under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These 

Chinese litigants have also participated in other types of discovery, including answering 

written discovery requests, making source code available for inspection, and sitting for 

depositions (typically in Hong Kong or Macau). For instance, I am personally aware 

of Zhong Zhi Xing Technology Co. Ltd., AllRide.AI Inc., and Shanghai Union 

Technology, all Chinese companies that have litigated in the United States and complied 

with discovery requests including forensic examination. However, to my knowledge, 

my search of legal databases and news articles reporting about these companies, I 

have seen no evidence that these companies, or any other, has ever been subject to any 

penalties or sanctions by the Chinese government or courts as a result of participating 

in discovery for U.S. litigation. Although this list is not exhaustive, below is a list of 

recent cases in which companies based in mainland China complied with discovery 

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 

14. For example, in WeRide Corp. v. Kun Huang, No. 5:18-CV-07233-EJD, 

2020 WL 1967209 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2020), two Chinese defendants, Zhong Zhi Xing 

Technology Co. Ltd. and AllRide.AI Inc., were both engaged in discovery before a 

court in the United States. In particular, the Northern District of California appointed 

FTI Consulting as a neutral forensic examiner to perform a forensic inspection of 

defendant’s devices because defendant AllRide admitted “it had not turned off an autodelete setting on the company’s email server leading to the company-wide destruction 

of emails predating the middle of March 2019,” that “several individual email accounts 

associated with Wang and his wife had been destroyed,” and that “[t]he auto-delete 

function destroyed emails more than three months old.” Id. at *3. Thus, “[a]s directed 

by the Court, FTI undertook the following tasks as part of its investigation: (1) 

quantifying and qualifying the scope of [defendants’] document/email destruction, (2) 

recovering, to the extent possible using commercially reasonable efforts, any 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:2619
7

documents destroyed, and (3) describing, to the extent possible, the nature and contents 

of any destroyed documents that cannot be recovered.” Id. at *5. Based on my 

research, neither Zhong Zhi Xing Technology nor AllRide.AI were sanctioned or 

penalized for their cooperation with the forensic investigations ordered by the Northern 

District of California. 

15. Additionally, in 3D Sys. Corp. v. Miller, No. 1:17-CV-03252-RLY-MJD, 

2018 WL 7350939 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 13, 2018), defendant Union Tech. Inc. and its parent 

in China, Shanghai Union, a Chinese company, were both engaged in discovery in the 

United States, including producing the laptop used by Shanghai Union’s president for 

forensic discovery. In particular, “the parties entered into a Stipulated Forensic 

Protocol (the ‘Protocol’) pursuant to which the parties agreed to the forensic 

investigation and analysis of certain searchable electronic media (‘SEM’) identified 

therein.” Id. at *1 (emphasis added). Pursuant to the Protocol, “3D Systems 

requested that Union Tech submit [Shanghai Union’s President’s] laptop computers and 

cell phones for forensic analysis. . . . Union Tech refused to do so.” Id. The court 

noted that “pursuant to the Stipulated Forensic Protocol, Union Tech has sent the 

identified SEM devices to the neutral forensic examiner,” but held that “[t]o the extent 

that Union Tech has not provided 3D Systems with any relevant information and/or 

SEM devices that include 3D Systems Information, the Court orders Union Tech to 

produce the information and/or SEM devices within fourteen (14) days from the date 

of this Order.” As confirmed by my research, the defendant Union Tech. was not 

sanctioned or penalized for cooperating with the forensic investigations. 

16. Moreover, a court in Minnesota reached a similar conclusion that a 

Chinese party should be required to produce documents, and that court never required 

the requesting party to go through the Hague Convention. See Polaris Indus., Inc. v. 

CFMOTO Powersports, Inc., No. CV 10-4362 (JNE/JJG), 2012 WL 13028232, at *2, 

*5 (analyzing plaintiff’s motion to compel under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and holding that non-party parent company “CFMOTO-China and Defendant are so 

closely related that Defendant should be required to disclose information in CFMOTOChina’s physical possession.”). My research confirms that the producing party was 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:2620
8

not sanctioned or penalized for participating in discovery in the United States. 

17. Likewise, in Brown v. China Integrated Energy, Inc., the Central District 

of California explained that “[t]he Court will examine the subject document Requests 

using the general standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1),” where 

plaintiff moved to compel documents from defendant China Integrated Energy, Inc. 

No. CV112559BROPLAX, 2014 WL 12577173, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2014). No 

Hague Convention procedures were deemed necessary in that case as well. Id. In 

addition, based on my research, China Integrated Energy, Inc. was not sanctioned or 

penalized for participating in discovery in the United States. 

18. Additionally, in Munoz v. China Expert Tech., Inc., the Southern District 

of New York similarly required the Chinese defendant to provide discovery pursuant to 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No. 07 CIV. 10531 AKH, 2011 WL 5346323, 

at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2011). Although “[d]efendants argue that the procedures of 

the Hague Convention should first be followed,” the court noted that “[t]hese 

procedures are slow and cumbersome, and subject discovery to the law of the country 

where the producing party is located.” Id. Thus, it concluded that “discovery will 

proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” because “[t]he lawsuit is properly 

in this Court’s jurisdiction, involves securities sold in the United States and under the 

protection of United States’ laws governing United States capital markets, and 

implicates important United States’ policies and practices . . . .” Id. As confirmed 

by my research, the Chinese defendant, China Expert Tech., Inc., was not sanctioned or 

penalized for participating in discovery in the United States. 

19. Further, in Loops LLC v. Phoenix Trading, Inc., the court also declined to 

require the use of the Hague Convention for depositions of a Chinese defendant. No. 

C08-1064 RSM, 2010 WL 786030, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 4, 2010). Indeed, the court 

expressly rejected the Chinese defendant’s argument that “because China joined part of 

the Hague Evidence Convention, Plaintiffs should not be allowed to take the 

depositions of Chinese persons at all, an argument contrary to the policies behind the 

Convention. . . .” Id. The court also found the defendant’s arguments unpersuasive 

because “[d]efendants make no contention that Convention procedures will facilitate 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:2621
9

the gathering of evidence while protecting China's sovereign interests.” Id. Based 

on my research, the parties were not sanctioned or penalized for participating in 

discovery in the United States. 

20. Forensic investigations conducted in China for foreign litigation have also 

become commonplace. For instance, Dr. Tim Klatte, a forensic examination expert 

from Grant Thornton Accounting Firm (Special General Partnership) in China, has 

conducted many forensic analyses in mainland China in cases involving Chinese parties 

litigating in foreign cases. I confirmed with Dr. Klatte that he has no knowledge of 

Chinese authorities ever penalizing or sanctioning a party for complying with the 

forensic investigations that he carried out. Autodesk, Inc. v. ZWCAD Software Co., 

No. 5:14-CV-01409-EJD, 2015 WL 1928184, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2015) 

(“[Defendant]’s generalized allegations that production of its source code and related 

documents may subject it to liability under Chinese laws are insufficient to establish 

that a genuine sovereign interest is at issue here.”); Phoenix Process Equip. Co. v. 

Capital Equip. & Trading Corp., No. 3:16CV-00024-RGJ-RSE, 2019 WL 1261352, at 

*13 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 19, 2019) (“Selectively citing to Russian laws that may or may not 

impact the production of the requested documents is insufficient to establish a 

forthcoming violation of Russian law. . . . For these reasons, Defendants have not 

carried their burden of establishing that Russian law truly conflicts with United States’ 

laws or bars production of the specific documents at issue.”). 

21. I understand that the neutral examiner in this case (Mr. Daniel Roffman of 

FTI Consulting) has also conducted forensic examinations in mainland China for U.S. 

litigations, which further supports my opinion that the present analysis is not barred by 

Article 277. I understand that this analysis is done by Mr. Roffman’s staff located in 

mainland China who are experienced in conducting forensic investigations there. Dkt. 

79 at 7 (“Mr. Roffman is experienced in leading the digital forensic investigation and 

cyber security team at FTI’s Shanghai, China office, which frequently performs 

intellectual property and data leakage investigations, computer forensic expert analysis, 

and data collection and analysis in China.”). As just one example, Mr. Roffman’s staff 

was recently appointed by the Northern District of California to conduct forensic 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:2622
10

analysis in China, which proceeded under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Id. (“For 

instance, Mr. Han Lai in FTI’s Shanghai office—who would work alongside Mr. 

Roffman in this case—was recently appointed as part of the FTI team by the Northern 

District of California as a neutral forensic expert in the WeRide Corp. v. Huang trade 

secret dispute (No. 5:18-CV-07233) that involved issues such as electronic evidence 

spoliation, and testified in that dispute, which involved collection of discovery in 

China.”). These facts further bolster my opinion that Article 277 does not bar forensic 

investigation the Requested Media from AcePower. 

22. I understand AcePower raised the issue of potential sanctions by Chinese 

authorities for violating Article 277. But as I explained, based on my over 9 years of 

experience practicing law in China, my prior experience working as a judge in China, 

and my legal research, I am also not aware of any cases or instances in which a Chinese 

party’s offering of information for evidence in a foreign judicial proceeding has been 

deemed illegal or led to prosecution. Based on my understanding of the forensic 

protocol in this case, it will not trigger Article 277 or in any way require the express 

consent of the Chinese authorities. 

23. In my opinion, AcePower can also agree to make the Requested Media 

available for inspection outside of mainland China (for instance, Hong Kong). In my 

opinion, providing discovery outside of mainland China would not implicate Article 

277 because the Civil Procedural Law is only applicable to acts taken place within the 

territory of People’s Republic of China in accordance with Article 3 and Article 4 of 

Civil Procedural Law. Indeed, Chinese litigants have often produced discovery in this 

manner. 

24. Furthermore, I am not aware of any Chinese law or regulation that generally 

forbids the litigant from voluntarily opening up “access” of foreign individuals or 

organizations to documents, information, or objects that might be used in a civil 

litigation in a foreign country. 

II. The Hague Convention Is Not a Viable Alternative for the Requested 

Discovery in This Case 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:2623
11

25. In my opinion, conducting discovery under the Hague Evidence 

Convention is not a viable option for obtaining the requested discovery in this case. 

First, PRC sets higher requirements for execution of Letters of Request issued for the 

purpose of obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents. Article 23 of Convention of 18 

March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague 

Convention”) provides that, a Contracting State may at the time of signature, 

ratification or accession, declare that it will not execute Letters of Request issued for 

the purpose of obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents as known in common law 

countries. PRC made a declaration when joining the Hague Convention, that in 

accordance with Article 23 of the Convention concerning the Letters of Request issued 

for the purpose of obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents as known in common law 

countries, only the request for obtaining discovery of the documents clearly enumerated 

in the Letters of Request and of direct and close connection with the subject matter of 

the litigation will be executed. Secondly, it is not realistic for Inventus to describe all 

the misappropriated information with the mandated specificity required by the Hague 

Convention. Under Article 3 of Hague Convention, a requesting party (i.e. the Plaintiff) 

shall submit a Letter of Request specifying the nature of the evidence and all 

information pertinent to the evidence. This requirement mandates a detailed 

description of the exact documents sought to be discovered and produced through the 

Hague process, including documents possessed by AcePower that Inventus has no 

access to and cannot possibly describe with sufficient specificity. The fact that 

AcePower has already incorporated Inventus’s confidential information into its own 

documents, including for instance AcePower’s patent filings (Dkt. 9 at ¶¶ 47–50), 

shows that describing all the misappropriated information with the mandated specificity 

is not realistic, especially in view of AcePower’s concealment. Moreover, given that 

more than 140,000 documents were misappropriated by Ace, describing such a large 

quantity of documents in sufficient detail pursuant to the Hague Convention is simply 

impossible. 

26. Even if relevant requests for judicial assistance have been submitted in 

accordance with the Hague Evidence Convention, it is predicted that relevant requests 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:2624
12

for pre-trial discovery for a US litigation would not be efficiently handled by the PRC 

authorities, considering that a lengthy procedure to review the connection between the 

documents to be produced and the subject matter of the litigation would be taken, and 

even would be directly rejected after such procedure. 

27. In my opinion, pursuing discovery through the Hague Convention will

delay the court-ordered forensic examination by at least one year. According to 

Article 26 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Requesting Judicial 

Assistance in Service of Judicial Documents and Taking Evidence in Civil and 

Commercial Cases in Accordance with the International Convention and Bilateral 

Judicial Treaty, the requesting party shall submit the Letter of Request as requested in 

the Hague Convention. The Letter of Request is filed by a U.S. court with the central 

authority of the United States under the Convention and later being transferred to or 

directly with PRC Ministry of Justice and reviewed by PRC Supreme People’s Court 

and various levels of the people’s courts. Based on my experience, the Chinese 

authorities typically take 6 months to one year to respond to the Letter of Request1

 and 

often ask for additional clarification or modification before sending the request for 

execution by the Chinese courts. Given the large number of documents and Inventus’s 

inability to describe them with sufficient detail, it is unlikely that the Chinese authorities 

could effectively interpret and handle the request, and it would likely be indefinitely 

delayed for reasons relating to its administration, as opposed to its merits. 

III. Conclusion

28. Therefore, based on my review and analysis of the relevant law and facts,

I am of opinion that Chinese law does not bar the forensic inspection and other types 

of discovery ordered by the Court in mainland China. 

1 See http://www.360doc.com/content/16/0624/00/17508011_570274483.shtml, last visit at 17:11 2020/11/15. 

According to the interview with Ms. Li Zhi Ying, the contact person of the Hague Convention in China, no request 

was responded within 6 months, and 42% requests were responded in 6 months to one year, based on an 

investigation launched by the Hague International Private Law Conference in 2013. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:2625
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that 

the foregoing is true and correct to my knowledge. 

Executed on November 20, 2020. ·- '--

/tM v--ll C �� Jianwei Fang 

13

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:2626
Exhibit 1 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:2627
Nov. 19, 2020

---------------------

Thursday

Login Subscribe Now! Home User Management About Us Chinese

Issuing authority: Standing Committee of the National People's Congress Document Number: Order No. 13 of the President of the People's Republic

of China

Date issued: 10-26-2018 Effective date: 10-26-2018

Level of Authority: Laws Area of Law:Judicial Assistance

 

>>>Welcome visitor, you're not logged in.

lawinfochina.com > Laws & Regulations > Text

Bookmark Download Print Search: "Fabao" Window Font Size: 简体

繁体

Law of the People's Republic of China on International Criminal Judicial Assistance [Effective]

中华人民共和国国际刑事司法协助法 [现行有效]

【法宝引证码】CLI.1.324534(EN)

Order of the President of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国主席令

(No. 13) (第十三号)

The Law of the People's Republic of China on International Criminal Judicial Assistance, as

adopted at the 6th Session of the Standing Committee of the Thirteenth National People's

Congress of the People's Republic of China on October 26, 2018, is hereby issued, and shall

come into force on the date of issuance.

《中华人民共和国国际刑事司法协助法》已由中华人民共

和国第十三届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第六次会议于

2018年10月26日通过,现予公布,自公布之日起施行。

President of the People's Republic of China: Xi Jinping 中华人民共和国主席 习近平

October 26, 2018 2018年10月26日

Law of the People's Republic of China on International Criminal Judicial Assistance 中华人民共和国国际刑事司法协助法

(Adopted at the 6th Session of the Standing Committee of the Thirteenth National People's

Congress of the People's Republic of China on October 26, 2018)

(2018年10月26日第十三届全国人民代表大会常务委员

会第六次会议通过)

Table of Contents 目 录

Chapter I General Provisions 第一章 总 则

Chapter II Presentation, Receipt and Handling of Requests for Criminal Judicial Assistance 第二章 刑事司法协助请求的提出、接收和处理

Section 1 Requesting a Foreign Country to Provide Criminal Judicial Assistance 第一节 向外国请求刑事司法协助

Section 2 Requesting the People's Republic of China to Provide Criminal Judicial Assistance 第二节 向中华人民共和国请求刑事司法协助

Chapter III Service of Documents 第三章 送达文书

Section 1 Requesting a Foreign Country to Serve Documents 第一节 向外国请求送达文书

Section 2 Requesting the People's Republic of China to Serve Documents 第二节 向中华人民共和国请求送达文书

Chapter IV Investigation and Evidence Collection 第四章 调查取证

Section 1 Requesting a Foreign Country to Conduct Investigation and Collect Evidence 第一节 向外国请求调查取证

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:2628
Section 2 Requesting the People's Republic of China to Conduct Investigation and Collect

Evidence

第二节 向中华人民共和国请求调查取证

Chapter V Arranging for a Witness to Testify or Assist in Investigation 第五章 安排证人作证或者协助调查

Section 1 Requesting a Foreign Country to Arrange for a Witness to Testify or Assist in

Investigation

第一节 向外国请求安排证人作证或者协助调查

Section 2 Requesting the People's Republic of China to Arrange for a Witness to Testify or

Assist in Investigation

第二节 向中华人民共和国请求安排证人作证或者协助调

查

Chapter VI Seizure, Impoundment and Freezing of Property Involved in a Case 第六章 查封、扣押、冻结涉案财物

Section 1 Requesting a Foreign Country to Seize, Impound or Freeze the Property Involved in

a Case

第一节 向外国请求查封、扣押、冻结涉案财物

Section 2 Requesting the People's Republic of China to Seize, Impound or Freeze the Property

Involved in a Case

第二节 向中华人民共和国请求查封、扣押、冻结涉案财

物

Chapter VII Confiscation and Return of Illegal Income and Other Property Involved in a Case 第七章 没收、返还违法所得及其他涉案财物

Section 1 Requesting a Foreign Country to Confiscate or Return the Illegal Income and Other

Property Involved in a Case

第一节 向外国请求没收、返还违法所得及其他涉案财物

Section 2 Requesting the People's Republic of China to Confiscate or Return the Illegal

Income and Other Property Involved in a Case

第二节 向中华人民共和国请求没收、返还违法所得及其

他涉案财物

Chapter VIII Transfer of Sentenced Persons 第八章 移管被判刑人

Section 1 Transfer of Sentenced Persons to a Foreign Country 第一节 向外国移管被判刑人

Section 2 Transfer of Sentenced Persons to the People's Republic of China 第二节 向中华人民共和国移管被判刑人

Chapter IX Supplementary Provisions 第九章 附 则

Chapter I General Provisions

第一章 总 则

Article 1 This Law is developed for purposes of guaranteeing the normal proceeding of

international criminal judicial assistance, strengthening international cooperation in the field

of criminal judicial justice, effectively punishing crimes, protecting the lawful rights and

interests of individuals and organizations, and maintaining national interest and social order.

第一条 为了保障国际刑事司法协助的正常进行,加

强刑事司法领域的国际合作,有效惩治犯罪,保护个人和

组织的合法权益,维护国家利益和社会秩序,制定本法。

Article 2 For the purpose of this Law, “international criminal judicial assistance” means the

mutual assistance provided between the People's Republic of China and foreign countries in

the investigation, criminal investigation, prosecution, trial, execution and other activities of

criminal cases, including the service of documents, investigation and evidence collection,

arrangement of witnesses to testify or assist in investigation, seizure, impoundment and

freezing of properties involved in cases, confiscation and return of illegal income and other

properties involved in cases, transfer of sentenced persons and other assistance.

第二条 本法所称国际刑事司法协助,是指中华人民

共和国和外国在刑事案件调查、侦查、起诉、审判和执行

等活动中相互提供协助,包括送达文书,调查取证,安排

证人作证或者协助调查,查封、扣押、冻结涉案财物,没

收、返还违法所得及其他涉案财物,移管被判刑人以及其

他协助。

Article 3 Criminal judicial assistance between the People's Republic of China and foreign

countries shall be provided in accordance with this Law.

第三条 中华人民共和国和外国之间开展刑事司法协

助,依照本法进行。

The provisions of this Law, the Criminal Procedure Law and other relevant laws shall apply to

the execution of requests for criminal judicial assistance made by foreign countries.

执行外国提出的刑事司法协助请求,适用本法、刑事诉讼

法及其他相关法律的规定。

Such matters as the authority which signs the written request, the language of the written

request and attached materials, the relevant time limit for handling and specific procedures

may be handled in accordance with the provisions of criminal judicial assistance treaties or

对于请求书的签署机关、请求书及所附材料的语言文字、

有关办理期限和具体程序等事项,在不违反中华人民共和

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:2629
through consultation by both parties, provided that they are not against the basic principles

of laws of the People's Republic of China.

国法律的基本原则的情况下,可以按照刑事司法协助条约

规定或者双方协商办理。

Article 4 The People's Republic of China and foreign countries shall provide international

criminal judicial assistance under the principles of equality and reciprocity.

第四条 中华人民共和国和外国按照平等互惠原则开

展国际刑事司法协助。

International criminal judicial assistance shall not damage the sovereignty, security or public

interest of the People's Republic of China, and shall not violate the basic principles of laws of

the People's Republic of China.

国际刑事司法协助不得损害中华人民共和国的主权、安全

和社会公共利益,不得违反中华人民共和国法律的基本原

则。

No foreign institution, organization or individual may conduct criminal proceedings prescribed

by this Law within the territory of the People's Republic of China without the approval of the

competent authority of the People's Republic of China, and no institution, organization or

individual within the territory of the People's Republic of China may provide evidentiary

materials and assistance prescribed by this Law to foreign countries.

非经中华人民共和国主管机关同意,外国机构、组织和个

人不得在中华人民共和国境内进行本法规定的刑事诉讼活

动,中华人民共和国境内的机构、组织和个人不得向外国

提供证据材料和本法规定的协助。

Article 5 Criminal judicial assistance between the People's Republic of China and foreign

countries shall be provided through liaison with foreign affairs liaison authorities.

第五条 中华人民共和国和外国之间开展刑事司法协

助,通过对外联系机关联系。

The Ministry of Justice of the People's Republic of China and other foreign affairs liaison

authorities shall be responsible for proposing, receiving and forwarding the requests for

criminal judicial assistance and handling other affairs relating to international criminal judicial

assistance.

中华人民共和国司法部等对外联系机关负责提出、接收和

转递刑事司法协助请求,处理其他与国际刑事司法协助相

关的事务。

The People's Republic of China and foreign countries shall communicate with each other

through diplomatic channels, if there are no criminal judicial assistance treaties between

them.

中华人民共和国和外国之间没有刑事司法协助条约的,通

过外交途径联系。

Article 6 The National Supervisory Commission, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme

People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of State Security and other

departments are the competent authorities in charge of international criminal judicial

assistance, and shall be responsible for examining criminal judicial assistance requests made

to foreign countries, examining and handling criminal judicial assistance requests made by

foreign countries and forwarded by foreign affairs liaison authorities, and undertaking other

work relating to international criminal judicial assistance according to the division of

functions. In the cases on the transfer of sentenced persons, the Ministry of Justice shall,

according to the division of functions, undertake the functions of corresponding competent

authorities.

第六条 国家监察委员会、最高人民法院、最高人民

检察院、公安部、国家安全部等部门是开展国际刑事司法

协助的主管机关,按照职责分工,审核向外国提出的刑事

司法协助请求,审查处理对外联系机关转递的外国提出的

刑事司法协助请求,承担其他与国际刑事司法协助相关的

工作。在移管被判刑人案件中,司法部按照职责分工,承

担相应的主管机关职责。

The organs handling criminal judicial assistance cases are the case handling organs of

international criminal judicial assistance, and shall be responsible for submitting to the

competent authorities to which they are subordinate the requests for criminal judicial

assistance to be made to foreign countries, and executing the requests for criminal judicial

assistance made by foreign countries and assigned by the competent authorities to which

they are subordinate.

办理刑事司法协助相关案件的机关是国际刑事司法协助的

办案机关,负责向所属主管机关提交需要向外国提出的刑

事司法协助请求、执行所属主管机关交办的外国提出的刑

事司法协助请求。

Article 7 The state shall guarantee the funds required for international criminal judicial

assistance.

第七条 国家保障开展国际刑事司法协助所需经费。

Article 8 The expenses incurred from the mutual execution of requests for criminal judicial

assistance between the People's Republic of China and foreign countries shall be borne in

accordance with the provisions of the treaty if there is a treaty; and shall be resolved through

consultation under the principles of equality and reciprocity if there is no treaty or it is not

provided for in the treaty.

第八条 中华人民共和国和外国相互执行刑事司法协

助请求产生的费用,有条约规定的,按照条约承担;没有

条约或者条约没有规定的,按照平等互惠原则通过协商解

决。

Chapter II Presentation, Receipt and Handling of Requests for Criminal Judicial Assistance 第二章 刑事司法协助请求的提出、接收和处理

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:2630
Section 1 Requesting a Foreign Country to Provide Criminal Judicial Assistance

第一节 向外国请求刑事司法协助

Article 9 Where the case handling organ needs to request a foreign country to provide

criminal judicial assistance, it shall prepare a written request for criminal judicial assistance

with the relevant materials attached, which shall, after being examined and approved by the

competent authority to which it is subordinate, be filed by the foreign affairs liaison authority

with the foreign country in a timely manner.

第九条 办案机关需要向外国请求刑事司法协助的,

应当制作刑事司法协助请求书并附相关材料,经所属主管

机关审核同意后,由对外联系机关及时向外国提出请求。

Article 10 A written request for criminal judicial assistance shall be filed with a foreign

country in accordance with the provisions of the criminal judicial assistance treaty; if there is

no such treaty or it is not provided for in the treaty, the provision of Article 13 of this Law

may apply mutatis mutandis, or if the requested country has particular requirements, the

request may be filed according to the particular requirements of the requested country,

provided that it is not against the basic principles of laws of the People's Republic of China.

第十条 向外国的刑事司法协助请求书,应当依照刑

事司法协助条约的规定提出;没有条约或者条约没有规定

的,可以参照本法第十三条的规定提出;被请求国有特殊

要求的,在不违反中华人民共和国法律的基本原则的情况

下,可以按照被请求国的特殊要求提出。

The written request and the attached materials shall be prepared in Chinese and be

accompanied by a translation of the official language of the requested country.

请求书及所附材料应当以中文制作,并附有被请求国官方

文字的译文。

Article 11 Where the requested country puts forward additional conditions for the execution

of a request for criminal judicial assistance, if it does not damage the sovereignty, security or

public interest of the People's Republic of China, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs may make a

commitment. If the requested country expressly states that the commitment made by the

foreign affairs liaison authority is sufficient and effective, the foreign affairs liaison authority

may also make a commitment. The commitment to restrict prosecution shall be decided by

the Supreme People's Procuratorate; and the commitment to sentencing shall be decided by

the Supreme People's Court.

第十一条 被请求国就执行刑事司法协助请求提出附

加条件,不损害中华人民共和国的主权、安全和社会公共

利益的,可以由外交部作出承诺。被请求国明确表示对外

联系机关作出的承诺充分有效的,也可以由对外联系机关

作出承诺。对于限制追诉的承诺,由最高人民检察院决

定;对于量刑的承诺,由最高人民法院决定。

When investigating the criminal liability of a person involved in a case, the relevant authority

shall be bound by the commitment made.

在对涉案人员追究刑事责任时,有关机关应当受所作出的

承诺的约束。

Article 12 After receiving the relevant notice or execution result provided by a foreign

country, the foreign affairs liaison authority shall forward it to or inform the competent

authority in a timely manner.

第十二条 对外联系机关收到外国的有关通知或者执

行结果后,应当及时转交或者转告有关主管机关。

Where a foreign country requests a notification of the litigation result in a case for which it

provides criminal judicial assistance, the foreign affairs liaison authority shall transfer the

case to the competent authority for handling.

外国就其提供刑事司法协助的案件要求通报诉讼结果的,

对外联系机关转交有关主管机关办理。

Section 2 Requesting the People's Republic of China to Provide Criminal Judicial Assistance

第二节 向中华人民共和国请求刑事司法协助

Article 13 When a foreign country requests the People's Republic of China to provide criminal

judicial assistance, it shall file a written request in accordance with the provisions of the

criminal judicial assistance treaty. If there is no treaty or it is not provided for in the treaty, it

shall indicate the following matters in the written request and attach the relevant materials:

第十三条 外国向中华人民共和国提出刑事司法协助

请求的,应当依照刑事司法协助条约的规定提出请求书。

没有条约或者条约没有规定的,应当在请求书中载明下列

事项并附相关材料:

(1) Name of the organ that makes the request. (一)请求机关的名称;

(2) Case nature, basic information on personnel involved in the case and criminal facts. (二)案件性质、涉案人员基本信息及犯罪事实;

(3) Legal provisions applicable to this case. (三)本案适用的法律规定;

(4) Requested matters and the purpose of the request. (四)请求的事项和目的;

(5) Correlation between requested matters and the case. (五)请求的事项与案件之间的关联性;

(6) The period during which the request shall be executed. (六)希望请求得以执行的期限;

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:2631
(7) Other necessary information or additional requirements. (七)其他必要的信息或者附加的要求。

In the absence of a criminal judicial assistance treaty, the requesting country shall make a

reciprocal commitment.

在没有刑事司法协助条约的情况下,请求国应当作出互惠

的承诺。

The written request and the attached materials shall be accompanied by a Chinese

translation.

请求书及所附材料应当附有中文译文。

Article 14 Under any of the following circumstances, a request for criminal judicial assistance

made by a foreign country to the People's Republic of China may be rejected:

第十四条 外国向中华人民共和国提出的刑事司法协

助请求,有下列情形之一的,可以拒绝提供协助:

(1) The conduct against which the request is made does not constitute a crime in accordance

with the laws of the People's Republic of China.

(一)根据中华人民共和国法律,请求针对的行为不构成

犯罪;

(2) When a request is received, the crime against which the request is made is subject to

investigation, criminal investigation, prosecution and trial within the territory of the People's

Republic of China, an effective judgment has been rendered, criminal proceedings have been

terminated, or the term for prosecution has expired.

(二)在收到请求时,在中华人民共和国境内对于请求针

对的犯罪正在进行调查、侦查、起诉、审判,已经作出生

效判决,终止刑事诉讼程序,或者犯罪已过追诉时效期

限;

(3) The crime against which the request is made is a political offense. (三)请求针对的犯罪属于政治犯罪;

(4) The crime against which the request is made is purely a military offense. (四)请求针对的犯罪纯属军事犯罪;

(5) The purpose of the request is to conduct investigation, criminal investigation, prosecution,

trial or execute the punishment on the grounds of race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender,

political opinion, or identity, among others, or the party may receive unfair treatment for the

aforesaid reasons.

(五)请求的目的是基于种族、民族、宗教、国籍、性

别、政治见解或者身份等方面的原因而进行调查、侦查、

起诉、审判、执行刑罚,或者当事人可能由于上述原因受

到不公正待遇;

(6) The requested matters have no substantial relations with the case on which the request

for assistance is made.

(六)请求的事项与请求协助的案件之间缺乏实质性联

系;

(7) Any other circumstance where the request may be rejected. (七)其他可以拒绝的情形。

Article 15 When the foreign affairs liaison authority receives a foreign country's request for

criminal judicial assistance, it shall examine the written request and the attached materials. If

the form and content of the written request satisfy the relevant requirements, the written

request and the attached materials shall be forwarded to the competent authority for

handling according to the division of functions. If the form and content of the written request

fail to satisfy the requirements, the requesting country may be required to supplement

materials or submit a new written request.

第十五条 对外联系机关收到外国提出的刑事司法协

助请求,应当对请求书及所附材料进行审查。对于请求书

形式和内容符合要求的,应当按照职责分工,将请求书及

所附材料转交有关主管机关处理;对于请求书形式和内容

不符合要求的,可以要求请求国补充材料或者重新提出请

求。

Where the request for criminal judicial assistance evidently damages the sovereignty, security

or public interest of the People's Republic of China, the foreign affairs liaison authority may

directly reject the request.

对于刑事司法协助请求明显损害中华人民共和国的主权、

安全和社会公共利益的,对外联系机关可以直接拒绝协

助。

Article 16 After receiving the written request for criminal judicial assistance and the

attached materials forwarded by the foreign affairs liaison authority, the competent authority

shall conduct examination and handle them respectively as follows:

第十六条 主管机关收到对外联系机关转交的刑事司

法协助请求书及所附材料后,应当进行审查,并分别作出

以下处理:

(1) Where the competent authority deems that it may assist in the execution in accordance

with the provisions of this Law and the criminal judicial assistance treaty, it shall make a

decision and arrange the execution by the relevant case handling organ.

(一)根据本法和刑事司法协助条约的规定认为可以协助

执行的,作出决定并安排有关办案机关执行;

(2) Where the competent authority deems that it shall refuse to provide assistance, either

entirely or partially, as prescribed by Article 4 or 14 of this Law or the criminal judicial

assistance treaty, it shall return the written request and the attached materials to the foreign

affairs liaison authority and explain the reason.

(二)根据本法第四条、第十四条或者刑事司法协助条约

的规定,认为应当全部或者部分拒绝协助的,将请求书及

所附材料退回对外联系机关并说明理由;

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:2632
(3) Where the competent authority has confidentiality requirements for or other conditions

attached to the execution of the request, it shall put forward such requirements or conditions

to the foreign country through the foreign affairs liaison authority, and decide to execute the

request with attached conditions after the foreign country accepts the conditions and makes a

written commitment.

(三)对执行请求有保密要求或者有其他附加条件的,通

过对外联系机关向外国提出,在外国接受条件并且作出书

面保证后,决定附条件执行;

(4) Where the competent authority deems it necessary to supplement materials, it shall

notify the foreign affairs liaison authority in writing to require the requesting country to

provide the materials within a reasonable time limit.

(四)需要补充材料的,书面通知对外联系机关要求请求

国在合理期限内提供。

Where the competent authority deems that the execution of a request may obstruct the

ongoing investigation, criminal investigation, prosecution, trial or execution of the relevant

authority of the People's Republic of China, it may decide to postpone assistance and shall

notify in writing the foreign affairs liaison authority of the decision on and grounds for

postponing the assistance.

执行请求可能妨碍中华人民共和国有关机关正在进行的调

查、侦查、起诉、审判或者执行的,主管机关可以决定推

迟协助,并将推迟协助的决定和理由书面通知对外联系机

关。

Where a foreign country has confidentiality requirements or other particular procedural

requirements for the execution of its request, the competent authority may arrange the

execution of the request in accordance with such requirements provided that it is not against

the basic principles of laws of the People's Republic of China.

外国对执行其请求有保密要求或者特殊程序要求的,在不

违反中华人民共和国法律的基本原则的情况下,主管机关

可以按照其要求安排执行。

Article 17 The case handling organ shall, after receiving a foreign country's request for

criminal judicial assistance assigned by the competent authority, execute the request in

accordance with the law, and report the execution result or circumstances that obstruct

execution to the competent authority in a timely manner.

第十七条 办案机关收到主管机关交办的外国刑事司

法协助请求后,应当依法执行,并将执行结果或者妨碍执

行的情形及时报告主管机关。

In the course of executing a request, the case handling organ shall protect the lawful rights

and interests of the parties and other relevant persons, and protect personal information.

办案机关在执行请求过程中,应当维护当事人和其他相关

人员的合法权益,保护个人信息。

Article 18 Where a foreign country requests the use of evidentiary materials obtained

through criminal judicial assistance for purposes other than the request for a specific case,

the foreign affairs liaison authority shall forward the request to the competent authority, and

the competent authority shall make a decision on whether to approve the application or not.

第十八条 外国请求将通过刑事司法协助取得的证据

材料用于请求针对的案件以外的其他目的的,对外联系机

关应当转交主管机关,由主管机关作出是否同意的决定。

Article 19 After receiving the relevant notice or execution result provided by the competent

authority, the foreign affairs liaison authority shall forward it to or inform the requesting

country in a timely manner.

第十九条 对外联系机关收到主管机关的有关通知或

者执行结果后,应当及时转交或者转告请求国。

For a case with criminal judicial assistance provided by the People's Republic of China, the

competent authority may, through the foreign affairs liaison authority, require the foreign

country to notify the litigation result.

对于中华人民共和国提供刑事司法协助的案件,主管机关

可以通过对外联系机关要求外国通报诉讼结果。

Where the foreign country notifies the litigation result, the foreign affairs liaison authority

shall, after receiving the relevant materials, forward them to or inform the competent

authority in a timely manner, and if it involves the criminal lawsuit filed against a citizen of

the People's Republic of China, it shall also notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

外国通报诉讼结果的,对外联系机关收到相关材料后,应

当及时转交或者转告主管机关,涉及对中华人民共和国公

民提起刑事诉讼的,还应当通知外交部。

Chapter III Service of Documents 第三章 送达文书

Section 1 Requesting a Foreign Country to Serve Documents

第一节 向外国请求送达文书

Article 20 Where the case handling organ needs a foreign country's assistance in serving the

summons, notice, indictment, written judgment or any other judicial document, it shall

prepare a written request for criminal judicial assistance with the relevant materials attached,

which shall, after being examined and approved by the competent authority to which it is

第二十条 办案机关需要外国协助送达传票、通知

书、起诉书、判决书和其他司法文书的,应当制作刑事司

法协助请求书并附相关材料,经所属主管机关审核同意

后,由对外联系机关及时向外国提出请求。

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:2633
subordinate, be filed by the foreign affairs liaison authority with the foreign country in a

timely manner.

Article 21 Where a request for the service of documents is made to a foreign country, the

written request shall indicate the name or title of the recipient, the address for the service of

documents and the relevant rights and obligations of which the recipient shall be informed.

第二十一条 向外国请求送达文书的,请求书应当载

明受送达人的姓名或者名称、送达的地址以及需要告知受

送达人的相关权利和义务。

Section 2 Requesting the People's Republic of China to Serve Documents

第二节 向中华人民共和国请求送达文书

...... ......

Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If

you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a

subscriber, please subscribe . You can purchase a single article through Online Pay to

immediately view and download this document. Should you have any questions, please

contact us at: 

+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153) 

Mobile: +86 133-1157-0712 

Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268 

database@chinalawinfo.com

您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区,如您

是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要

的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户,请注册并交纳相应

费用成为我们的英文会员 ;您也可通过网上支付进行单篇

购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇法规。如有问题请来

电咨询;

Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext.

153 

Mobile: +86 13311570712 

Fax: +86 (10) 82668268 

E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

【法宝引证码】CLI.1.324534(EN) 北大法宝www.lawinfochina.com

Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.

Confirmation Code: Click image to reset code!

Submit

Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we

retain exclusive copyright over content found on

our website except for content we publish as

authorized by respective copyright owners or

content that is publicly available from government

sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and

culture, English translations of Chinese law are for

reference purposes only. Please use the official

Chinese-language versions as the final authority.

lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly

or indirectly liable for use of materials found on

this website. 

We welcome your comments and suggestions,

which assist us in continuing to improve the

quality of our materials.

Home | Products and Services | FAQ | Disclaimer | Chinese | Site Map

©2012 Chinalawinfo Co., Ltd. database@chinalawinfo.com Tel: +86 (10) 8268-9699 京ICP证010230-8

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 103-2 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:2634