Exequatur Subway 2009 : Un arrêt confirmant la jurisprudence bien établie reconnaissant l’exequatur à une sentence arbitrale américaine rendue par application d’une convention d’arbitrage acceptée par les parties.
“The life and blood of international commerce ” (1) tel est le terme employé par les tribunaux anglais pour caractériser le crédit documentaire.
Documentary credit can be defined as "the operation by which a banker, intervening on the order of a buyer for the financial settlement of a commercial transaction, most often international, promises to pay the seller against delivery of documents" (2).
According to Dean Jean Stoufflet, the documentary credit technique is "the greatest success of international trade in terms of banking mechanism" (3).
Other authors have called it "a true masterpiece of banking technique" (4).
Indeed, in international affairs, due to the geographic distance of the contracting parties who often do not know each other and it is difficult for them to trust the first operation.
The exporter is hesitant to undertake the manufacture or delivery of a product if he is not sure of being paid. For its part, the importer is reluctant to pay funds to the exporter before being sure that the shipment has been completed within the prescribed time.
Documentary credit, by involving the independent and solvent intermediaries that are the banks, therefore constitutes a means of payment which has the advantage of reconciling the divergent interests of the buyer and the seller.
The seller is guaranteed to receive against delivery of certain documents, the price due to him due to the delivery of the goods within the agreed time.
The buyer, on the other hand, will only have to pay for the goods ordered if it has actually been sent to him.
As such, it can be considered that documentary credit is an instrument of confidence based on the international banking system.
Thus the myriad of commercial transactions and the development of international exchanges make documentary credit one of the most important instruments of international trade.
Consequently, the monumental development of international trade in China is necessarily accompanied by the development of documentary credit, we can even say that in China the use of documentary credit is an essential operation for carrying out commercial transactions with foreign partners. .
In the international business community, documentary credit has been the subject of
regulations issued by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), organization
international private sector which has developed uniform rules applicable by traders
coming from very different economic and legal systems. The effectiveness of these rules has been
demonstrated by practice and sanctioned by case law. These "Rules and Practices
Uniforms relating to Documentary Credits' (UCP) were published for the first time
in 19335. Regularly revised to monitor and support changes in practice,
their latest version the "RUU 600" replacing the previous version the RUU 500 dating
of 1993 entered into force on July 1, 2007. The UK as lex mercatoria receives
consequently its full application in China by recognizing the right of the parties to
choose the rule of law applicable in international transactions involving the use
documentary credit.
On the other hand, at the national level, it did not exist 4 years ago in China, as in many
other countries, including France, no legal or regulatory provision governing credit
documentary. Chinese state law which is intended to apply to supplement the
possible shortcomings of the UCP is constituted by the provisions contained in the Law on
General Principles of Civil Law, the Law on Contracts, the Law of Security Interests and the Law of
Civil Procedure. However, due to the fact that these provisions are generally very vague and are
therefore open to interpretation by the judge, and that case law is not a real
source of law in China, since 1995, disputes over documentary credits have been
extensively brought before the People's Court of China.
Until 2004, the Supreme Court of China has ruled on more than 100 cases, without
count hundreds of questions relating to documentary credits posed to the Court
Supreme by the lower courts. Thus, China Banking Regulatory Commission, banks
sales representatives also asked questions about the enforcement of court judgments
concerning documentary credits, given that legal explanations or
regulations emanating from the Supreme Court constitute one of the most important sources of law.
important in the Chinese legal system.
Having regard to these various questions raised in practice, particularly with regard to the law applicable to documentary credit, the criterion of document verification, fraud etc., the Supreme Court of China, after having made a global study and discussions with lawyers, practitioners, banks and CCI experts in China, drawing inspiration from the RUU500, adopted on October 24, 2005 the Rules of the Supreme Court on some questions concerning credit disputes documentary, which entered into force on January 1, 2006. Although the general provisions provided for in the aforementioned laws are still applicable, the Regulations provide judges and thus practitioners with more accuracy and precision in the event of diverging interpretations and also completes gaps under the UCP. However, this Regulation is not without faults, especially since the entry into force of RUU 600.
Regarding the scope of the Rules of the Supreme Court on some issues
concerning disputes relating to documentary credit, its first article provides that the
Rules apply to disputes relating to the issue, notification, modification,
revocation, negotiation and lifting of documentary credit. Here, the word "revocation"
means the application of the Regulations to revocable documentary credits. Expression
revocable credit means the documentary credit that can be amended or canceled by the bank
Issuer at any time and without agreement or information from the beneficiary 6.
However, in practice, revocable credits have disappeared for several years. Pulling
the lessons of this development, the UCP 600 no longer refer to the concept of credit
revocable. Drawn up under the control of UCP 500, the Regulation did not take into account this
evolution, which on the other hand gives the issuing or confirming bank the possibility
to attach the irrevocability of their commitment to pay conditions calling into question
the very principle of this commitment. These so-called "soft clauses" would have
consequence of making revocable documentary credits and therefore considerably harms
the interest of the beneficiary. Indeed, only the irrevocable credit is a real guarantee for the
beneficiary insofar as this type of credit constitutes a firm commitment by the banker
transmitter. The revocability of the documentary credit is contrary to the very principle of this
guarantee, consequently it would be preferable for the Regulation to delete in its field
the revocation of the documentary credit to be compatible with UCP 600 and
truly reflect business practice.
This article is limited to presenting two essential points of the documentary credit provided
by the Regulation which in practice give rise to more problems, namely the verification of
documents (I), and documentary credit fraud (II), as well as some thoughts on these
points under the rules of RUU600.
Document verification is an essential mission of the banker in the context of a documentary credit. As Mr. Affaki notes, "in an operation which is marked by the separation between the underlying commercial contract and the banking intervention, the outcome of this intervention is exclusively a function of documents and not of the realization of facts which may be reflected there ”(7). It is an important and growing source of litigation in the practice of documentary credit. This situation obviously affected the safety of the technique. It appeared that more than 70 % of the first presentations were irregular. Most of the difficulties relate to issues of document compliance. It is therefore one of the objects of the Regulation to minimize the risk of rejection for irregularity of documents.
Section 5 of the Regulations provides that the issuing bank is required to honor its commitment to documentary credit when the documents presented are apparently in conformity with the terms of the credit, and all documents are apparently compatible with each other. It appears that the criterion of document verification in China is the criterion of strict compliance of documents with the stipulations of documentary credit. It is obvious that the banker cannot know all the commercial uses and consequently the beneficiary cannot ask him to consider as conforming documents which are not strictly identical to the stipulations of the credit.
Thus a bank does not have to interpret the description of a commodity, even when the
terms used in documents separate from those of the credit, for professionals of the
strictly equivalent trade. In a judgment of the Guansu Court of Appeal on June 25, 2007,
the Court supported the refusal of payment by the confirming bank, considering that the name
of the goods "grapes" stipulating on the invoice does not correspond to the name "dried
currents ”appearing in the documentary credit, although in international trade this
or almost the same goods. It should therefore be noted that the criterion of conformity
substantive was not upheld by the Chinese People's Court, which is contrary to the
jurisprudence of certain countries and in particular of the United States. Consequently, article 5 of
Regulation limits the obligation of the banker to a control of appearance of presentation
compliant. This is a protective rule for the banker in charge of verification who does not
benefit the recipient.
However, the principle of strict compliance has been strongly weakened by the Regulation, which
is also the case law trend, since Article 6 paragraph 2 specifies that in the case of
where the apparent conformity of the documents with the credit stipulations and the
inter-documentary compatibility are not strictly satisfied, since there is no
ambiguity or contradiction between them, the People's Court may consider that the
documents are compliant. Thus the Shanghai Court of Appeal overturned a decision having
excluded the responsibility of an issuing bank towards the beneficiary by qualifying as
a "purely formal" divergence which did not create any ambiguity in the fact that on a
transport document, the names of the recipient of the goods and the one to receive
notification of the arrival of this commodity, appeared in the wrong boxes and did not
not corresponding to the stipulation of the documentary credit.
De ce point de vue, le Règlement essaie de maintenir l’équilibre entre les intérêts du banquier
and the beneficiary while preserving the principle of strict compliance of documents by
in relation to the credit stipulations. Nevertheless, provisions of the Regulations drafted
very generally are susceptible to different interpretations, especially in relation to
RUU600 which provides detailed provisions by different types of documents. In
Consequently, these provisions do not give clear answers helping the courts to
rule.
The regularization of rejected documents is always possible as long as the credit is not
expired and that the irregularities are subject to correction. On the other hand, when the
regularization of documents is not possible, Article 7 of the Regulations authorizes the bank
issuer, at its sole discretion, to request the agreement of the ordering party to accept
irregular documents.
However, the authorization to lift irregular documents given by the client
does not oblige the issuing banker to pay the loan to the beneficiary. When the transmitter has
refused the lifting of irregular documents, the payment request of the beneficiary who
prevails of the acceptance of irregularities by the principal, must be rejected by the court.
This is contrary to French case law, since in a judgment of March 11, 2003, the Paris Court of Appeal decided that the bank was obliged to pay in circumstances where the originator, meanwhile declared in receivership , had agreed to the payment of irregular documents. However, it should be remembered that the bank has no obligation to request from the originator any possible lifting of irregular documents even if the latter, without being questioned by the bank, intends to accept the documents. The formality of the documentary credit authorizes the banker, whatever the position of the principal on the execution of the basic contract, to refuse to honor his commitment since the documents presented in support of the request are not strictly meet the specifications of the letter of credit 8.
However, some Chinese lawyers consider that this article, authorizing the banker to refuse
irregular documents, even with the agreement of the principal, resulting in
to the interests of the principal and the beneficiary, and considerably increase the cost of
international transactions with full emphasis on the principle of credit autonomy
documentary. This article does not take into account the purpose of document credit, which is to ensure the
payment of the commercial transaction of which the good progress and the good result, goal
pursued by the parties, namely the ordering party and the beneficiary of the documentary credit.
Fraud is the only exception that can hinder the free play of documentary credit mechanisms. In particular, it hinders the payment of documents which appear to be regular (9). Although the maxim fraus omnia corrumpit is generally accepted by all legal systems, in the area of documentary credit, the qualification of fraud and its taking into account are highly variable (10). Given the differences in fraud between the different legal systems, the RUU600 deliberately leaves the problem to national law.
On this issue which generates as much difficulty as the verification of documents
in practice both for the banker and for the Court, the Regulation therefore clarifies the
qualification of documentary credit fraud and its effect on bankers, the
principal and beneficiary. However, this qualification is questionable, according to many
lawyers and practitioners, because its scope considered too broad.
Article 8 provides that fraud is established when the beneficiary:
Under this article, it is interesting to note that by listing the cases of fraud, it does not give its definition or characteristics, which suggests that the article applies to all frauds. provided for in these four cases, contrary to American or French case law which requires that fraud be substantial or manifest.
This would have the effect of widening the scope of the fraud exception principle and
lead to even more refusal of payment by the banker who could easily invoke
fraud, and consequently compromise the efficiency and speed of documentary credit.
Regarding the first and third scenario, that is to say the beneficiary infringed or
falsified documents or presented documents that he knew were false as soon as
the origin; and the beneficiary, with the collusion of the principal or a third party, presenting
false documents without any real transaction, we can see that these are the most
more common in practice, and relatively easy to establish.
However, what raises the most problem is the second scenario in which the
beneficiary in bad faith does not deliver the goods or delivers the goods
devoid of any value. Here, the border between the poor execution of a contract
commercial and fraud could raise difficulties of appreciation. A fortiori, the
bad faith on the part of the beneficiary is sometimes difficult to demonstrate. In a judgment of the Court of Appeal
of Tianjing on November 28, 2006, the Court found the issuing bank liable
citing fraud in the circumstances in which the seller issued, instead of a certain
dry medicinal plant, the fresh medicinal plant which has rotten during transport from
China in Korea, on the grounds that the fresh plant fully met the stipulation of
documentary credit that did not specify the condition should be this plant.
It should be noted, however, that in this case, the bad faith of the seller could have been
established from the fact that the fresh plant has practically no medicinal effect, and the
recipient should have anticipated the possible rotting during the long transport.
As for the last paragraph, it groups together all the other frauds not provided for by the
three cases, which leaves a wide margin of appreciation to the courts. It shows
that the acts which could be qualified as fraud do not appear to be clearly defined by the
Regulation and therefore the application of the fraud exception principle raises
often many difficulties, legal uncertainty remaining.
Article 9 of the Regulations provides that the fraud provided for in Article 8 authorizes bankers
and the principal to request the Court to suspend payment of the credit
documentary. Thus, it deprives the beneficiary of his rights under the documentary credit and
exonerates the responsibility of the banker, whether it is an issuing bank,
confirming, nominated or negotiator.
Article 10 also specifies that once fraud has been noted by the Court, it must order the suspension or cessation of payment of the documentary credit, except in the following cases when:
It is therefore considered that the issuing or confirming banker is required to reimburse the bank
intermediary authorized to carry out the documentary credit if this bank has regularly
carried out, before the discovery of the fraud, the credit in view of apparently compliant documents
the stipulations of the documentary credit.
The fraud therefore opens recourse to the banker who paid the documentary credit and
this, even if the banker committed a fault in the verification of the documents and paid the
documentary credit without any reserve since it has not discovered the fraud before
payment and was thus in good faith. However, what is very regrettable is that the text does not
not provide for the cases of documentary credits payable in the future where the intermediary bank
had paid the beneficiary in advance of the date agreed for the completion of the
documentary credit. It should therefore be added to this text that the banker who anticipates the
realization of the documentary credit does so at its own risk.
In the same vein, the principal will have to reimburse the issuing banker who has
lifted "false" documents when there was nothing to suspect their authenticity. Se
asks the question of knowing when the principal is availing himself of a fraud affecting the
documents of a documentary credit in order to paralyze the payment by the bank:
does the bank have an obligation to refuse payment? The Rules do not give us an answer,
court decisions are divided on this point.
***
The Rules of the Supreme Court on certain questions concerning disputes relating to the
documentary credit undoubtedly provides the courts with more precision and certainty
to rule on disputes relating to documentary credits. Nevertheless, we must admit
that it is far from complete and that the UCP in its current version still remains a source
very important law for Chinese courts, and important case law
foreigners also have considerable influence.
(1) Harbottle RD (Mercantile) Ltd. V. National Westminster Bank Ltd., (1978) QB 146, (1977), 2 All. ER862.3 WLR752.
(2) Ch. Gavalda and J. Stoufflet, Banking law: Litec 2005, 6th ed., P. 403.
(3) J. Stoufflet, Documentary credit: Litec 1957.
(4) J.-P. Mattout, International banking law: Bank 2004, 3rd ed., P. 259.
(5) J. Stoufflet, The normative work of the International Chamber of Commerce in the banking field, in Studies offered to Berthold Goldman: Litec, 1987, p. 364 and s.
(6) RUU 500, art. 8
(7) G. Affaki, op. cit., n ° 139.
(8) G. Affaki and J. Stoufflet: Banque et Droit, 2004, n ° 95, P62, obs.
(9) Cass.com. March 4, 1953, S. 1954-1-121, Lescot note
(10) M. Vasseur, notes Cass.com. April 7, 1987, DS 1987, p399
Kenneth WEISSBERG, Lawyer at the Court of Paris; with the support of Xing HU, Graduated from Xiamen University (China) and Paris X and Paris II Universities
Evidence plays an essential role in the proceedings. A right only exists when a
rule of law recognizes this, and that the procedure of this law authorizes the referral of a
jurisdiction to enforce this rule.
There is an important difference between the Chinese procedure and the procedures
western. The distribution of powers in China is not the same as in the countries
westerners. The separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, which we
connaît dans les pays occidentaux, n’existe pas en Chine, oùle pouvoir judiciaire y
including that of the Prosecutor's Office, and the executive power depend on the legislative power.
Le système traditionnel de la procédure chinoise est inquisitoire : la maîtrise du procès est confiée au juge qui joue un rôle actif. En plus des éléments que les parties vont lui soumettre, le juge pourra rechercher lui-même des éléments de preuve afin de fonder sa propre opinion. Cependant avec l’entrée en vigueur du code de procédure civile de 2008 qui s’est inspirédu système de la procédure accusatoire(le système de justice qui s’appuie principalement sur les compétences et habiletés des avocats des parties pour défendre leur version des faits.), l’admissibilité de la preuve est devenue une question de plus en plus importante.
The Chinese Civil Procedure Code promulgated on April 9, 1991 was amended on October 28, 2007, and came into force on April 1, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as CPCC). In its chapter 6, 12 articles relate to the proof.
The Chinese Criminal Procedure Code promulgated on March 17, 1996 entered into force on January 1, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as CPPC). The evidentiary provisions are in Chapter 5 and have 8 articles.
The Chinese Administrative Procedure Code promulgated on April 4, 1989 entered into force on October 1, 1990, its chapter 5 includes 6 articles concerning the evidence (hereinafter called CPAC).
All these provisions being very abstract and difficult to apply, the Court
Suprême Populaire was based on the experience of the courts and was inspired by
common law and civil law systems, to set out “the provisions on certain
problems in the application of the code of civil procedure1 ”which were published on 6
December 2001, and effective April 1, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as
“2002 provisions”). 2
The purpose of these provisions is to ensure the correct application of the law and to guarantee
citizens exercise their powers.
The first part of this article will concern a general presentation of the legal regime of evidence in China, mainly in civil matters. The second part will consist in analyzing the particularities of evidence in administrative and criminal matters.
Like French law, the burden of proof in China rests with the parties who must prove the facts in support of their claim.
According to article 64 of the CPCC:
It is up to each party to prove the facts necessary for the success of its claim.
If for objective reasons the parties and their principals cannot collect the evidence themselves, when the court considers it necessary for the resolution of the dispute, it must investigate and gather the evidence.The People's Court must investigate and verify the evidence objectively as a whole, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
Article 65 of the CPCC specifies:
the court has the power to investigate legal and natural persons; data subjects have no right to refuse.
The parties have the obligation to prove the damage for which they claim compensation. In principle, the burden of proof rests on the claimant, since the claimant must prove it. Reciprocally, whoever claims to be released must justify the payment or the fact which produced the extinction of his obligation.
According to article 4 of the 2002 Provisions, it is the defendant who must then prove that
the claim of the plaintiff is unfounded. Article 4 lists eight cases
tort, for example with regard to an obligation to make reparation in matters of
environmental pollution, the onus is on the defendant to prove that he benefits from a
exemption provided by law, the absence of the event giving rise to liability, or
the absence of a causal link.
In French law, in civil matters, the judge is passive: the parties must provide the
evidence of their claims and the judge must only assess their relevance. He ... not
can search for new ones itself, or supplement them. However, under Chinese law,
the role of the judge is not passive. It is expressly stated in paragraph 2 of article 64
CPCC, that when the court considers it necessary for the resolution of the
litigation, he must investigate and gather evidence. Article 7 of the 2002 Provisions
provides that, in the absence of a settlement, the court is responsible for determining the
burden of proof in accordance with the principle of equality and the principle of honesty and
of loyalty.
At first, this rule posed a lot of problems, it often happened that the court replaced the parties and collected the evidence for them, which raised the question of the legality and the admissibility of the evidence that the court obtained by exceeding his powers. The law was silent on this issue. Fortunately, with the 2002 Provisions, this issue has been resolved; section 15 has limited to two cases in which the court can gather evidence:
Apart from these two cases, the court can collect evidence at the request of the parties, subject to state or professional secrecy.
The new code of civil procedure defines the modes of proof in a list
limiting in its article 63:
The testimony of the parties knows two cases:
- the parties' explanation of the facts of a case,
- the admission of a party concerning the facts of a case denounced by the other party is admissible, it consists for a person to recognize a fact which is unfavorable to him. It must be emphasized, however, that admitting a fact does not mean consenting to the other party's claim.
The expert report:
l’expertise est une mesure d’investigation technique ou scientifique qu’un juge confie à un expert à la demande des parties. Elle a pour finalité l’aide à la décision. La demande d’un expert est à la fois un droit pour les parties à la procédure, et une obligation de la charge de la preuve. Les parties ont le droit de faire opposition à un rapport d’expertise émis par l’expert choisi par le tribunal.
A report by the judge:
The investigation carried out by the judge on the place or on the objects of the litigation, either at the request of the parties, or on his own initiative.
The Chinese Administrative Procedure Code promulgated on April 4, 1989 entered into force on October 1, 1990 (hereinafter CPAC which includes 75 articles in total), its main features are:
The burden of proof in administrative matters lies with the administration (the defendant). The latter must demonstrate concrete administrative behavior within ten days of receipt of the request. On the other hand, the CPAC had not specified the cases of absence of proof on the part of the administrative department or the proof presented after the deadline of ten days without justified reason. The Supreme People's Court explained that in such a case, the concrete administrative behavior in question is considered to be devoid of just cause; this results in the failure of the administrative department. If for an objective reason or in case of force majeure, the defendant does not succeed in establishing the proof, he has the right to request an extension of ten days. During the trial, the defendant cannot collect the evidence of the plaintiff or the witness himself.
Although the FPCC has expressly stated that the burden of proof rests with the defendant, it does not exclude that, where applicable, the burden of proof may lie with the plaintiff. The applicant must then prove:
The principles of evidence in criminal matters are different from those applicable in civil matters.
D’abord, concernant la répartition du pouvoir judiciaire, qui est défini à l’article 3 du code de procédure pénale, le pouvoir judiciaire est réparti entre les organes de la sécurité publique chargés de l’enquête préparatoire et de la détention préventive. Il a le pouvoir de prendre l’initiative de l’action publique, et il est chargé de l’enquête pour toutes les autres infractions sous la direction du parquet ; le tribunal assume la fonction de juger. En effet, dans le système actuel chinois, les organes d’enquête ont des pouvoirs considérables, ils ont le pouvoir de décider et d’exécuter toute mesure d’enquête telles que la perquisition, la saisie, la surveillance de résidence, la liberté sous caution, et la garde à vue (sauf l’arrestation et la détention subséquente) sans autorisation préalable du parquet ou du tribunal.
Next, a large part of the evidence provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure concern the procedures for obtaining evidence. The other parts, which concern the provisions on the presentation of evidence, the communication of documents, the validity of evidence and the effectiveness of evidence are very difficult to apply directly in practice. This is the reason for the appearance of numerous provisions published by different authorities, for example "The provisions on certain problems in the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure" of January 19, 1998, jointly stated by the Supreme People's Court, the Prosecutor's Office People's Supreme, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of State Security, the Ministry of Justice and the Commission responsible for the legal work of the Standing Committee of the National People's Assembly. These provisions are very numerous and lack coherence between them.
Enfin, la comparution comme témoin devant un tribunal, consiste de la part d’un témoin à venir déclarer devant le tribunal lors d’une audience ce qu’il a personnellement vu ou entendu, et à être interrogé par les parties ou ses avoués selon la procédure prévue par la loi. Cependant, cette procédure fonctionne mal en pratique, et la présence du témoin constitue une grande difficulté. En raison du manque de dispositions concernant la protection des témoins, leur taux de présence est extrêmement faible ; néanmoins le témoignage est beaucoup utilisé à l’audience. L’article 157 du code de procédure pénale chinoise énonce:“le témoignage d’un témoin absent doit être lu à haute voix en audience.” Il en résulte que les parties ne peuvent pas les interroger et que le juge est en situation difficile pour vérifier la sincérité de ce témoignage. La conséquence en est que l’audience reste très formelle et perd beaucoup de son intérêt, le juge rend son jugement sur la base des documents papiers qui lui sont remis.
En conclusion, non seulement en matière de preuve, mais aussi d’une manière générale, la procédure pénale chinoise, même si elle a considérablement évolué ces dernières années et connu beaucoup de progrès, a encore beaucoup de progrès à faire pour atteindre le degré de fiabilité des pays occidentaux.
***
1 Similarly in administrative and criminal matters,
Provisions on certain problems in the application of the code of administrative procedure of June 4, 2002, implemented on October 1, 2002.
Provisions on certain problems in the application of the code of criminal procedure of June 29, 1998, brought into force on September 8, 1998.
2 According to a decision concerning the repeal of the provisions published before the end of 2007 (7th) of the Supreme People's Court of December 8, 2008, articles 136, 205, 206, 240, 253,299 of the provisions of 2002 were deleted due to the modification in 2008 of the CPCC, the part concerning the evidence remains in force.
The new Chinese Penal Code which came into force on October 1, 1997 was revised on February 28
2009 by amendment VII, and the Chinese Criminal Procedure Code promulgated on March 17
1996 entered into force on January 1, 1997. The general provisions of these Codes
specify that the aim is to ensure accuracy in establishing the facts complained of,
the proper application of the law, the punishment of criminals and the protection of persons
innocent in order to safeguard the socialist legal system and guarantee citizens the
protection of human rights, property rights, democratic rights and others
rights, and to ensure public economic and social security and the development of the cause
socialist..
La loi pénale chinoise s’applique aux infractions commises sur le territoire national et à
certaines infractions commises à l’étranger. L’étendue de la compétence extraterritoriale est
déterminée par la nationalité du délinquant et la nature de l’infraction.
En matière de contrefaçon et de falsification de monnaie ou de titres négociables, de corruption, de violation des secrets d’Etat, d’usage de la fausse qualité de fonctionnaire, les nationaux sont toujours punissables lorsque les faits sont commis à l’étranger.
En dehors de ces cas, les nationaux peuvent également être poursuivis pour des agissements perpétrés à l’étranger, cependant ils pourraient bénéficier d’une exemption lorsque la peine maximale prévue par la loi chinoise est inférieure à une peine de trois ans d’emprisonnement.
Le Code pénal chinois ne s’applique aux infractions commises par les étrangers en dehors du territoire chinois que lorsque les agissements reprochés ont porté atteinte à la République ou aux ressortissants chinois, qu’ils sont réprimés par la loi du lieu de commission, et que la peine minimale prévue par la loi chinoise est une peine de trois ans d’emprisonnement.
Where criminal law has extraterritorial application, national courts have
jurisdiction even when the facts have been tried by a foreign court. But if the trouble
prononcée a été exécutée à l’étranger, les juridictions chinoises ont la faculté soit de réduire la
penalty incurred either to pronounce an exemption from penalty.
En ce qui concerne l’application de la loi pénale dans le temps, l’art. 12 du Code pénal
enshrines the principle of non-retroactivity of the new law by requiring that the actions
reprochés ne soient punis qu’à condition d’être incriminés par la loi applicable au moment des
facts. This principle is mitigated, as in most modern legal systems, by the
retroactivity in mitius which allows any accused to benefit as of right from the application of
provisions of the new sweeter law.
Les éléments constitutifs de l’infraction en Droit chinois sont les mêmes qu’en Droit français. On retrouve l’exigence d’un élément légal, d’un élément matériel et d’un élément intentionnel.
L’élément intentionnel a une grande importance en droit pénal chinois car il détermine la classification des infractions. Au lieu de la classification tripartite du Droit français, on ne connaît que deux catégories d’infractions en Droit chinois; d’une part, les infractions intentionnelles et d’autre part, les infractions non intentionnelles.
Les infractions mineures équivalentes aux contraventions selon la classification française, sont qualifiées d’infractions « administratives » et ne relèvent pas de la compétence des Tribunaux.
This summary presentation of the Chinese system will be limited to the description of the main
characteristics of Criminal Law and important elements of the applicable procedure.
Le Droit Pénal chinois repose sur une conception particulière de la notion d’ordre public et sur
a classic responsibility system.
En Chine la notion d’ordre public couvre à la fois l’ordre public tel qu’il est conçu par la
plupart des pays occidentaux, et la protection de l’idéologie socialiste.
L’ordre public au sens traditionnel du terme est protégé en Chine par plusieurs catégories d’infractions dont les infractions contre les droits personnels et démocratiques des citoyens, les infractions contre la sécurité publique, les atteintes aux biens, les infractions contre l’ordre public. Certains agissements qui relèvent de la responsabilité civile en France sont pénalement sanctionnés du fait de l’importance qui leur est accordée dans la tradition chinoise.
Tel est le cas par exemple de la cohabitation avec l’épouse d’un militaire en service ou encore de la non- assistance à des parents nécessiteux ou malades.
Aucune disposition du Code ne sanctionne les délits politiques ni les délits d’opinion.
Mais la protection de l’idéologie socialiste est assurée par l’incrimination d’agissements portant atteintes à la sécurité de l’Etat.
Sont réprimés à ce titre tous les agissements ayant pour but le renversement le régime socialiste et ceux portant atteintes à la souveraineté, à l’intégralité territoriale et à la sécurité de la République Populaire de Chine. Les articles 102 à 113 du Code pénal énumèrent de façon non limitative ces actes parmi lesquels figurent: l’incitation à la désertion, l’espionnage et l’incitation des masses à la révolte.
Le Code pénal chinois sanctionne divers agissements au titre de la protection de l’ordre
socialist economy. Among these acts, we find financial fraud, fraud
tax and customs, smuggling and violation of intellectual property rights and
industrial.
Certaines activités économiques parfaitement légales dans la plupart des systèmes juridiques modernes peuvent être jugées attentatoires à l’ordre économique socialiste.
En 1988, un contrat d’importation de télévision, conclu entre une société française et une filiale du ministère chinois de l’aéronautique apparemment compétent en la matière, a été considéré comme une vaste fraude portant atteinte à l’économie du pays.
L’agent commercial employé par la société française, qui avait perçu une commission et reçu un important dépôt de garantie pour le compte de son employeur a été incarcéré pour contrebande et malversations.
Il encourait la peine capitale car, étant de nationalité chinoise, il ne pouvait bénéficier du traitement de faveur réservé aux expatriés. Les autorités chinoises ayant participé à la signature du contrat ont été démises de leurs fonctions et également incarcérées pour contrebande. La société française n’a pas été inquiétée, et la transaction commerciale n’a pas été remise en cause à son égard.
Criminal responsibility and the sanctions imposed depend on the personality of the
offender and the seriousness of the facts.
In China, the criminal majority is fixed at 16 years.
Mais les mineurs de 14 ans sont punissables pour certaines infractions considérées comme portant gravement atteinte à l’ordre public, comme l’homicide volontaire, les blessures graves, le viol et le trafic de drogue etc.
The penalties incurred are then lower than those provided by law. The deaf-mute and blind also benefit from this reduction.
Comme dans la plupart des systèmes juridiques, les malades mentaux qui n’ont pas eu
awareness of the scope of their actions is criminally irresponsible.
Likewise, force majeure and self-defense are exempt from liability.
En toute hypothèse, l’art. 3 du Code pénal prévoit que les infractions non intentionnelles ne
are punishable only in cases provided by law.
Most unintentional offenses are punished, but the penalties are much less.
Par exemple en matière d’homicide volontaire, la peine encourue est la mort, l’emprisonnement à vie ou un emprisonnement ne pouvant être inférieur à 10 ans. Si des circonstances atténuantes sont retenues la peine va de 10 ans d’emprisonnement à 3 ans (article 232 du code pénal). Par contre lorsque l’homicide est involontaire la peine va de 3 à 7 ans d’emprisonnement. Si des circonstances atténuantes sont
retained, the penalty ranges from 3 years to 6 months of imprisonment (article 233 and 45 of the Penal Code)
Pour toute infraction, l’accusé peut bénéficier de circonstances atténuantes, la principale cause
d’atténuation voire d’exemption de peine en cas d’infraction mineure étant la reddition
voluntary.
The Chinese Penal Code provides for five main and three accessory penalties.
The main penalties are as follows:
(i) being placed under surveillance for three months to two years, a non-custodial sentence which obliges the convicted person to submit reports on his activities and
obtain authorization for all travel;
(ii) detention from one month to 6 months, which takes place in a detention house where the convicted person is gainfully employed;
(iii) imprisonment from 6 months to 15 years;
(iv) life imprisonment;
(v) the death penalty which has been incurred since 1982 for economic offenses.
Elle peut être assortie d’un sursis à exécution de deux ans pendant la durée duquel le délinquant bénéficie d’une «réformation par le travail » et peut, s’il ne commet aucun autre crime volontaire, obtenir que sa peine soit commuée en une peine d’emprisonnement à perpétuité ou d’une durée de 15 à 20 ans.
Les Tribunaux populaires peuvent à titre accessoire, prononcer soit une peine d’amende soit la privation des droits politiques pendant une durée de un à cinq ans, soit encore la confiscation totale ou partielle des biens.
Le pouvoir judiciaire est réparti par l’art. 3 du Code de procédure pénale entre les organes de
la sécurité publique chargés de l’enquête préparatoire et de la détention préventive, les
parquets populaires qui approuvent l’arrestation, contrôle sa légalité et mettent en oeuvre
l’action publique, et les Tribunaux. Nous n’aborderons que les dispositions relatives à
l’arrestation et la détention et les principes directeurs du procès.
L’organe de sécurité publique qui souhaite procéder à une arrestation doit obtenir l’autorisation du Tribunal ou du Parquet.
In case of refusal, he can request a review.
C’est également le seul pouvoir dont il dispose lorsque le Parquet refuse d’engager des poursuites pénales suite à une enquête préliminaire.
En cas d’urgence, l’organe de sécurité publique peut détenir des personnes surprises en flagrant délit ou suspectées de crimes graves, sans y avoir été autorisé.
Dans ce cas, il doit en informer le parquet dans les trois jours et si ce dernier n’autorise pas l’arrestation, dans les trois jours, la personne détenue doit être immédiatement libérée.
La détention pendant l’enquête préliminaire ne peut excéder deux mois. Si l’enquête ne peut
être clôturée à l’issue de ce délai, le Parquet peut accorder un délai supplémentaire d’un mois.
Tel était le cas dans l’affaire du contrat d’importation, précédemment mentionnée.
L’agent commercial a été détenu pendant 12 mois sans qu’aucun chef d’inculpation ne soit retenu par le Tribunal populaire. Une première inculpation pour malversations a été transmise au Tribunal après 4 mois de détention. Le Tribunal l’ayant rejetée pour insuffisance de preuves, une nouvelle inculpation a été présentée 3 mois plus tard.
Malgré le rejet de ce second chef d’accusation, seule une libération « sous garantie pour soins médicaux » a été obtenue 5 mois plus tard. Cette libération a été rendue possible en raison de l’acquisition de la nationalité française par le détenu en sa qualité de conjoint d’une ressortissante française.
Tout accusé doit avoir communication de l’acte d’accusation au plus tard dix jours avant la date d’audience.
The right to defense is affirmed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, moreover the law of 2001 and 2008 concerning the exercise of the legal profession reaffirmed and strengthened the rights of lawyers in criminal procedure to ensure the criminal defense of their customer.
La procédure pénale est accusatoire, le débat se déroulant entre l’accusé, le procureur et
éventuellement la partie civile. Les modes de preuve usuels sont reconnus et l’aveu de l’accusé
n’a pas à lui seul de valeur probante. Les enregistrements magnétiques, qui sont d’usage très
courant en Chine, ont force probante même lorsqu’ils ont été effectués à l’insu de
l’interlocuteur.
La présomption d’innocence n’est pas reconnue par le Code de procédure pénale. Le défenseur
de l’accusé a la faculté de fournir des preuves dans le but de faire reconnaître son innocence.
In practice, counsel for the accused are often appointed by the Tribunal. They have for
mission d’encourager leur « client » à reconnaître les faits afin de faciliter la manifestation de
la vérité et de bénéficier de l’indulgence des juges.
En toute hypothèse, lorsque les juges délibèrent séance tenante, ils ont l’obligation de
communicate the judgment to the parties within five days. However, when the decision is
referred to a later hearing, copies of judgment to be issued to parties
séance tenante. Le délai d’appel ne court qu’à compter de la réception du jugement.
Nonobstant la relative indépendance des juges vis-à-vis du Parquet, l’expérience a montré qu’en matière de crimes économiques, il est difficile pour les inculpés d’établir leur bonne foi.
Il est donc vivement recommandé aux entreprises occidentales qui traitent des affaires mettant en jeu des sommes considérables de s’assurer de la légalité des opérations envisagées, tout particulièrement lorsqu’elles ont recours à des intermédiaires nationaux.
Une consultation juridique émanant de l’un des grands cabinets d’affaires chinois de la place est donc une exigence impérative, préalablement à la conclusion de tout accord.
For the past ten years we have witnessed an important debate on offenses relating to state security, criminal business law, capital punishment and the rights of the accused in criminal proceedings, all these debates have had certain positive consequences for criminal law legislation.
Il est donc important de noter que le droit pénal chinois a considérablement évolué et a connu beaucoup de progrès, on ne peut qu’espérer qu’il répondra tant aux exigences de l’évolution sociale de la Chine qu’à celles des échanges internationaux.