china

Subscribe to china via RSS

By Ariel Ye and James Rowland

On 29 December 2010 the Information Office of the State Council (China’s cabinet) published a report detailing China’s past and present anti-corruption efforts (the "White Paper").1 This has been followed in quick succession by the publication of a report including the key facts and figures relating to China’s anti-corruption efforts in 2010 and a public statement by President Hu Jintao in his address to the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection that the Chinese government will wage a more forceful fight against corruption in future and that "More efforts should be made to investigate graft in key industries and key posts".2Continue Reading Details of China’s Efforts to Combat Corruption and Build a Clean Government Published in State Council White Paper

作者：叶渌、罗必成 金杜争议解决组

2010年12月29日，国务院新闻办公室发布了一份详细介绍中国过去及目前反腐败建设的报告（以下称“白皮书”）1。 中国政府之前发布了关于2010年反腐败建设主要事实和数据的报告。此外，国家主席胡锦涛在中央纪律检查委员会全体会议上的公开讲话中表示，中国政府将会采取更强有力的措施遏制腐败，并且“应该加大对重要行业中贪污和重要职位贪污的调查”2 。在此基础上，中国政府发布了白皮书。Continue Reading 《中国的反腐败和廉政建设》白皮书内容盘点

By: Susan Ning, Shan Lining and Angie Ng

On 17 November 2010, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) organized a "price monopoly" workshop in Chengdu to take stock of: (a) developments in relation to price related breaches of the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML); and (b) developments in relation to provincial level price authorities and their enforcement of the AML (see our article entitled "Provincial Price Authorities and the AML" dated 20 November 2010.[1]Continue Reading Price Related Breaches of the AML and the Price Law – How Many Public Cases Have There Been?

By: Susan Ning, Shan Lining, Liu Jia and Angie Ng

On 10 December 2010, the State Council published and enacted a set of revised penalty regulations[1] (vis-à-vis the Price Law 1997). 

Broadly, the penalties set out in these revised penalty regulations are more severe than the previous version. 

Of note is the fact that there is a new Article 5 which outlines more severe and specific remedies in relation to breaches amounting to price-fixing. In addition, the new Article 19 introduces criminal sanctions for breaches of the Price Law 1997 which severely disrupt the market order in China.Continue Reading If You Fix Prices, Beware of the Price Law and the Anti Monopoly Law

By Meg Utterback and Ding Liang of King & Wood’s Cross border dispute resolution Practice

As the United States mid-term elections draw near, we can expect greater protectionist measures from the US government in an effort to appease voters who are demanding an improvement in the US unemployment statistics. One such protectionist measure is the initiation of the recent 301 investigation relating to allegations that the Chinese clean technology and renewable energy sectors are being unfairly advantaged by government subsidies.   Almost all countries are subsidizing the renewable sector in one form or another in hopes of easing the world’s dependence on fossil fuels. It seems however that the US has taken umbrage with the extent of Chinese programs supporting the clean technology and renewable energy industries.Continue Reading China Clean Tech at Risk– Initiation of the Recent Section 301 Investigation

 By Meg Utterback, Ariel Ye and James Rowland of King & Wood’s Cross Border Dispute Resolution Practice

The majority of cases, whether in court or arbitration, are settled. Parties weigh a variety of factors from the start of the dispute to award, constantly performing a cost benefit analysis. Generally speaking, issues such as principle and precedent often preclude a settlement. Parties will refuse to consider a good settlement if it violates an internal principle, e.g. no payment, even nominal, in the absence of liability;Continue Reading Arbitration Negotiation Tips

By Stephen Nelson, Partner and Head of King & Wood’s Taxation Practice

It is not uncommon for foreign investors to sell the shares of intermediate holding companies that hold the equity in Chinese companies as a way to exit their investments in China, in order to get around government approval procedures, as well as to avoid PRC tax on their capital gains. It certainly appears that these offshore transfers may be examined by the China tax authorities going forward, and may no longer escape the Chinese tax net. Recently, the State Administration of Taxation (the “SAT”) issued the circular Guoshuihan [2009] No. 698, “Strengthening the Tax Administration of Equity Transfers by Non-resident Enterprises” ("Circular 698”), which, for the first time, explicitly requires disclosure to the tax authorities of offshore indirect transfers of equity in PRC companies. The tax authorities may then examine the transferred offshore holding company in order to ascertain whether the structure has a reasonable commercial purpose – if not, the offshore gain could be held subject to Chinese tax.Continue Reading Offshore Equity Transfers – Next Target for PRC Tax Anti-avoidance Attack