Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court and the Ministry of Justice of China have jointly released ten typical cases to standardize administrative law enforcement and judicial practices related to enterprises, aiming to unify judgment standards and clarify rules [1]. Group 1: Typical Cases Overview - The ten selected cases cover various administrative management fields and types of administrative disputes, including issues related to construction permits, administrative penalties, and compliance with administrative agreements [1]. - Specific cases include disputes involving construction companies, real estate firms, and medical institutions, highlighting the diverse nature of administrative challenges faced by enterprises [1]. Group 2: Case Details - One notable case involves a traditional Chinese medicine clinic in Shanghai, which faced administrative penalties for allegedly using unsupported promotional claims. The clinic contested the penalties, arguing that the facts were unclear and the punishment excessive [2]. - The administrative review body conducted on-site investigations and facilitated negotiations between the parties, ultimately reducing the fine from 30,000 yuan to 20,000 yuan, while also refraining from penalizing the clinic for certain practices under new regulations [3]. - This case exemplifies the balance between enforcement and education in administrative law, ensuring that penalties are proportionate and that enterprises are supported in compliance efforts [3]. Group 3: Future Implications - Moving forward, all levels of people's courts and administrative review bodies will implement the Private Economy Promotion Law, ensuring fair and just handling of administrative disputes involving enterprises, thereby enhancing legal protections for the private sector [3].

Core Viewpoint - The increasing importance of the private economy in China's economic development is highlighted, with significant contributions to tax revenue, GDP, technological innovation, and urban employment. However, private enterprises face legal risks, particularly regarding property rights protection. The implementation of the Private Economy Promotion Law in May 2025 and the upcoming revision of the Criminal Procedure Law are critical for enhancing legal protections for private enterprises [1][3]. Group 1: Legal Framework and Reforms - The Private Economy Promotion Law systematically addresses property protection for private enterprises, particularly in relation to criminal proceedings, marking a significant advancement in legal protections [3][4]. - The upcoming revision of the Criminal Procedure Law is crucial, as it must align with the Private Economy Promotion Law to ensure effective implementation of protective measures for the private economy [3][4]. Group 2: Addressing Law Enforcement Issues - The term "ocean fishing" refers to opportunistic law enforcement practices, which have raised public concern. The Private Economy Promotion Law includes provisions to prevent abuse of power in cross-regional law enforcement [5][6]. - Recommendations for establishing a "main crime location" jurisdiction principle and improving the jurisdiction objection system are proposed to address the challenges posed by expanding definitions of crime locations, especially in the context of increasing cybercrime [5][6]. Group 3: Supervision and Oversight - Strengthening case filing supervision is essential to prevent the misuse of criminal measures in civil disputes. Current laws need to be amended to include oversight for cases that should not be filed but are [7][8]. - A mechanism for regular case review is suggested to address the issue of prolonged unresolved cases that hinder normal business operations [8]. Group 4: International Legal Protections - As Chinese enterprises expand overseas, they face risks from differing international laws and increasing long-arm jurisdiction. The Private Economy Promotion Law emphasizes the need for a robust legal framework to protect overseas interests [9][10]. - Recommendations include enhancing judicial protection for overseas enterprises and empowering legal institutions to counter foreign sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction [9][10].