Мир закона

IRSTI 10.87.51

UDC 341.461

Abubakirova Gulnur Muratbekkizi — graduate student of the Department of Criminal Law and Criminology of the Law Institute of the Kyrgyz National University named after J. Balasagyn (Kyrgyz Republic, Bishkek);

Zhandykeyeva Gulnar Esenbekovna — senior lecturer of the Department of Legal Disciplines, Q-university, doctor (PhD) (Republic of Kazakhstan, Almaty)

CONFISCATION AND RETURN OF ASSETS IN THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: LEGAL MECHANISMS, EXPERIENCE, AND POSSIBILITIES FOR ADAPTATION IN KAZAKHSTAN

Annotation. This article examines the legal system of the People’s Republic of China in the area of confiscation and return of illegally obtained assets. It analyzes the current provisions enshrined in the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as their application in the fight against corruption and economic crimes. Particular attention is paid to the «Quanfang» method, a new tool based on encouraging offenders to voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement agencies in order to speed up asset recovery procedures. This method combines elements of criminal procedure and international cooperation, demonstrating high effectiveness. The article highlights the advantages of this approach: reduced time and costs, simplified evidentiary procedures, and a reduced burden on the judiciary. At the same time, it notes some problematic aspects: the limited use of civil law instruments and the need to update evidentiary standards, which points to the need for further improvement of the legal framework of the People’s Republic of China. The author focuses on the possibility of adapting China’s successful practices in the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which will strengthen the national legal system and increase the level of trust in state institutions.

Keywords: quanfang, confiscation, return, assets, legislation, legal system, international cooperation, repatriation.

Әбубәкірова Гүлнұр Мұратбекқызы — Ж. Баласағын атындағы Қырғыз ұлттық университеті заң институтының қылмыстық құқық және криминология кафедрасының аспиранты (Қырғыз Республикасы, Бішкек қ.);

Жандыкеева Гүлнар Есенбекова — Q-university заң пәндері кафедрасының аға оқытушысы, (PhD) докторы (Қазақстан Республикасы, Алматы қ.)

ҚЫТАЙ ХАЛЫҚ РЕСПУБЛИКАСЫНДАҒЫ АКТИВТЕРДІ ТӘРКІЛЕУ ЖӘНЕ ҚАЙТАРУ: ҚҰҚЫҚТЫҚ ТЕТІКТЕРІ, ТӘЖІРИБЕСІ ЖӘНЕ ҚАЗАҚСТАНДА БЕЙІМДЕУ МҮМКІНДІКТЕРІ

Түйін. Мақалада заңсыз алынған активтерді тәркілеу және қайтару саласын­да­ғы Қытай Халық Республикасының құқықтық жүйесі қарастырылады. Қылмыс­тық және қылмыстық іс жүргізу кодекстерінде бекітілген қолданыстағы нормалар, сондай-ақ оларды сыбайлас жемқорлыққа және экономикалық қылмыстарға қарсы күресте қолдану тәжірибесі талданады. Активтерді қайтару рәсімдерін жеделдету үшін құқық бұзушылардың құқықтық тәртіп органдарымен ерікті ынтымақтас­ты­ғын ынталандыруға негізделген жаңа құрал — «Цюаньфан» әдісіне ерекше назар аударылды. Бұл әдіс қылмыстық процестің элементтерін және халықаралық өзара әрекеттесуді біріктіріп, жоғары тиімділікті көрсетеді. Мақалада тәсілдің артықшы­лық­тары көрсетілген: мерзімдер мен шығындарды қысқарту, дәлелдеу рәсімдерін жеңілдету, сот органдарына жүктемені азайту. Сонымен қатар проблемалық та­раптар да атап өтіледі: азаматтық-құқықтық құралдарды шектеулі пайдалану және дәлелдеу стандарттарын жаңарту қажеттілігі, бұл Қытай Халық Республикасының құқықтық базасын одан әрі жетілдіру қажеттілігін көрсетеді. Автор Қытайдың та­быс­ты тәжірибелерін Қазақстан Республикасының заңнамасына бейімдеу мүмкін­ді­гіне назар аударады, бұл ұлттық құқықтық жүйені нығайтуға және мемлекеттік институттарға деген сенім деңгейін арттыруға мүмкіндік береді.

Түйінді сөздер: цюаньфан, тәркілеу, қайтару, активтер, заңнама, құқықтық жүйе, халықаралық ынтымақтастық, репатриация.

Абубакирова Гулнур Муратбековна — аспирант кафедры уголовного права и криминологии Юридического института Кыргызского Национального универ­ситета имени Ж. Баласагына (Кыргызская Республика, г. Бишкек);

Жандыкеева Гульнар Есенбековна — старший преподаватель кафедры юридических дисциплин Q-university, доктор (PhD) (Республика Казахстан, г. Алматы)

КОНФИСКАЦИЯ И ВОЗВРАТ АКТИВОВ В КИТАЙСКОЙ НАРОДНОЙ РЕСПУБЛИКЕ: ПРАВОВЫЕ МЕХАНИЗМЫ, ОПЫТ И ВОЗМОЖНОСТИ АДАПТАЦИИ В КАЗАХСТАНЕ

Аннотация. В статье рассматривается правовая система Китайской Народной Республики в сфере конфискации и возврата незаконно полученных активов. Ана­лизируются действующие нормы, закрепленные в Уголовном и Уголовно-процес­суальном кодексах, а также практика их применения в борьбе с коррупцией и экономическими преступлениями. Особое внимание уделено методу «Цюаньфан» — новому инструменту, основанному на стимулировании добровольного сотруд­ни­чества правонарушителей с органами правопорядка для ускорения процедур воз­врата активов. Этот метод сочетает в себе элементы уголовного процесса и меж­дународного взаимодействия, демонстрируя высокую результативность. В статье подчеркиваются преимущества подхода: сокращение сроков и расходов, уп­рощение доказательственных процедур, снижение нагрузки на судебные органы. Одновременно отмечаются и проблемные стороны: ограниченное использование гражданско-правовых инструментов и необходимость обновления стандартов до­ка­зывания, что указывает на потребность в дальнейшем совершенствовании пра­во­вой базы Китайской Народной Республики. Авторы акцентируют внимание на возможности адаптации успешных практик Китая в законодательстве Республики Казахстан, что позволит укрепить национальную правовую систему и повысить уровень доверия к государственным институтам.

Ключевые слова: цюаньфан, конфискация, возврат, активы, законода­тель­ство, правовая система, международное сотрудничество, репатриация.

 

Introduction. According to annual information on combating the illegal acquisition and transfer of assets, systemic measures were implemented in 2023[1], including the adoption of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan «On the Return of Illegally Acquired Assets to the State»[2] (hereinafter referred to as the Law on the Return of Assets). This regulatory act made it possible to solve a number of conceptual tasks:

1. The subjects of legal relations in the field of returning illegally transferred assets were identified.
2. Mechanisms for identifying, confirming the origin, and returning such assets were regulated.
3. Systemic measures were provided for to eliminate the factors and conditions conducive to the illegal withdrawal of assets.

The adoption of the LRK on the return of assets was a significant step in institutionalizing approaches to the return of illegally acquired assets and the prevention of related offenses. However, the mechanisms of the LRK on the return of assets are in the initial stages of implementation, which highlights the need for a systematic analysis of their effectiveness and further improvement.

Effective analysis and improvement of processes for returning illegally acquired assets are becoming increasingly relevant. The growing transnational nature of criminal assets requires not only deep international cooperation, but also the application of best practices to achieve optimal results. For example, as noted in the United Nations Convention against Corruption (hereinafter referred to as the UNCAC)[3], «corruption is no longer a local problem, but a transnational phenomenon affecting all societies and economies, making international cooperation to prevent and combat it essential». Effective control of corruption and bringing perpetrators to justice require addressing key challenges in identifying offenders and recovering stolen assets from abroad. The above issues are relevant to all countries facing various forms of corruption.

In our opinion, research into the legal system of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the PRC) in the field of confiscation and asset recovery mechanisms is relevant, since the problem of locating and recovering stolen assets remains one of the most pressing issues for the PRC. It is noted that between the mid-1990s and 2008, between 16,000 and 18,000 corrupt officials fled abroad, taking with them approximately 800 billion yuan[4]. This case attracted the attention of the international community and led to several successful cases of the return of suspects and stolen funds through cooperation between the PRC and foreign government agencies.

The low effectiveness of international anti-corruption mechanisms prompted the Chinese authorities to actively coordinate and negotiate with government agencies in other countries, which allowed them to establish trusting relationships and accumulate significant experience in the field of returning illegally acquired assets.

For example, in 2012, the new leadership of the Communist Party of China launched a decisive fight against corruption, marking a new stage in the country’s anti-corruption practices. The main focus was on developing an effective strategy for tracking down corrupt officials who had fled abroad and returning illegally acquired assets[5].

The turning point came in 2014, when the government introduced special measures to combat corruption, including international search and recovery of property. A special office was set up under the Anti-Corruption Coordination Group (hereinafter referred to as the Coordination Group) to coordinate actions. The Coordination Group combined the efforts of various agencies, established cooperation between internal structures, and organized targeted operations⁵.

As a result, by March 2017, thanks to the Fox Hunt and Skynet initiatives, China had achieved significant results in the fight against corruption. As part of the above-mentioned special measures, 2,873 fugitives, including 476 civil servants, were detained in 90 countries, and more than 8.99 billion yuan was recovered. These achievements clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of China’s anti-corruption policy at the international level[6].

Based on the above, it can be noted that the search for and return of illegally acquired assets in the PRC has reached a new level of effectiveness thanks to the development and implementation of legal mechanisms that comply with international standards and are based on national experience in combating the illegal transfer of assets.

This positive experience demonstrates the importance of scientific analysis of the PRC’s legal mechanisms in the field of asset confiscation and recovery. The results of such research can be useful for improving the national legal system of the Republic of Kazakhstan, strengthening measures to combat the illegal transfer of assets, and reinforcing the principle of the rule of law.

Materials and methods. The study drew on materials from Chinese regulatory and legal acts, including the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as international legal documents governing the confiscation and return of assets.

The methodology focused on analyzing the application of the «Quanfang» method and studying mechanisms for integrating international experience into the PRC legal system.

Discussion. At the initial stage of implementing an effective policy for the return of illegally acquired assets to the PRC, difficulties associated with the PRC’s limited experience in international cooperation on criminal matters became an important factor. Differences in the legal systems and practices of other states created additional obstacles. The recovery of illegally acquired assets from foreign jurisdictions is a much more complex task than other aspects of international judicial cooperation. To improve the effectiveness of this process, the Chinese government has developed a number of non-standard approaches that go beyond the traditional methods recognized by the international community.

In international practice, extradition is the most common tool for prosecuting criminals. The Chinese government actively uses this mechanism in cooperation with developing countries with which it has concluded relevant agreements. However, extradition from Western developed countries such as the US, Canada, and Australia is extremely rare. This makes such countries a preferred refuge for offenders. As a result, most of them avoid countries that have agreements with China, which significantly complicates the process of bringing them to justice.

In this regard, R.S. Balashov noted in his works that «countries around the world face legal restrictions when dealing with stolen assets-especially developing countries, which lack the resources necessary to match the skills and creativity of criminals»[7].

To overcome the limitations associated with the insufficient number of extradition agreements, the PRC actively uses alternative methods: repatriation, prosecution abroad, and the «Quanfang» method, based on persuading criminals to voluntarily return to their homeland. These approaches have become key instruments of international prosecution in the PRC.

Repatriation is the process of returning lawbreakers to their country of origin or citizenship, initiated by the state[8]. In the PRC, this administrative act is not limited to the tasks of international judicial cooperation, but is aimed primarily at prosecuting offenders and restoring justice.

Unlike extradition, repatriation requires less evidence from the authorities, as it is based on domestic immigration laws. In international practice, it is often used as an alternative to extradition.

As Professor Juan Feng noted in his writings, «despite differences in legal grounds, repatriation is in fact equivalent to extradition in terms of its results, which makes it an important addition to extradition mechanisms»[9].

However, it should be noted that repatriation is an informal mechanism of international judicial assistance, most often applied to refugees or illegal immigrants. If a person does not have legal resident status in a country, the process of repatriation may be initiated in accordance with the provisions of national immigration law. In this case, the state is obliged to take into account the possible risks of unfair treatment or violation of the rights of the person being returned.

In international practice, particular importance is attached to compliance with humanitarian standards, including the inadmissibility of the death penalty. Meanwhile, the PRC’s priorities remain comprehensive judicial reform, improving mechanisms for international legal cooperation, and forming a positive image of the national legal system that complies with international law standards.

In this regard, the new «Quanfang» method is an informal mechanism used in law enforcement practice in the PRC, aimed at the voluntary return of persons suspected or accused of committing offences to participate in investigative actions and court proceedings. This approach serves as an alternative mechanism used at the pre-trial investigation stage of a criminal case and is aimed at facilitating international cooperation in law enforcement. The Quanfang method is used in cases where extradition or repatriation is difficult, facilitating cooperation between the competent authorities of different states to achieve the objectives of criminal prosecution[10].

A key condition for the successful application of the «Quanfang» method is the willingness of the state to take into account certain conditions for the return of the offender. These conditions may include limiting the scope of criminal prosecution or mitigating punishment. Compliance with these conditions is regulated by the provisions of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the Supreme People’s Court. The commitments made by the public security authorities and the prosecutor’s office are legally binding, as they are drawn up in strict accordance with the applicable legal norms.

Thus, we note that, on the one hand, the «Quanfang» method guarantees the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of offenders who voluntarily return. On the other hand, it acts as a tool for limiting the powers of state security agencies and the prosecutor’s office, which strengthens the legal basis and contributes to the fair application of the law.

In this regard, Chinese legal scholars note that in order to ensure legal regulation and increase the effectiveness of the application of the «Quanfang» method, it is necessary to regulate a new normative legal act or instructions on the procedure for the voluntary return of offenders who accept the proposed conditions of the state through an official legislative act. It is noted that this instruction will establish a clear legal framework and guarantee compliance with the principles of legality and fairness. Since offenders often do not have complete information, and by the time they learn about the possibility of voluntary surrender, the prescribed period may have expired. In accordance with the established procedure, persons who have not taken advantage of the «Quanfang» procedure within the established time limit are subject to criminal liability. However, this requirement may violate the principles of fairness in relation to those persons who were not notified in a timely manner of the existence and conditions of this mechanism.

Another distinctive feature of the Chinese legal system is confiscation without conviction. It should be noted that prior to the adoption of the UNCLC, many countries, especially those with common law legal systems, already had mechanisms in place for confiscating property without the need for a conviction[11].

Depending on the jurisdiction, two main models of confiscation without conviction have developed:

1. Criminal law model: the confiscation procedure is enshrined in criminal law, including provisions on combating money laundering or similar offences.
2. Civil law model: confiscation is carried out in accordance with the provisions of special legislation and is applied in civil proceedings. This model is used, for example, in certain jurisdictions where the emphasis is on the procedure for returning assets through civil courts.

Both models aim to ensure the recovery of illegally acquired property, even in the absence of criminal prosecution, and are actively used in international practice[12].

Chinese lawmakers have introduced a mechanism for confiscation without conviction, providing for it in Articles 280–283 of the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China[13]. This procedure applies to serious crimes such as theft, bribery, or terrorist activities, as well as in cases where the suspect is in hiding and cannot be brought to trial for more than a year or if he or she has died. In such situations, illegally obtained income and other assets related to the crime are subject to confiscation in accordance with the procedure established by law.

At the same time, legal scholars in the PRC note that since the new Criminal Procedure Code of the PRC came into force in 2012, judicial practice in cases of confiscation of criminal assets initiated by the competent authorities has remained limited. The main problem is the lack of a unified approach to the legal interpretation of evidence requirements. As a result, courts apply the provisions of Article 53 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the PRC. This significantly complicates the confiscation process, as the principles of irrefutable evidence make it difficult to carry out the relevant procedures and limit their effectiveness[14].

In the PRC, mechanisms for confiscating illegally acquired assets in civil proceedings are not applied. This is because such a measure is only possible if there is a defendant, a natural or legal person, operating abroad, or if the disputed assets are under the jurisdiction of a foreign state. At the same time, Chinese law enforcement agencies prefer criminal prosecution, which reflects their policy of prioritizing criminal proceedings. In our opinion, this approach limits the possibilities of initiating civil claims for the return of assets, creating significant obstacles to their successful implementation¹¹.

Results. The results of the study confirm that the PRC’s legal system has achieved significant success in developing and implementing mechanisms for returning illegally acquired assets to the state. This effective progress has been made possible by comprehensive political reforms and the consistent strengthening of the principles of the rule of law, which have enabled the PRC to build an effective model focused on combating corruption and returning assets.

An analysis of the regulatory framework and its application has shown that one of the key elements of a successful model is the harmonious combination of domestic legislation and the consideration of international and foreign legal norms. The PRC actively uses the opportunities for international cooperation, including the provisions of the UN CCP, mutual legal assistance and extradition mechanisms. These instruments not only contribute to improving cooperation with foreign jurisdictions, but also shape a positive image of the PRC as a responsible member of the international legal community.

Particular attention is paid to striking a balance between effectively combating corruption and respecting human rights. Despite the political orientation of the model, the PRC emphasizes compliance with international standards, such as the principles of fair trial, presumption of innocence, and the right to defense. This policy minimizes potential risks and strengthens confidence in legal mechanisms both domestically and internationally.

At the same time, the study identified certain shortcomings in the current system. The predominant use of criminal proceedings in asset recovery limits the scope for applying civil law mechanisms, which may be more flexible and effective in certain situations. It also found a lack of clear standards of proof, which complicates the process of reviewing cases, especially in cross-border cases. In addition, limited opportunities for interaction with foreign jurisdictions, due to differences in legal systems and insufficient harmonization of norms, hinder the efficiency of asset recovery procedures.

Conclusion. In conclusion, it should be noted that the integration of certain elements of the PRC’s experience in the field of asset confiscation and recovery into the national legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan appears to be relevant. Such an approach will improve the legal mechanisms for returning illegally acquired assets to state ownership. The PRC’s practice demonstrates that an effective combination of legal and political instruments helps to accelerate the process of asset repatriation and increases the effectiveness of legal procedures, while ensuring compliance with the principles of the rule of law.

The «Quanfang» method used in China, which aims to encourage voluntary cooperation between offenders and law enforcement agencies, deserves special attention. This approach significantly reduces the burden on the judicial system, simplifies the process of proving a case, and minimizes the time and material costs associated with the return of assets. The effectiveness of this model is ensured by clearly established standards of evidence, regulated procedures, and well-established mechanisms of international cooperation, which makes it promising for adaptation in other jurisdictions.

Thus, analyzing successful international experience, including practices in the PRC, appears to be an important step toward strengthening the legal system of the Republic of Kazakhstan and increasing trust in state institutions at both the national and international levels. In our opinion, integrating such approaches into national legislation will significantly improve the effectiveness of mechanisms for returning illegally acquired assets, ensure their transparency, and strengthen Kazakhstan’s reputation as a reliable partner in the field of international legal cooperation.

 

References

1. Ежегодная информация по противодействию незаконному приобретению и выводу активов, а также принятым системным мерам (за 2023 год) // https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/kva/press/news/details/743616?lang=ru (accessed: 01.08.2025).
2. Закон Республики Казахстан от 12 июля 2023 года № 21-VIII ЗРК «О возврате государству незаконно приобретенных активов» // https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z2300000021 (accessed: 01.08.2025).
3. United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). UN, 2003. // https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/ (дата обращения: 01.08.2025).
4. The Epoch Times. Более десяти тысяч китайских коррупционеров вывезли из страны около 100 миллиардов долларов // https://www.epochtimes.ru/content/view /48845/4/?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fyandex.kz%2F # (accessed: 01.08.2025).
5. Чжан Вэй. Международное сотрудничество Китая в борьбе с коррупцией // Журнал международного права. — 2018. — Т. 12. — № 3. — P. 45-67.
6. Lan Linzong. Getting Close to Central Pursuit Office: Showing Detailed Anti-Corruption Process of International Pursuing and Recovering // http://www.ccdi.gov.cn/special/ztzz/ztzzjxsztzz/201704/t20170425_97975.html (accessed: 05.08.2025).
7. Балашов Р. С. Роль неофициальных сетей в работе по возврату похищенных активов из-за рубежа // Құқық қорғау органдары академиясының Жаршысы. —2021. — № 3 (21). — P. 93-100.
8. Material from Wikipedia — the free encyclopedia // https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki (accessed: 01.08.2025).
9. Хуан Фэнг. Правила и практика международного судебного сотрудничества по уголовным делам. — Пекин: Издательство Пекинского университета, 2008. № 6(5). — P. 41-42.
10. Чжан Лэй. Альтернативные меры экстрадиции и их применение в международном преследовании // Правовой обзор. — 2017. — № 2. — P. 159-161.
11. Брун Ж.-П., Грей Л., Скотт К., Стивенсон К.М. Руководство по возврату активов: Практ. пос. — Вена: Всемирный банк, Управление ООН по наркотикам и преступности, 2011. P. 11. (458 p.).
12. Ши Яньань. Толкование положений о конфискации незаконных доходов с точки зрения уголовной догматики // Наука о праве. — 2015. — № 11. — P. 122-123.
13. Глава восьмая Особенной части Уголовного кодекса КНР // // http://www.661aw.cn/tiaoli/9.aspx (accessed: 01.08.2025).
14. Чэнь Лэй. О некоторых вопросах, связанных с процедурой конфискации незаконных доходов в Китае // Исследования в области верховенства права. — 2015. — № 4. — P. 99-102.

Spisok literatury / References

1. Ezhegodnaya informatsiya po protivodeystviyu nezakonnomu priobreteniyu i vyvodu aktivov, a takzhe prinyatym sistemnym meram (za 2023 god) // https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/kva/press/news/details/743616?lang=ru (accessed: 01.08.2025).
2. Zakon Respubliki Kazakhstan ot 12 iyulya 2023 goda № 21-VIII ZRK «O vozvrate gosudarstvu nezakonno priobretennykh aktivov» // https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z2300000021 (accessed: 01.08.2025).
3. United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). UN, 2003. // https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/ (accessed: 01.08.2025).
4. The Epoch Times. Bolee desyati tysyach kitayskikh korruptsionerov vyvezli iz strany okolo 100 milliardov dollarov // https://www.epochtimes.ru/content/view /48845/4/?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fyandex.kz%2F # (accessed: 01.08.2025).
5. Zhang Wei. Mezhdunarodnoe sotrudnichestvo Kitaya v borbe s korrupciey // Zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava. — 2018. — Т. 12. — № 3. — P. 45-67.
6. Lan Linzong. Getting Close to Central Pursuit Office: Showing Detailed Anti-Corruption Process of International Pursuing and Recovering // http://www.ccdi.gov.cn/special/ztzz/ztzzjxsztzz/201704/t20170425_97975.html (accessed: 05.08.2025)
7. Balashov R. S. Rol neofitsialnykh setey v rabote po vozvratu pokhishchennykh aktivov iz-za rubezha // Qukyk korgau organdary akademiyasynyn Zharchy. — 2021. — № 3 (21). — P. 93-100.
8. Material from Wikipedia — the free encyclopedia // https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki (accessed: 01.08.2025)
9. Huang Feng. Pravila i praktika mezhdunarodnogo sudebnogo sotrudnichestva po ugolovnym delam. — Pekin: Izdatelstvo Pekinskogo universiteta, 2008. № 6(5). — P. 41-42.
10. Zhang Lei. Alternativnye mery ekstradicii i ikh primenenie v mezhdunarodnom presledovanii // Pravovoy obzor. — 2017. — № 2. — P. 159-161.
11. Brun Zh.-P., Grey L., Skott K., Stivenson K.M. Rukovodstvo po vozvratu aktivov: Prakti. Pos. — Vena: Vsemirnyy bank, Upravlenie OON po narkotikam i prestupnosti, 2011. P. 11. (458 p.).
12. Shi Yanan. Tolkovanie polozheniy o konfiskatsii nezakonnykh dokhodov s tochki zreniya ugolovnoy dogmatiki // Nauka o prave. — 2015. — № 11. — P. 122-123.
13. Glava vosmaya Osobennoy chasti Ugolovnogo kodeksa KNR // http://www.661aw.cn/tiaoli/9.aspx (accessed: 01.08.2025)
14. Chen Lei. O nekotorykh voprosakh, svyazannykh s protseduroy konfiskatsii nezakonnykh dokhodov v Kitae // Issledovaniya v oblasti verkhovenstva prava. — 2015. — № 4. — P. 99-102.