Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the progress and ongoing efforts in regulating law enforcement practices related to enterprises, particularly focusing on curbing illegal cross-regional enforcement and profit-driven enforcement, which have significantly impacted private enterprises [2][7]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions and Achievements - Since the launch of the special action to standardize law enforcement related to enterprises, issues such as illegal cross-regional enforcement and profit-driven enforcement have been effectively curbed, contributing to high-quality development [2]. - As of September 21, the initiative has helped recover over 15 billion yuan for enterprises, indicating a positive outcome from the regulatory efforts [2][6]. Group 2: Recommendations for Improvement - It is essential to sever the profit chain associated with illegal cross-regional enforcement and profit-driven enforcement to prevent such occurrences from the source [3]. - Legal experts suggest that the revenue from penalties should be transferred from local to central government oversight to fundamentally disconnect enforcement from profit motives [4]. Group 3: Legal and Institutional Enhancements - There is a need to improve regulations and institutional frameworks to close loopholes that allow illegal enforcement practices to persist [5]. - The implementation of the "Regulations on the Jurisdiction of Cross-Provincial Criminal Cases Involving Enterprises" aims to clarify jurisdictional authority, ensuring that cases are handled by the primary crime location's law enforcement [5]. Group 4: Corrective Mechanisms and Future Directions - A strict corrective mechanism is necessary to provide both remedy and deterrence against illegal practices, with recent cases highlighting the protection of private enterprises and their owners' rights [6]. - The article emphasizes that while progress has been made, further efforts are required to ensure all recoverable losses are returned to affected enterprises, and to hold accountable those involved in illegal enforcement practices [6][8].

Core Viewpoint - The recent joint initiative by market regulatory authorities in Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shanghai, and Anhui aims to establish a regional collaborative mechanism to regulate cross-regional law enforcement, particularly addressing the issue of "ocean fishing" style enforcement, which has been detrimental to the private economy and business environment [1][2]. Group 1: Regulatory Measures - The document titled "Eight Measures" is recognized as the first regional collaborative mechanism in the country targeting "ocean fishing" style law enforcement [1]. - The measures include clarifying the concept of cross-regional law enforcement, standardizing case collaboration procedures, and requiring prior notification and accompaniment during enforcement actions [2]. - The initiative emphasizes the need to avoid excessive administrative coercive measures and unify administrative penalty discretion to optimize the business environment [2]. Group 2: Financial Pressures and Enforcement Behavior - The tendency for profit-driven enforcement is closely linked to the financial pressures faced by certain regions, particularly economically underdeveloped areas [3]. - Data indicates that regions with greater fiscal pressure tend to see a faster increase in penalty and confiscation revenues, leading to a higher likelihood of profit-driven enforcement behavior [3]. - Some enforcement agencies justify their actions as a means of generating revenue for local finances, which raises concerns about the legitimacy of such enforcement practices [3]. Group 3: Legal and Ethical Considerations - The legitimacy of enforcement power must stem from lawful administration, and any actions driven by non-statutory goals, such as revenue generation, contradict the spirit of the rule of law [4]. - The document highlights the need for scientific governance methods to alleviate local fiscal pressures without compromising market fairness and citizen rights [4]. - The "grab-type" enforcement mentality is seen as incompatible with market economy principles, which emphasize contract spirit, fair regulation, and a legal environment [4].

Core Viewpoint - The development of the private economy and the improvement of the business environment may remain mere slogans, and rebuilding confidence in the private economy is a challenging task that requires strict adherence to power boundaries and robust protection of property rights [1][5]. Group 1: Regulatory Measures - The market regulatory departments of Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shanghai, and Anhui have jointly issued "Eight Measures to Strictly Regulate Cross-Regional Law Enforcement in the Yangtze River Delta," marking the first regional collaborative mechanism targeting "ocean fishing" style law enforcement [2]. - The "Eight Measures" aim to address the long-standing issue of cross-regional law enforcement that harms the private economy and disrupts the business environment, particularly in economically developed areas [2][3]. - The measures include clarifying the concept of cross-regional law enforcement, standardizing case collaboration procedures, and emphasizing the need for prior notification and accompaniment during enforcement actions [3]. Group 2: Legal Framework and Enforcement - The "Private Economy Promotion Law," effective from May 20, 2024, emphasizes the protection of private enterprises and prohibits illegal administrative or criminal interventions in economic disputes [3]. - Central policies have been reinforced by the "Eight Measures," which require careful use of administrative coercive measures and unified administrative penalty discretion to optimize the business environment [3][4]. - The measures also establish a case consultation system to resolve jurisdictional disputes through negotiation and enhance supervision of cross-regional law enforcement to prevent excessive or insufficient penalties [3][4]. Group 3: Underlying Issues - The tendency for profit-driven law enforcement is closely linked to the financial pressures faced by certain regions, particularly economically underdeveloped areas, where reliance on penalty income is higher [4]. - The phenomenon of "ocean fishing" style law enforcement reflects a disregard for individual rights and the transformation of public power into a tool for local financial gain, undermining the legitimacy of law enforcement [4][5]. - The article warns that if the mindset of profit-driven enforcement is not adequately addressed, the effectiveness of governance measures will be limited, and the goal of fostering the private economy may remain unfulfilled [5].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the Supreme People's Court's recent guidelines aimed at addressing the issues of jurisdiction expansion and the artificial creation of cross-regional jurisdiction in cases involving private enterprises, emphasizing the need for procedural justice and transparency in the handling of such cases [2][5]. Group 1: Jurisdiction Issues - The guidelines stress the principle of "legal jurisdiction as the norm, designated jurisdiction as an exception," aiming to prevent profit-driven law enforcement and rectify the expansion of jurisdiction in cases involving private enterprises [2][5]. - There is a recognition that the expansion of jurisdiction and artificial cross-regional jurisdiction have become tools for local protectionism and channels for profit, with private enterprises viewed as lucrative targets [3][4]. - The improper handling of case-related assets is identified as a core issue, where jurisdiction serves as a seemingly legitimate opportunity for the mishandling of these assets [4][5]. Group 2: Enforcement Measures - The implementation of the Private Economy Promotion Law, effective from May, includes clear regulations on cross-regional law enforcement, requiring adherence to legal authority, conditions, and procedures [5][6]. - The Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate have both emphasized the need for strict examination and legal handling of jurisdiction disputes to prevent illegal cross-regional law enforcement [5][6]. - Collaboration among various governmental and judicial bodies is highlighted as essential for addressing the prominent issues in law enforcement related to private enterprises [6][7].

Group 1 - The core issue of jurisdiction expansion and artificial cross-regional jurisdiction lies in the handling of the property involved in the case, as jurisdiction merely provides a seemingly legal opportunity for improper disposal of the property [1][2] - The Supreme People's Court emphasizes the principle of "legal jurisdiction as the norm, designated jurisdiction as an exception" to prevent profit-driven law enforcement and to correct the expansion of jurisdiction in cases involving the private economy [1][3] - There is a need for transparency in the administrative and judicial environment, particularly regarding the return of confiscated assets to local departments after they are submitted to the national treasury [2] Group 2 - The implementation of the Private Economy Promotion Law since May has set clear regulations for cross-regional law enforcement, requiring adherence to legal authority, conditions, and procedures [3] - The Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate have both highlighted the need for strict examination and legal handling of jurisdiction objections to prevent illegal cross-regional law enforcement [3][4] - Collaboration among various governmental bodies, including the judiciary and administrative agencies, is essential to address prominent issues in law enforcement related to enterprises [4][5]

Core Viewpoint - The Ministry of Justice aims to enhance the complaint and reporting mechanism for illegal administrative enforcement actions, ensuring timely handling of complaints related to enterprises [1] Group 1 - The establishment of a mechanism for handling complaints and reports regarding illegal administrative enforcement actions will be promoted [1] - Administrative enforcement supervision contact points will be set up to gather feedback from various business entities on administrative enforcement [1] - The introduction of an administrative enforcement supervisor system will involve participation from representatives of the National People's Congress, political advisors, public supervisors, experts, scholars, lawyers, and journalists [1] Group 2 - There is a commitment to curb profit-driven enforcement practices and to protect the legitimate rights and interests of private economic organizations and their operators [1]