Criminal Evidence in China

Criminal evidence in China is governed by the Criminal Procedure Law and the SPC’s Interpretation on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law (2021). The Chinese criminal evidence system combines elements of the continental European inquisitorial tradition with reforms that have strengthened adversarial elements and evidentiary safeguards.

Proof Standards

The Criminal Procedure Law establishes the standard of proof for criminal conviction as clear and convincing evidence (shishi qingchu, zhengju queyou chongfen), requiring that the facts of the case be clearly established by sufficient evidence. The SPC has elaborated this standard to require that: each element of the offense is proved by evidence; the evidence is consistent and free from contradiction; the chain of evidence (zhengju lian) is complete; and the conclusion derived from the evidence is the only reasonable conclusion.

The standard applies to all elements of the offense. Circumstantial evidence alone may support a conviction only where it is inconsistent with innocence and consistent only with guilt. Where doubt exists, the court must acquit. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Evidence Types

The Criminal Procedure Law (Article 50) recognizes eight types of evidence: physical evidence; documentary evidence; witness testimony; victim statements; party statements (including confessions); expert opinions; inspection and examination records; and electronic data. The 2012 revision of the Criminal Procedure Law added electronic data as a recognized evidence type and strengthened requirements for each category.

Physical evidence (wuzheng) includes objects and traces relevant to the crime. Documentary evidence (shuzheng) includes documents and written records. Witness testimony (zhengren zhengyan) must be given orally in court. Victim statements (beihai ren chenshu) are treated as a separate category with specific rules. Party statements (xianyi ren gongshu he beigao ren chenshu) include confessions and exculpatory statements. Expert opinions (jianding yijian) require formal expert qualification and written reports.

Confession

The confession is historically the most important evidence in Chinese criminal procedure. The Criminal Procedure Law prohibits conviction based solely on the confession of the defendant and requires that confessions be corroborated by other evidence (Article 55). Confessions obtained by illegal methods — including torture (xingxun bigong), threat, deception, or inducement — are inadmissible.

The 2012 and 2018 revisions strengthened protections against coerced confessions. Investigators must inform suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to counsel. Interrogations must be audio-video recorded for crimes punishable by life imprisonment or death penalty. The exclusionary rules require that confessions obtained by illegal methods be excluded even if the confession is factually true. Despite these protections, coerced confessions remain a significant problem, particularly in cases involving less serious offenses.

Expert Evaluation

Expert evaluation (sifa jianding) is a critical evidence type in criminal cases. The Ministry of Justice licenses expert institutions and individuals to conduct evaluations in categories including forensic medicine, forensic psychology, document examination, trace evidence, and electronic data. The court may appoint experts on its own motion, and the parties may retain experts subject to court approval.

The expert opinion is not binding on the court, and the court may disregard it if the reasoning is unsound or the methodology is flawed. The SPC has held that expert opinions may be challenged through cross-examination and through the submission of counter-expert opinions. The court may appoint multiple experts where the opinions conflict.

Illegal Evidence Exclusion

The illegal evidence exclusion (feifa zhengju paichu) is a key procedural safeguard in Chinese criminal procedure. The exclusionary rules apply to: confessions obtained by torture, threat, deception, or inducement; witness statements obtained by illegal methods; physical evidence obtained in violation of legal procedures; and electronic data obtained in violation of procedural requirements.

The defendant may apply for exclusion of illegally obtained evidence before or during trial. The court must investigate the application and may exclude the evidence if illegal collection is established. The burden of proving that evidence was legally obtained rests with the prosecution once the defendant provides a prima facie case of illegal collection. The court may exclude evidence on its own motion if it suspects illegal collection.

The exclusionary rules have been applied in landmark cases. In the Nie Shubin case (2016), the SPC excluded confessions obtained through torture and acquitted the defendant after 20 years in prison. In the Huugjilt case (2014), the Inner Mongolia High Court excluded coerced confessions and acquitted the defendant 18 years after his execution. These cases demonstrated the capacity of the exclusionary rules to correct wrongful convictions.

Burden of Proof

The prosecution bears the burden of proving each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is not required to prove innocence but may present exculpatory evidence. Where the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient, the court must acquit. The burden of proof does not shift to the defendant, even where the prosecution has established a prima facie case.

Certain statutory exceptions exist. The defendant bears the burden of proving statutory defenses, including insanity and self-defense. In asset forfeiture proceedings, the defendant may bear the burden of proving the lawful origin of assets. These exceptions are narrowly construed and do not affect the prosecution’s ultimate burden of proving guilt.