Supreme People's Court, Supreme People's Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security

Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Criminal Procedure to Information Network Crime Cases

In order to punish information network criminal activities in accordance with the law, according to the "Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China", the "Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" and relevant laws and judicial interpretations, combined with investigation, prosecution, and trial practice, the following opinions are put forward on the application of criminal procedure issues in handling such cases.

I. Scope of Information Network Crime Cases

1. Information network crime cases mentioned in this opinion include:

(1) Criminal cases endangering the security of computer information systems;

(2) Criminal cases of refusing to fulfill the obligation of information network security management, illegally using information networks, and assisting information network criminal activities;

(3) Other criminal cases such as fraud, gambling, and infringement of citizens' personal information, where the main behavior is carried out through information networks.

II. Jurisdiction of Information Network Crime Cases
 

2. Information network crime cases shall be investigated by the public security organ at the place where the crime occurred. When necessary, it may be investigated by the public security organ at the place of residence of the criminal suspect.

The place of crime in information network crime cases includes the location of the server used by the network service for committing the crime, the location of the network service provider, the location of the information network system infringed upon and its manager, the location of the information network system used by the criminal suspect, victim, or other involved personnel during the crime, the location where the victim was infringed upon, and the location where the victim's property suffered losses.

In information network crime cases involving multiple links, if the criminal suspect provides assistance for information network crime, the public security organ at the place of crime, place of residence, or the place of crime of the assisted object may file a case for investigation.

3. In information network crime cases with multiple places of crime, the public security organ that initially accepted the case or the public security organ at the main place of crime shall file a case for investigation. If there is a dispute, it shall be resolved through consultation in accordance with the principle of facilitating the investigation of the facts of the crime and facilitating the litigation; if an agreement cannot be reached through consultation, the common higher-level public security organ shall designate the relevant public security organ to file a case for investigation. If it is necessary to request approval for arrest, transfer for review and prosecution, or file a public prosecution, it shall be accepted by the people's procuratorate and people's court at the location of the public security organ that filed the case for investigation.

4. In any of the following circumstances, the public security organ, the people's procuratorate, and the people's court may handle the cases jointly within their respective responsibilities:

(1) One person commits several crimes;

(2) Joint crime;

(3) The criminal suspect or defendant of a joint crime also commits other crimes;

(4) The criminal acts committed by multiple criminal suspects or defendants are related, and joint handling of the case is conducive to ascertaining all the facts of the case.

For those who provide technical support such as program development, Internet access, server hosting, network storage, and communication transmission for information network crimes, or provide assistance such as advertising promotion and payment settlement, and are suspected of committing a crime, they may be investigated jointly in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph.

For cases jointly investigated by the relevant public security organs in accordance with the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs, if it is necessary to request approval for arrest, transfer for review and prosecution, or file a public prosecution, it shall be accepted by the people's procuratorate and people's court at the location of the public security organ.

5. For joint crimes or related crime cases that are jointly investigated, if the number of criminal suspects is large and the case is complicated, the public security organ may transfer the case for review and prosecution separately. If the case is transferred for review and prosecution separately, the basis for the joint investigation and the reasons for the separate transfer for review and prosecution shall be explained.

For the cases stipulated in the preceding paragraph, the people's procuratorate may file a public prosecution separately, and the people's court may hear the case separately.

The handling of separate cases shall be based on the premise of ensuring the quality and efficiency of litigation, and shall not affect the exercise of litigation rights such as the parties' right of cross-examination.

6. If the public security organ, the people's procuratorate, or the people's court has jurisdiction before the separation of cases in accordance with the provisions of the preceding article, the jurisdiction over the relevant cases shall not be affected after the separation of cases. According to the specific circumstances, the relevant cases handled separately may be tried separately by the people's courts at different levels of trial.

7. For cases of joint crime or related crimes that have been investigated in consolidation, if some criminal suspects have not arrived, but it does not affect the determination of the criminal facts of the criminal suspects or defendants who have arrived for joint crime or related crimes, the criminal responsibility of the criminal suspects or defendants who have arrived may be investigated first. After the criminal suspects or defendants who have not arrived before are brought to justice, the public security organs, people's procuratorates, and people's courts at the location of the original handling agency may have jurisdiction over the cases involving them.

8. For major information network crime cases with special circumstances, where designated off-site public security organs in other provinces (autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government) for investigation are more conducive to finding out the facts of the crime and ensuring the fair handling of the case, and information network crime cases committed outside the country, the Ministry of Public Security may consult with the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Supreme People's Court to designate investigation jurisdiction.

9. If the people's procuratorate considers that a case under review for prosecution should be prosecuted by a people's procuratorate at a higher level or another people's procuratorate at the same level in accordance with the provisions on jurisdiction in the Criminal Procedure Law, it shall transfer the case to the people's procuratorate with jurisdiction and notify the public security organ that transferred the prosecution. If the people's procuratorate considers it necessary to designate trial jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, it shall consult with the people's court at the same level to handle matters related to the designation of jurisdiction.

10. If a criminal suspect is placed on file for investigation by multiple public security organs, the relevant public security organs shall generally consult with each other to handle the case jointly and transfer the case in accordance with the law. If the consultation fails, it may be reported to the common higher-level public security organ for designation of jurisdiction.

If the people's procuratorate discovers that a criminal suspect has committed another crime that has been filed for investigation by a public security organ in another place, it shall notify the public security organ that transferred the case for review and prosecution.

If the people's court discovers that the defendant has committed other crimes that are under review for prosecution or have been filed for investigation, it may consult with the people's procuratorate and the public security organ to handle the case jointly, unless it may cause excessive delay in the trial. If it is decided to handle the relevant crimes jointly and it complies with the provisions of Article 204 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the people's procuratorate may suggest that the people's court postpone the trial.

III. Investigation and Verification of Information Network Crime Cases

11. If the public security organ discovers that the facts of the case or clues are unclear during the review of the accepted case or the discovered crime clues, and it is necessary to conduct an investigation to confirm whether the standards for criminal filing have been met, an investigation and verification may be conducted with the approval of the person in charge of the case-handling department of the public security organ; if the standards for criminal filing are met after the investigation and verification, the case shall be filed in a timely manner.

12. During the investigation and verification process, measures such as inquiry, inquiry, survey, inspection, appraisal, and collection of evidence materials that do not restrict the personal and property rights of the investigated object may be taken, but no compulsory measures may be taken against the investigated object, and the property of the investigated object may not be sealed up, seized, or frozen, and no technical investigation measures may be taken.

13. Electronic data and other materials collected by the public security organ in accordance with the law during the investigation and verification process may be used as evidence in accordance with relevant regulations.

If the materials collected during the investigation and verification process are used as evidence, they shall be transferred with the case, and the relevant materials approving the investigation and verification shall be attached.

The evidence materials collected during the investigation and verification process may be used as the basis for the decision if they are verified to be true and the collection procedures comply with relevant requirements.

IV. Obtaining Evidence in Information Network Crime Cases

14. If a public security organ retrieves electronic data from a network service provider, it shall prepare a notice of retrieval of evidence, indicating the relevant information of the electronic data that needs to be retrieved. The notice of retrieval of evidence and related legal documents may be in the form of data messages. For cross-regional retrieval of electronic data, relevant data messages may be transmitted through the information system of the public security organ.

If a network service provider provides electronic data to a public security organ, it may be in the form of data messages. If electronic data is provided in the form of data messages, the integrity of the electronic data shall be guaranteed, and an electronic certificate shall be prepared, stating the number of the legal document for investigation, the electronic official seal of the unit, the integrity check value, and other information describing the method of protecting the integrity of the electronic data.

Legal documents and electronic certificates in the form of data messages shall use electronic signatures, digital watermarks and other methods to ensure integrity.

15. Inquiries (interrogations) of witnesses, victims, and criminal suspects related to the case in other places may be conducted by the public security organ at the place where the case is handled through remote network video and other means, and records shall be made.

In the case of remote inquiries (interrogations), the public security organ in the place of cooperation shall verify the identity of the person being inquired (interrogated) in advance. The public security organ at the place where the case is handled shall transmit the inquiry (interrogation) record to the public security organ at the place of cooperation. After the inquiry (interrogation) record is confirmed by the person being inquired (interrogated) and signed and fingerprinted page by page, the staff of the public security organ at the place of cooperation shall sign or seal it, and provide the original to the public security organ at the place where the case is handled. After receiving the record, the inquirer (interrogator) shall write "Received on a certain day, month and year" in the upper right corner of the first page, and sign or seal it.

In the case of remote inquiries (interrogations), the inquiry (interrogation) process shall be recorded simultaneously, and transferred with the case.

If witnesses, victims, and criminal suspects related to the case in other places write their testimonies and confessions in their own handwriting, the provisions of paragraph 2 of this article shall be followed.

16. The relevant provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of this opinion shall apply to the people's procuratorate's independent investigation, supplementary investigation, or the people's court's investigation and verification of relevant evidence in accordance with the law.

17. For the electronic data retrieved in accordance with the provisions of Article 14 of this opinion, the people's procuratorate and the people's court may review and judge the electronic data by verifying whether the electronic signature, digital watermark, electronic data integrity check value, and the number of the legal document for investigation are consistent with the certificate.

If there is any doubt about the retrieved electronic data, the public security organ or the network service provider providing the electronic data shall provide an explanation, or the original retrieval organ shall supplement and collect relevant evidence.

V. Other Issues Concerning Information Network Crime Cases

18. If the materials collected by taking technical investigation measures are used as evidence, they shall be transferred with the case, and the legal documents, list of evidence materials, and relevant explanatory materials for taking technical investigation measures shall be attached.

If audio-visual materials and electronic data collected by taking technical investigation measures are transferred, two or more investigators shall make a copy, and attach a production description, stating the storage location of the original evidence materials and original storage media, etc., signed by the producer, and affixed with the unit seal.

19. Evidence collected through technical investigation measures shall be verified through court investigation procedures such as presentation, identification, and cross-examination in court.

If the on-site investigation of technical investigation evidence may endanger the personal safety of relevant personnel or may have other serious consequences, the court shall take protective measures such as not exposing the identity of relevant personnel and the technical equipment and methods used in the technical investigation measures. If necessary, the judges may verify the evidence outside the court.

20. When handling information network crime cases, for a particularly large number of material evidence, documentary evidence, witness testimony, victim statements, audio-visual materials, electronic data, and other evidence materials that have similar nature, characteristics, or functions, if it is indeed impossible to collect them one by one due to objective conditions, evidence should be selected according to a certain proportion or quantity, and explanations and arguments should be made regarding the selection.

The People's Procuratorate and the People's Court shall focus on reviewing whether the methods and processes of obtaining evidence are scientific. If, after review, it is considered that the evidence collection is unscientific, the original evidence-collecting authority shall provide supplementary explanations or re-collect the evidence.

The People's Procuratorate and the People's Court shall review and determine the obtained evidence in conjunction with other evidence materials, as well as the defenses and arguments raised by the criminal suspect, defendant, and their defenders. If, after review, reasonable doubts about the relevant facts cannot be excluded, a determination favorable to the criminal suspect or defendant shall be made.

21. For information network crime cases involving a particularly large number of people, if it is indeed impossible to collect evidence to prove and verify the source of funds for the accounts involved one by one due to objective conditions, but according to bank accounts, non-bank payment account transaction records, and other evidence materials, it is sufficient to determine that the relevant accounts are mainly used for receiving and transferring funds involved in the case, the amount of crime can be determined according to the amount of funds received by the account, unless the criminal suspect or defendant can provide a reasonable explanation. If a person outside the case raises an objection, it shall be reviewed in accordance with the law.

22. When handling information network crime cases, the properties involved shall be sealed, seized, and frozen in a timely manner in accordance with the law. The parties involved shall be urged to return illicit gains and compensate for losses, and efforts should be made to recover赃款 and reduce damages in a timely manner.

The public security organs shall comprehensively collect evidence materials proving the nature and ownership of the property involved, which should be recovered, confiscated, or ordered to be compensated in accordance with the law, and transfer them with the case and make explanations when transferring them for review and prosecution. Among them, if the property involved needs to be returned to the victim, the victim's losses should be ascertained as much as possible. The People's Procuratorate shall review the evidence materials of the property involved and put forward opinions on the handling when filing a public prosecution. The People's Court shall make a judgment in accordance with the law and handle the property involved.

For legitimate property that should be returned to the victim, if the ownership is clear, it shall be returned in a timely manner in accordance with the law; if the ownership is unclear, it shall be returned to the victim in proportion after the judgment or ruling of the People's Court takes effect, but the portion that has been refunded shall be deducted.

23. This opinion shall be implemented from September 1, 2022. The Opinions of the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Public Security on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Criminal Procedure to the Handling of Online Crime Cases (Gongtongzi [2014] No. 10) shall be repealed at the same time.

     Supreme People's Court  Supreme People's Procuratorate

                                           Ministry of Public Security

                                       August 26, 2022

Punish Information Network Crimes According to Law

Effectively Maintain a Clear Cyberspace

—The persons in charge of the Research Office of the Supreme People's Court, the Fourth Procuratorial Office of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and the Eleventh Bureau of the Ministry of Public Security answered questions from reporters on the "Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Criminal Procedure to the Handling of Information Network Crime Cases"

On August 30, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Public Security jointly issued the "Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Criminal Procedure to the Handling of Information Network Crime Cases" (Fa Fa [2022] No. 23, hereinafter referred to as the "Opinions"). In order to facilitate accurate understanding and application in judicial practice, the relevant persons in charge of the Research Office of the Supreme People's Court, the Fourth Procuratorial Office of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and the Eleventh Bureau of the Ministry of Public Security accepted interviews.

Q: Please introduce the background and main process of the formulation of the "Opinions".

Answer: In May 2014, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Public Security jointly issued the "Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Criminal Procedure to the Handling of Online Crime Cases" (Gongtongzi [2014] No. 10, hereinafter referred to as the "2014 Opinions"), which stipulated the scope, jurisdiction, preliminary investigation, cross-regional evidence collection, collection and review of electronic data, and other issues of online crime cases. The promulgation and implementation of the "2014 Opinions" has played an important role in punishing online crimes in accordance with the law and effectively maintaining normal network order and the legitimate rights and interests of the people.

In recent years, information technology has been widely used in China, the digital economy has developed rapidly, and information network crime cases have grown rapidly. The "Special Report on Judicial Big Data on the Characteristics and Trends of Information Network Crimes (2017.1-2021.12)" shows that from 2017 to 2021, national courts concluded a total of more than 282,000 first-instance information network crime cases, involving more than 660,000 defendants, and the number of cases showed an increasing trend year by year, with year-on-year increases of 57.18%, 28.43%, 20.90%, and 104.56% in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively. Among them, the number of fraud cases accounted for as high as 36.53%, and the number of opening casinos cases accounted for 14.81%. In order to effectively curb the growth trend of information network crimes and further increase the intensity of punishment, there is an urgent need to further improve the procedural rules for handling related criminal cases.

The advancement of information technology has improved the convenience of applications and reduced the technical threshold for information network crimes. As related criminal methods continue to be updated, the chain, cross-regional, and public-related characteristics of information network crimes have become more prominent, the forms of crime have become more complex, the social harm has become more serious, and the difficulty of prevention and investigation has further increased. For example, victims of telecom network fraud are often located throughout the country, while the actors responsible for technical support, diversion, fund transfer, cash withdrawal, and other links on the chain of conduct may be located in multiple locations, and some may even be overseas, and a large number of off-site evidence collection work restricts the efficiency of case investigation; for another example, online gambling involves a large number of funds, accounts, and gamblers, and in order to escape crackdowns, the process of fund transfer is often very complicated, and the determination of the amount of crime faces many practical difficulties. In view of this, the procedural rules for information network crime cases must keep pace with the times and make corresponding adjustments and improvements.

In response to the rapid growth and constant innovation of cybercrimes, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Public Security, based on the "2014 Opinions," conducted in-depth investigations and research, widely solicited opinions, and repeatedly demonstrated and improved to formulate the "Opinions," which made unified provisions on the procedures for cybercrime cases. The "Opinions" came into effect on September 1, 2022, and the "2014 Opinions" were abolished at the same time.

Q: Please introduce the main considerations for the formulation of the "Opinions."

Answer: The "Opinions" adhere to Xi Jinping's Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era as guidance, thoroughly implement Xi Jinping's thought on the rule of law and General Secretary Xi Jinping's important thought on building a strong cyber nation, deepen the governance of cybercrimes, further standardize the handling procedures for cybercrime cases, and provide strong judicial guarantees for promoting the construction of a strong cyber nation. Specifically, in the drafting process, the following points were emphasized:

First, Implement new requirements and deepen crime governance. General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized that "cybercrime has become one of the important risks endangering China's national political security, cybersecurity, social security, and economic security" and "there is no national security without cybersecurity." In December 2020, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China issued the "Implementation Outline for the Construction of a Rule of Law Society (2020-2025)," requiring "promoting social governance from the real society to cyberspace, establishing and improving a comprehensive network governance system, strengthening the management of the network according to law, operating the network according to law, and accessing the network according to law, comprehensively promoting the rule of law in cyberspace, and creating a clear network space." The "Opinions" thoroughly implement the new deployments and requirements for promoting network governance, further improve relevant procedural rules, punish cybercrimes in accordance with the law, and provide strong judicial guarantees for deepening network ecological governance and promoting network civilization construction.

Second, Respond to new situations and improve procedural rules. At present, cybercrime cases continue to occur at a high rate, and the chain, cross-regional, and technical characteristics of crimes are more prominent. The "2014 Opinions" cannot fully adapt to the new problems and new situations of current cybercrimes. In view of this, the "Opinions" further clarify the procedural rules for handling related cases in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Law, the Criminal Procedure Law, and relevant laws and judicial interpretations, combined with the outstanding problems reflected in practice.

Third, Absorb new experiences and serve the practice of handling cases. Rules come from practice and serve practice. In recent years, front-line public security, procuratorial, and judicial organs have made many beneficial explorations in the process of handling cybercrime cases based on practical situations and with the full use of information technology, and have formed some effective experiences and practices. The "Opinions" absorb the more mature experiences and practices in practice, refine them into unified judicial rules, regulate case handling in accordance with the law, and effectively serve front-line practice.

Q: In judicial practice, there are often jurisdictional disputes over cybercrime cases. What are the norms for the jurisdiction of cybercrime cases in the "Opinions"?

Answer: Cybercrimes have the characteristics of anonymity, remoteness, chain, and public involvement, and the issue of case jurisdiction is more complicated than traditional crimes. In accordance with the Criminal Procedure Law and relevant regulations, the "Opinions" further clarify the rules of jurisdiction based on the current law enforcement and judicial practice of cybercrimes.

First, The crime location of cybercrime cases has been clarified. In view of the characteristics that cybercrimes are often implemented remotely and anonymously, in order to facilitate victims to report the case, the "Opinions" legally determine multiple jurisdictional connection points, stipulating that the crime location of cybercrime cases includes the location of the server used by the network service used to implement the criminal act, the location of the network service provider, the location of the infringed information network system and its manager, the location of the information network system used by the criminal suspect, victim or other involved personnel during the crime process, the location where the victim was infringed, and the location where the victim's property suffered losses. For cybercrime cases involving multiple links, if the criminal suspect provides assistance for cybercrime, the public security organs at the place of the crime, residence, or the place of the crime of the assisted object may file a case for investigation.

Second, The rules for merging cases of cybercrime cases have been clarified. The "Opinions" stipulate that under any of the following circumstances, public security organs, people's procuratorates, and people's courts may handle the cases concurrently within their respective responsibilities: (1) one person commits several crimes; (2) joint crimes; (3) criminal suspects and defendants of joint crimes also commit other crimes; (4) the criminal acts committed by multiple criminal suspects and defendants are related, and concurrent handling of the cases is conducive to finding out all the facts of the case.

Third, The rules for dividing cases of cybercrime cases have been clarified. The "Opinions" stipulate that for joint crimes or related criminal cases investigated concurrently, if the number of criminal suspects is large and the case is complicated, the public security organ may transfer the case for review and prosecution in separate cases. If the case is transferred for review and prosecution in separate cases, the basis for concurrent investigation and the reasons for transferring the case for review and prosecution in separate cases shall be explained. For related cases that have not been handled separately, the people's procuratorate may file a public prosecution in separate cases, and the people's court may hear the cases in separate cases. If the public security, procuratorial, and judicial organs have jurisdiction over the relevant cases before the division of the cases, the jurisdiction over the relevant cases shall not be affected after the division of the cases. The above-mentioned separate handling shall be based on the premise of being conducive to ensuring the quality and efficiency of the litigation, and shall not affect the exercise of the parties' litigation rights such as the right to cross-examination.

Q: Cybercrimes are often implemented across regions, and cross-regional evidence collection is somewhat common, and related evidence collection work needs to rely more on information technology. Please introduce the provisions of the "Opinions" on cross-regional evidence collection.

Answer: Cybercrime-related bank accounts and network data are often located all over the country, and traditional evidence collection methods are time-consuming and labor-intensive. To this end, the "Opinions" stipulate the issue of evidence collection in cybercrime cases based on practical situations. Specifically:

First, Clarify the rules for cross-regional access to electronic data. Handling cybercrime cases often requires cross-regional evidence collection. In response to the problems of high cost and poor security of accessing electronic data from other places, the Ministry of Public Security has built an information system for accessing evidence from other places, which has created conditions for taking into account the convenience and security of accessing electronic data from other places. Based on this, the "Opinions" clarify that when accessing electronic data across regions, relevant data messages can be transmitted through the information system of the public security organ. At the same time, it is required that when providing electronic data in the form of data messages, the integrity of the electronic data shall be guaranteed.

Second, Clarify the rules for remote inquiries (interrogations). The "Opinions" stipulate that inquiries (interrogations) of witnesses, victims, and criminal suspects related to the case in other places may be conducted by the public security organ at the place of handling the case through remote network video and other methods and make records. For remote inquiries (interrogations), the identity of the person being inquired (interrogated) shall be verified in advance by the public security organ at the place of cooperation. After the inquiry (interrogation) record is confirmed by the person being inquired (interrogated) and signed and fingerprinted page by page, the cooperative personnel of the public security organ at the place of cooperation shall sign or seal it, and provide the original to the public security organ at the place of handling the case. For remote inquiries (interrogations), the inquiry (interrogation) process shall be recorded synchronously, and transferred with the case.

Q: In view of the massive amount of evidence in cybercrime cases, the "Opinions" added provisions on collecting evidence in a certain proportion or quantity. Please introduce the relevant provisions and relevant considerations.

Answer: Many cybercrimes involve massive amounts of evidence materials, and there are a particularly large number of people involved, so it is impossible to collect evidence one by one. For example, in the case of illegally controlling computer information systems, hackers can control millions of computers in a short period of time through website "hanging horses" and other methods. In this case, it is neither necessary nor objectively possible to verify each involved computer one by one, so as to determine the number of controlled computer information systems. Based on this, the "Opinions" have made special provisions on the rules for collecting evidence in a certain proportion or quantity for massive evidence materials.

First, Rules for selecting evidence. When handling information network crime cases, for a particularly large number of material evidence, documentary evidence, witness testimony, victim statements, audio-visual materials, electronic data, and other evidence materials that are of the same type, characteristics, or functions, if it is indeed impossible to collect them one by one due to objective conditions, evidence should be selected according to a certain proportion or quantity, and explanations and arguments should be made regarding the selection. At the same time, in order to regulate the disposal of involved property and protect the interests of victims, the 'Opinions' also stipulate that if the involved property needs to be returned to the victims, the losses of the victims should be ascertained as much as possible.

Second, Rules for evidence review. The People's Procuratorate and the People's Court shall focus on reviewing whether the methods and processes of obtaining evidence are scientific. If, after review, it is considered that the evidence collection is unscientific, the original evidence collection agency shall provide supplementary explanations or re-collect the evidence.

Third, Rules for evidence adoption. The People's Procuratorate and the People's Court shall review and determine the obtained evidence in conjunction with other evidence materials, as well as the defenses and defense opinions raised by the criminal suspect, defendant, and their defenders. If, after review, reasonable doubts about the relevant facts cannot be excluded, a determination favorable to the criminal suspect or defendant shall be made.

Q: 'It is not enough for laws to exist without being implemented.' After the release of the 'Opinions', what considerations do the 'Two Highs and One Department' have for the implementation work?

Answer: The "Opinions" will play an important role in punishing information network crimes in accordance with the law and effectively maintaining a clear network space. Next, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Public Security will guide local people's courts, people's procuratorates, and public security organs at all levels to fully perform their functions, strictly regulate case handling procedures, punish information network crimes in accordance with the law, and continuously increase the extent of criminal judicial protection for information network space.

First, Strictly handle cases in accordance with the law. Take effective measures to guide local case-handling authorities to strictly implement the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law, the Criminal Procedure Law, and the "Opinions", accurately grasp the procedural requirements for handling cases, effectively increase the extent of punishment, handle telecom network fraud, online gambling, and infringement of citizens' personal information, and other related cases in accordance with the law, highlight the key points of punishment, demonstrate a strict stance on punishment, and respond to social concerns.

Second, Strengthen work coordination. The means of information network crime are constantly being updated, requiring continuous optimization and upgrading of criminal governance measures. In terms of improving the handling procedures for such cases, public security, procuratorial, and judicial organs must, on the premise of strictly implementing the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, ensure smooth law enforcement and judicial coordination, strengthen work synergy, better adapt to the practical needs of punishing information network crimes in accordance with the law, further regulate case jurisdiction and evidence collection and use, and ensure that case handling achieves good results.

Third, Strengthen publicity and education on the law. Conscientiously implement the responsibility system of 'whoever enforces the law shall publicize the law', combine with the handling of relevant information network crime cases, guide the general public to consciously resist information network crime, enhance the awareness and ability to prevent information network crime risks, and jointly maintain a clear network space and their own legitimate rights and interests.