Chinese Law Prof Blog

Editor: Donald C. Clarke
George Washington University Law School

Saturday, February 11, 2006

New Securities Law: right version versus wrong version

Last month I posted here about the wrong version of the new Securities Law being in wide circulation, and earlier this month posted here about the same problem afflicting the new Company Law. Do any readers have any idea how this problem could have occurred? It doesn't usually happen.

In any case, I am very grateful to the apparently indefatigable Knut Pissler of the Max Planck Institute for Foreign Private Law and Private International Law in Hamburg, who has given me permission to post a table he has created showing the differences between the widely-circulating wrong version of the Securities Law and the correct version: Download MistakesSecLaw2005.pdf.

Knut highlights the differences as follows:

The result of my work is that there are no less than 22 differences in those versions, sometimes just relating to a missing punctuation mark (in Art. 214, 233 and 234) or to a wrong order in an enumeration (Art. 179). The mistakes having potential for serious misunderstanding are to find in Art. 15, 28, 32, 163, 164, 173, 193, 204 and 213.

Readers should note that the translation provided in CCH's China Laws for Foreign Business is of the wrong version. Is anyone from CCH reading this?

February 11, 2006 in News - Chinese Law | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, February 10, 2006

What do China's Internet police do all day?

Ipolice_3Now we know: a Chinese reporter recently accompanied them on their virtual rounds, and the report has been translated by the EastSouthWestNorth Web site. Here's the story: Chinese | English. Thanks to the China Digital Times for the links.

Incidentally, Internet users in Shenzhen certainly won't forget that their usage is being monitored. According to last month's Beijing Youth Daily, when Shenzhen users visit the main portals of that city, they will see two cartoon police images floating on their screens to remind them to behave themselves. Below are Jingjing and Chacha (from "jingcha", the Chinese word for police). Was intimidation ever so cute? For a full report, see the China Digital Times story.

Jingjing Chacha

February 10, 2006 in News - Chinese Law, News - Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, February 9, 2006

Oops, they did it again, say Yahoo critics

Y3Yahoo can't seem to stay out of the news. They have been accused by the writer Liu Xiaobo of having provided evidence to the Chinese police in 2003 leading to the conviction and sentencing to eight years' imprisonment of Li Zhi, a Chinese internet user. Once again, the information seems to have come from Yahoo's Hong Kong-incorporated entity. For a full report in English from the China Digital Times, with links to Chinese sources, click here.

February 9, 2006 in News - Chinese Law, News - Miscellaneous, People and Institutions | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, February 7, 2006

Wrong version of new Company Law in wide circulation

Last month I posted here about an incorrect version of the new Securities Law being in wide circulation. Now it appears that an incorrect version of the new Company Law is also in wide circulation. (Note: In what follows I append "(P)" to what I know personally and "(R)" to what has been reported to me but I haven't checked out personally.)

The mistake that has been discovered so far is in Para. 3 of Art. 120 of the Company Law. It reads, "Resolutions of the Board of Supervisors shall be passed by at least/over half of the supervisors." (监事会决议应当经半数以上监事通过。) (That darn "yishang 以上" problem again; presumably they mean "over half" here, but it's not my job to remove ambiguities when translating.) This paragraph can be found in what is presumably a reliable version: that appearing on the NPC's Web site ( (P). It does not, however, appear on the Web site version: (P). The same site also had an incorrect version of the Securities Law.

As for translations, the iSinolaw translation reflects the wrong version (P), as does the CCH China Laws for Foreign Business translation (R). However, the China Law & Practice version is correct (R), so hats off to CLP.

I don't know what errors there are other than the one reported above, but presumably where there's one there can be others. Comments welcome on further errors or speculation on why in both these cases an incorrect version of the law was circulated.

Many thanks to Knut Pissler for drawing this problem to my attention.

February 7, 2006 in News - Chinese Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Internships available at CECC

I have been asked to forward the following announcement:

The Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) is currently soliciting resumes for paid summer internships in Washington DC, working on Chinese human rights and rule of law issues. Interns must be U.S. citizens.

Applications for summer internships must be received by March 1. See the Commission's website at for more information.

I might add the following: (1) part-time internships during the fall and spring academic semesters are also available; and (2) interns are paid the federal minimum wage.

February 7, 2006 in Internships/Employment Opportunities | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January issue of China Law Digest now available

The January issue of the China Law Digest is now available here (free, but requires registration).

February 7, 2006 in Publications | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, February 5, 2006

February issue of CECC newsletter now available

The Feb. 1 issue of China Human Rights and Rule of Law Update, the newsletter of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, is now available here.

February 5, 2006 in Publications | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)