HENGXIN 恒信法律智库 Legal Intelligence
←  返回法律洞察

跨境涉外 · 涉外刑事

缺席审判之难，不在“缺席”，而在“审判”：法释〔2026〕11号与缺席判决的正当性条件

缺席审判常被视为追逃利器。然其制度的难点，并不在如何于被告人不在场时将其定罪，而在如何于其不在场时，仍使这场程序配得上“审判”二字。法释〔2026〕11号真正用力之处，不是让追逃更容易，而是把不在场者的权利保障做实。判得下来，不等于判得住。

跨境涉外作者 · 李睿 律师约 9 分钟阅读中 / EN 双语

《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于适用刑事缺席审判程序若干问题的规定》（法释〔2026〕11号）已自2026年5月22日起施行，共二十四条1。这是一部就缺席审判程序适用作系统细化的重要司法解释。缺席审判适用相对有限，外界多以“追逃利器”视之；然其制度难点，并不在如何于被告人不在场时将其定罪，而在如何于其不在场时，仍使这场程序配得上“审判”二字。

一名涉嫌贪污、外逃多年而滞留境外者，办案机关依缺席审判程序提起公诉并取得有罪判决，常被视为追逃的阶段性成果。惟一纸缺席判决书，其价值不在判得下来，而在判得住：它须在境外被承认与协助执行，须在被告人某日到案时经得起其异议与重新审理。法释〔2026〕11号真正用力之处，是把不在场者的权利保障做实，即辩护、质证、出境前供述的证据门槛与到案后的重新审理。这套保障，恰是缺席判决得以在域外立足、得以转化为实际追赃与协助成果的前提。

一、第二百九十一条项下的缺席审判以被告人在境外为硬约束；新规系法定案件内之操作细化，而非追逃之扩权

需先界明，本文所论限于被告人在境外的外逃型缺席审判，即刑事诉讼法第二百九十一条项下的情形；缺席审判程序另有因被告人患严重疾病、死亡而缺席审理之情形（第二百九十六条、第二百九十七条），不以人在境外为要件，不在本文讨论之列2。

外逃型缺席审判的适用范围，由刑事诉讼法第二百九十一条法定：贪污贿赂犯罪案件，以及需要及时进行审判、经最高人民检察院核准的严重危害国家安全犯罪、恐怖活动犯罪案件，且以犯罪嫌疑人、被告人在境外为共同要件3。其适用自始即受多重约束：案件类型法定，严重危害国家安全与恐怖活动案件须经最高人民检察院核准，被告人须在境外，且须经监察机关或公安机关移送起诉、人民检察院认为犯罪事实已经查清、证据确实充分、依法应当追究刑事责任。

法释〔2026〕11号并未松动这一框架。其第一条仅就“贪污贿赂犯罪案件”的外延作出界定，明确其包括刑法分则第八章规定的贪污贿赂犯罪，以及其他章节中规定依照第八章定罪处罚的犯罪4；第三条进一步明确，犯罪嫌疑人、被告人涉嫌数罪、其中部分犯罪符合缺席审判条件的，可以对该部分犯罪案件适用缺席审判程序，共同犯罪案件中部分被告人符合条件的，亦可分别适用5。其第二十四条则申明，本规定施行前发布的司法解释和规范性文件与本规定不一致的，以本规定为准6。凡此皆为适用口径之厘清与程序之精装，而非案件类型之扩张。将缺席审判想象为可对任何外逃者一体适用的追逃万能工具，是对其法定边界的误读。

二、被告人愈不在场，辩护愈不可缺位：强制法律援助使辩护权由可放弃之权利升为审判正当性之结构要件

在通常的对席审判中，辩护人是被告人意志的延伸，被告人甚至可以选择不委托辩护人而自行辩护。缺席审判则不同。刑事诉讼法第二百九十三条规定，缺席审判案件被告人有权委托辩护人，其近亲属可以代为委托；被告人及其近亲属没有委托辩护人的，人民法院应当通知法律援助机构指派律师为其提供辩护7。法释〔2026〕11号第九条进一步明确，被告人有权委托或者由其近亲属代为委托一至二名辩护人；没有委托的，由人民法院通知法律援助机构指派律师为其提供辩护8。

在被告人及其近亲属未委托辩护人的情形下，人民法院负有通知法律援助机构指派律师的法定义务，不能因被告人缺席而任由辩护空缺。其法理在于：被告人既已不在场，辩护人便是这位不在场者在法庭上唯一的对抗式存在。辩护若一并缺席，控方主张将无人质疑，所谓审判便退化为单方的缺席定罪。强制指派辩护由此将辩护从一项可因被告人不在而落空的安排，固定为审判正当性的结构要件；其意义已不止于服务某一被告人，更在于支撑缺席审判这一程序本身的正当性。

三、不在场非不质证；出境前供述之证据门槛，系缺席审判最吃紧之证据法关口

被告人不在场，并不意味着证据可以不经质证径行采纳。法释〔2026〕11号第十三条规定了缺席审判的法庭调查顺序：先由公诉人举证、辩护人发表质证意见，再由辩护人举证、公诉人发表质证意见9。质证并未因被告人缺席而取消，而是改由辩护人代为进行。

真正吃紧的，是被告人庭前供述的证据资格。我国刑事诉讼法并无“直接言词原则”或“对质权”之明文，二者属学理概念；但证据必须经过查证属实才能作为定案的根据、证人证言须经当庭质证查实方可定案，是法定的一般规则10。被告人身在境外、不在法庭，其出境之前所作的供述，无法再由其本人当庭核对、说明、反驳并接受询问。法释〔2026〕11号第十四条第二款就此设定门槛：被告人出境之前作出的供述和辩解，经庭审举证、质证等法庭调查程序查证属实的，可以作为定案的根据11。

这一条款的实质，是在被告人缺位的情形下，将对其庭前供述的检验责任，落到辩护人代为质证与法庭实质审查之上。它既是缺席审判得以认定事实的证据通道，也是这一程序在证据法上最易受诟病之处：缺席者出境前供述的证明力大小、能否支撑关键事实的认定，取决于法庭对“查证属实”的把握是实质审查，还是流于形式。对此关口的审查是否扎实，往往决定一份缺席判决的事实基础能否经得起将来的重新检验。

四、缺席判决之“未完成性”：到案重新审理与上诉权，使其在被告人到案后仍可被重新开启，此亦其域外可获承认之重要正当性来源

缺席判决并非终局而不可撼动。刑事诉讼法第二百九十四条保留了被告人及其近亲属的上诉权、辩护人经被告人或其近亲属同意提出上诉的路径，以及人民检察院认为判决确有错误时的抗诉权12；第二百九十五条更区分两种到案情形：审理过程中被告人自动投案或者被抓获的，人民法院应当重新审理；罪犯在判决、裁定发生法律效力后到案的，交付执行刑罚前，人民法院应当告知其有权对判决、裁定提出异议，罪犯提出异议的，人民法院应当重新审理13。

由是，缺席判决具有一种结构性的未完成性：审理中到案的，应当重新审理；判决生效后到案的，经告知并由其提出异议的，应当重新审理。它由此始终为被告人到案后保留着一条重新打开的通道。这一特征看似削弱了判决的确定性，却正是缺席审判正当性的重要来源之一。比较法上可资参照者，欧洲人权法院在Sejdovic诉意大利案中确立，在不能证明被告人已自愿、明确放弃出庭权的情况下，缺席受审的被告人若其后无法从法院获得对指控（事实与法律两方面）的重新审查，即构成对公正审判的违反，抵触《欧洲人权公约》第六条；惟缺席审判本身并不当然违反公正审判，前提是保障被告人获得有效辩护，以及到案后重新审理的机会14。我国刑事诉讼法第二百九十五条所设之重新审理，与这一通行立场相呼应。

域外承认与协助的意义亦系于此。当我国据缺席判决请求外国提供刑事司法协助，例如查封、扣押、冻结，没收、返还违法所得，或移管被判刑人时，被请求国所审视者，往往包括被告人的辩护权与重新审理权是否得到保障15。一份无可挽回的缺席定罪，在域外极难获得配合；而一份保留了被告人到案后重新审理空间的判决，方形成较强的正当性外观，有助于降低域外承认或协助执行的障碍。当然，域外能否获得承认与协助，最终仍取决于被请求国国内法、相关条约与个案的程序保障；引渡、遣返则另循相关条约与合作安排，不在前述司法协助事项之列。所谓未完成，于此非但不是缺陷，反而构成其域外立足的条件之一。

五、专业判断之所在：非“可否缺席而判”，而在“此判域外可否立足、当事人到案可否撼动”

明乎以上，缺席审判中真正的专业较量，便不在能否于被告人不在时将其定罪，而在这份判决在域外站不站得住、在当事人到案时撼不撼得动。较量的焦点，由实体上的是否定罪，前移至程序上的是否经得起将来的重新检验。

就追诉一方而言，缺席判决的重要实务价值，在于其能否支持后续的域外司法协助、追赃与人员处置安排。判决要能借由国际刑事司法协助转化为实际成果，须有相应配套：《国际刑事司法协助法》将查封、扣押、冻结，没收、返还违法所得，移管被判刑人等列为协助事项16；刑事诉讼法第二百九十八条以下另设违法所得没收程序，于犯罪嫌疑人、被告人逃匿、通缉一年后不能到案或者死亡等情形下适用17。然此等配套能否兑现，又回到前述程序保障是否到位这一前提。就辩护一方而言，着力点亦随之前移：除实体抗辩外，辩护方尤应审查缺席审判的适用是否合于法定案件范围、出境前供述的证据门槛是否真正达到查证属实、强制法律援助之下的辩护是否实质有效，并为当事人将来到案后的重新审理保留空间。

新规以二十四条把不在场者的权利保障逐一做实。缺席判决能否判得住，最终取决于这些保障在个案中是否真正兑现：辩护是否实质有效，出境前供述是否经得起实质质证，到案后的重新审理是否留有空间。这些，才是缺席审判这场程序真正的重量所在。

本文为一般性实务说明，所引法律及司法解释以现行有效文本为准，不构成针对个案的法律意见；具体案件之缺席审判适用、证据采信与域外承认协助，须结合案件类型、所涉法域、条约与司法协助安排逐案核查。

作者与团队 · Author & Team

  • 李睿 Li Rui
    李睿Li Rui德恒深圳合伙人 · 德恒深圳恒信律师团队（本文作者）办理刑事缺席审判程序与外逃型缺席审判的适用、缺席审判中的强制法律援助与辩护权保障、出境前供述的证据门槛与辩护人代为质证、到案后重新审理与缺席判决正当性、缺席判决的域外承认与国际刑事司法协助、违法所得没收程序与跨境追逃追赃，以及涉外刑事辩护与跨境执行等事项。
  • 肖黄鹤 Xiao Huanghe
    肖黄鹤Xiao Huanghe德恒全球合伙人内地与香港跨法域交易、跨境争议解决与判决执行、涉港数据跨境合规
  • 林博 Lin Bo
    林博Lin Bo德恒深圳合伙人商事交易安排、公司相关争议解决
  • 邓兆文 Deng Zhaowen
    邓兆文Deng Zhaowen香港执业律师 · 德恒深圳大湾区执业律师普通法、涉港执行与争议解决
  • 苏影彤 Su Yingtong
    苏影彤Su Yingtong德恒深圳执业律师刑事辩护、投融资争议解决

脚注 · Notes

  1. 《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于适用刑事缺席审判程序若干问题的规定》（法释〔2026〕11号），2026年5月21日发布，自2026年5月22日起施行，共二十四条。来源：最高人民法院 court.gov.cn、最高人民检察院 spp.gov.cn 官网全文。↩
  2. 《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》（2018年修正）第二百九十六条（被告人患严重疾病、中止审理超过六个月仍无法出庭，经申请或同意后的缺席审理）、第二百九十七条（被告人死亡案件的处理）。此二者不以被告人在境外为要件，与本文所论第二百九十一条项下的外逃型缺席审判性质不同，不在本文讨论范围。↩
  3. 《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》（2018年修正）第二百九十一条第一款：对于贪污贿赂犯罪案件，以及需要及时进行审判、经最高人民检察院核准的严重危害国家安全犯罪、恐怖活动犯罪案件，犯罪嫌疑人、被告人在境外，监察机关、公安机关移送起诉，人民检察院认为犯罪事实已经查清，证据确实、充分，依法应当追究刑事责任的，可以向人民法院提起公诉。↩
  4. 法释〔2026〕11号第一条：刑事诉讼法第二百九十一条第一款规定的“贪污贿赂犯罪案件”，包括刑法分则第八章规定的贪污贿赂犯罪案件，以及其他章节中规定依照第八章的规定定罪处罚的犯罪案件。↩
  5. 法释〔2026〕11号第三条：犯罪嫌疑人、被告人涉嫌犯数罪，其中部分犯罪符合缺席审判程序适用条件的，可以对该部分犯罪案件适用缺席审判程序；共同犯罪案件中部分被告人符合条件的，亦可分别适用。↩
  6. 法释〔2026〕11号第二十四条：本规定自2026年5月22日起施行；本规定施行前发布的司法解释和规范性文件与本规定不一致的，以本规定为准。↩
  7. 《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第二百九十三条：人民法院缺席审判案件，被告人有权委托辩护人，被告人的近亲属可以代为委托辩护人。被告人及其近亲属没有委托辩护人的，人民法院应当通知法律援助机构指派律师为其提供辩护。↩
  8. 法释〔2026〕11号第九条：缺席审判案件，被告人有权委托或者由其近亲属代为委托一至二名辩护人；被告人及其近亲属没有委托辩护人的，人民法院应当通知法律援助机构指派律师为被告人提供辩护。↩
  9. 法释〔2026〕11号第十三条第（三）项：法庭依次就起诉书指控的犯罪事实、量刑情节、涉案财物等进行法庭调查；调查时，先由公诉人举证，辩护人发表质证意见，再由辩护人举证，公诉人发表质证意见。即被告人缺席时，质证由辩护人代为进行。↩
  10. 《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第五十五条（证据必须经过查证属实，才能作为定案的根据）、第六十一条（证人证言必须在法庭上经过公诉人、被害人和被告人、辩护人双方质证并且查实以后，才能作为定案的根据）。“直接言词原则”“对质权”为学理概念，现行刑事诉讼法及司法解释均无明文，本文涉及二者时仅作法理讨论。↩
  11. 法释〔2026〕11号第十四条第二款：被告人出境之前作出的供述和辩解，经庭审举证、质证等法庭调查程序查证属实的，可以作为定案的根据。↩
  12. 《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第二百九十四条：人民法院进行缺席审判，应当将判决书送达被告人及其近亲属、辩护人。被告人或者其近亲属不服判决的，有权向上一级人民法院上诉。辩护人经被告人或者其近亲属同意，可以提出上诉。人民检察院认为人民法院的判决确有错误的，应当向上一级人民法院提出抗诉。↩
  13. 《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第二百九十五条：在审理过程中，被告人自动投案或者被抓获的，人民法院应当重新审理。罪犯在判决、裁定发生法律效力后到案的，人民法院应当将罪犯交付执行刑罚。交付执行刑罚前，人民法院应当告知罪犯有权对判决、裁定提出异议。罪犯提出异议的，人民法院应当重新审理。依照缺席审判程序作出的判决、裁定对涉案财物的处理确有错误的，应当予以返还、赔偿。↩
  14. Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, ECtHR, 1 March 2006（比较法参考）。该案确立：在不能证明被告人已自愿、明确放弃出庭权的情况下，缺席受审的被告人享有到案后对指控（事实与法律两方面）获得重新审查的权利，否则违反《欧洲人权公约》第六条；缺席审判本身并不当然违反公正审判，前提是有效辩护与到案后重新审理的机会。判决段落原文直引前另核 HUDOC 全文。↩
  15. 域外承认与协助的具体标准，取决于被请求国国内法、相关双边或多边条约及个案的程序保障，本文所述系一般原理。↩
  16. 《中华人民共和国国际刑事司法协助法》（2018年10月26日通过并施行）第二条（协助范围含送达文书、调查取证、查封扣押冻结涉案财物、没收返还违法所得及其他涉案财物、移管被判刑人等）及第七章（没收、返还违法所得及其他涉案财物）、第八章（移管被判刑人）。引渡、遣返不属该法协助事项，另循相关条约与合作安排。↩
  17. 《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第五编特别程序第四章“犯罪嫌疑人、被告人逃匿、死亡案件违法所得的没收程序”，第二百九十八条以下；其逃匿类型以通缉一年后不能到案为条件。↩

常见问题 · FAQ

Q：缺席审判是不是“追逃利器”，只要人在境外就能缺席判？
李睿律师：不是。外逃型缺席审判限于刑事诉讼法第二百九十一条项下的法定情形：贪污贿赂犯罪案件，以及需要及时审判并经最高人民检察院核准的严重危害国家安全犯罪、恐怖活动犯罪案件，且以犯罪嫌疑人、被告人在境外为共同要件。法释〔2026〕11号只在这一法定范围内细化适用口径：第一条界定“贪污贿赂犯罪案件”的外延，第三条明确数罪中部分犯罪、共同犯罪中部分被告人可分别适用，第二十四条规定施行与冲突规则，并未扩张案件类型。把它想象成可对任何外逃者一体适用的万能工具，是对其法定边界的误读。
Q：被告人不在场，他出境之前作的供述能直接作为定罪依据吗？
李睿律师：不能直接采纳。被告人不在场不等于证据可以不经质证。依法释〔2026〕11号第十三条，缺席审判的法庭调查仍按举证、质证的顺序进行，质证改由辩护人代为进行；第十四条第二款进一步规定，被告人出境之前作出的供述和辩解，须经庭审举证、质证等法庭调查程序查证属实，方可作为定案的根据。这一关口最为吃紧：缺席者的庭前供述无法由其本人当庭核对、说明、反驳，其证明力大小取决于法庭对“查证属实”的把握是实质审查还是流于形式。
Q：缺席判决判下来之后，被告人到案了还能推翻吗？这样的判决在境外能执行吗？
李睿律师：缺席判决具有结构性的“未完成性”。刑事诉讼法第二百九十五条区分两种到案情形：审理过程中被告人投案或被抓获的，应当重新审理；判决、裁定生效后到案的，交付执行刑罚前应告知其有权提出异议，罪犯提出异议的，应当重新审理。正是这种到案后可重新审理，加之强制法律援助下的有效辩护，使缺席判决在请求域外承认与刑事司法协助（送达、查封扣押冻结、没收返还违法所得、移管被判刑人，见《国际刑事司法协助法》）时更具正当性外观。但能否获得承认与协助，最终取决于被请求国国内法、相关条约与个案的程序保障；引渡、遣返另循相关条约与合作安排。

知识锚点 · Knowledge anchors

  • 刑事缺席审判程序 · 法释〔2026〕11号
  • 外逃型缺席审判 · 刑诉法第291条
  • 强制法律援助 · 缺席审判辩护权
  • 出境前供述 · 证据门槛 · 辩护人代为质证
  • 到案后重新审理 · 刑诉法第295条
  • 缺席判决的域外承认与协助执行
  • 国际刑事司法协助 · 违法所得没收程序 · 追逃追赃
←  Back to insights

Cross-border · Cross-border Criminal

The Difficulty of Trial in Absentia Lies Not in the “Absence” but in the “Trial”: Fa Shi [2026] No. 11 and the Conditions of Legitimacy of a Judgment in Absentia

Trial in absentia is often seen as a tool for pursuing fugitives. Yet the difficulty of the institution lies not in how to convict the accused while he is absent, but in how, in his absence, to make the proceeding still deserve the name of a “trial.” What Fa Shi [2026] No. 11 truly works at is not making pursuit easier, but making real the rights of the one not present. To secure a conviction is not the same as to make it hold.

Cross-borderBy Li Rui9 min read中 / EN bilingual

The Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Questions Concerning the Application of the Criminal Trial-in-Absentia Procedure (Fa Shi [2026] No. 11) took effect on 22 May 2026 and comprise twenty-four articles1. It is an important judicial interpretation that systematically refines the application of the trial-in-absentia procedure. The procedure is of relatively limited application, and is widely regarded as a “weapon for pursuing fugitives”; yet the difficulty of the institution lies not in how to convict the accused while he is absent, but in how, in his absence, to make the proceeding still deserve the name of a “trial.”

Where a person suspected of embezzlement, who has fled and remained abroad for years, is prosecuted under the trial-in-absentia procedure and a conviction is obtained, this is often taken as a milestone in the pursuit. But the value of a judgment in absentia lies not in its being handed down, but in its holding: it must be recognised and assisted in enforcement abroad, and it must withstand the objection and the retrial of the accused on the day he surrenders. What Fa Shi [2026] No. 11 truly works at is making real the rights of the one not present — defence, the challenge of evidence, the evidentiary threshold for pre-departure confessions, and retrial upon surrender. It is precisely this set of safeguards that allows a judgment in absentia to gain a footing abroad and to be turned into actual recovery of assets and cooperative outcomes.

I. Trial in absentia under Article 291 takes the accused’s being abroad as a hard constraint; the new Provisions refine application within the statutory categories of cases, rather than expanding the pursuit

A boundary must first be drawn. This article concerns only the “fugitive” type of trial in absentia, in which the accused is abroad, that is, the situation under Article 291 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The trial-in-absentia procedure also covers cases tried in the accused’s absence because of his serious illness or death (Articles 296 and 297), which do not take being abroad as a requirement and are outside the scope of this article2.

The scope of the fugitive type of trial in absentia is fixed by Article 291 of the Criminal Procedure Law: cases of embezzlement and bribery, and cases of crimes seriously endangering national security or of terrorist activities that require timely trial and have been approved by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, with the common requirement that the suspect or defendant be abroad3. Its application is from the outset subject to multiple constraints: the categories of cases are fixed by statute; cases of serious endangerment of national security and of terrorist activities require the approval of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate; the accused must be abroad; and the matter must have been transferred for prosecution by the supervisory or public-security authority, with the People’s Procuratorate of the view that the facts of the crime have been clarified, the evidence is reliable and sufficient, and criminal responsibility is to be pursued according to law.

Fa Shi [2026] No. 11 does not loosen this framework. Its Article 1 merely defines the extension of “cases of embezzlement and bribery,” making clear that it includes the crimes of embezzlement and bribery provided in Chapter Eight of the Specific Provisions of the Criminal Law, as well as crimes provided in other chapters that are convicted and punished according to Chapter Eight4; Article 3 further provides that where a suspect or defendant is charged with several crimes, part of which meet the conditions for trial in absentia, the procedure may be applied to that part of the case, and where, in a case of joint crime, some defendants meet the conditions, the procedure may be applied to them respectively5. Its Article 24 then declares that, where judicial interpretations and normative documents issued before the Provisions take effect are inconsistent with the Provisions, the Provisions shall prevail6. All of this is a clarification of the criteria of application and a refinement of procedure, not an expansion of the categories of cases. To imagine trial in absentia as an all-purpose weapon of pursuit applicable uniformly to any fugitive is to misread its statutory boundaries.

II. The more absent the accused, the less the defence may be absent: mandatory legal aid raises the right to defence from a waivable right to a structural requirement of the trial’s legitimacy

In an ordinary trial held in the defendant’s presence, the defender is an extension of the defendant’s will, and the defendant may even choose to retain no defender and defend himself. Trial in absentia is different. Article 293 of the Criminal Procedure Law provides that in a case tried in absentia the defendant has the right to retain a defender, and his close relatives may retain one on his behalf; where neither the defendant nor his close relatives has retained a defender, the People’s Court shall notify a legal-aid institution to assign a lawyer to defend him7. Fa Shi [2026] No. 11, in Article 9, further makes clear that the defendant has the right to retain, or to have his close relatives retain on his behalf, one or two defenders; where none has been retained, the People’s Court shall notify a legal-aid institution to assign a lawyer to defend him8.

Where neither the defendant nor his close relatives has retained a defender, the People’s Court is under a statutory duty to notify a legal-aid institution to assign a lawyer, and may not leave the defence empty merely because the defendant is absent. The reason in principle is this: the defendant being already absent, the defender is the only adversarial presence of that absent person in the courtroom. Were the defence also to be absent, the prosecution’s case would go unchallenged, and what is called a trial would decline into a one-sided conviction in absentia. Mandatory assignment of defence thus fixes the defence, from an arrangement that might lapse because the defendant is away, into a structural requirement of the trial’s legitimacy; its significance lies no longer only in serving a particular defendant, but in upholding the legitimacy of the trial-in-absentia procedure itself.

III. Absence is not the abandonment of challenge; the evidentiary threshold for pre-departure confessions is the most exacting gate of the law of evidence in a trial in absentia

That the accused is absent does not mean that evidence may be admitted without being challenged. Article 13 of Fa Shi [2026] No. 11 prescribes the order of the court investigation in a trial in absentia: the public prosecutor first adduces evidence and the defender states his views in challenge, and then the defender adduces evidence and the public prosecutor states his views in challenge9. The challenge of evidence is not abolished because the defendant is absent; it is instead conducted by the defender on his behalf.

What is truly exacting is the evidentiary standing of the defendant’s pre-trial statements. Our Criminal Procedure Law has no express provision for a “principle of directness and orality” or a “right of confrontation,” both of which are doctrinal concepts; but that evidence may serve as a basis for deciding a case only after being verified as true, and that witness testimony may serve as such a basis only after being challenged and verified in court, are general rules fixed by statute10. The accused being abroad and not in court, the statements he made before leaving the territory can no longer be checked, explained, rebutted or questioned by him in person at the hearing. Article 14, paragraph 2, of Fa Shi [2026] No. 11 sets a threshold for this: confessions and defences made by the accused before leaving the territory may serve as a basis for deciding the case only where they have been verified as true through the adducing and challenge of evidence and other court-investigation procedures at the hearing11.

The substance of this provision is that, where the defendant is absent, the responsibility of testing his pre-trial statements falls upon the defender’s challenge on his behalf and the court’s substantive examination. It is at once the evidentiary channel by which a trial in absentia can find the facts, and the point at which the procedure is most open to criticism in the law of evidence: how much probative force the absent person’s pre-departure confession carries, and whether it can support the finding of key facts, turns on whether the court’s grasp of “verified as true” is a substantive examination or a mere formality. Whether the scrutiny at this gate is solid often decides whether the factual foundation of a judgment in absentia can withstand re-examination in the future.

IV. The “unfinished” quality of a judgment in absentia: retrial upon surrender and the right of appeal keep it a judgment that may still be reopened after the accused surrenders — which is also an important source of its legitimacy for recognition abroad

A judgment in absentia is not final and unshakeable. Article 294 of the Criminal Procedure Law preserves the right of appeal of the defendant and his close relatives, the avenue for the defender to appeal with the consent of the defendant or his close relatives, and the procuratorate’s right of protest where it considers the judgment to be in error12; Article 295 further distinguishes two situations of surrender: where, in the course of the trial, the defendant voluntarily surrenders or is apprehended, the People’s Court shall retry the case; where the offender surrenders after the judgment or ruling has taken legal effect, the People’s Court shall, before delivering him for execution of the sentence, inform him that he has the right to object to the judgment or ruling, and where the offender objects, the People’s Court shall retry the case13.

Hence a judgment in absentia has a structural unfinished quality: where the accused surrenders during the trial, the case shall be retried; where he surrenders after the judgment has taken effect, and, having been informed, raises an objection, the case shall be retried. It thus keeps open, for the accused, a channel that may be reopened after he surrenders. This feature seems to weaken the certainty of the judgment, yet it is precisely one of the important sources of the legitimacy of trial in absentia. A comparative reference may be drawn from the European Court of Human Rights in Sejdovic v. Italy, which held that, where it cannot be shown that the accused had voluntarily and unequivocally waived his right to appear, a person tried in absentia who is afterwards unable to obtain from a court a fresh determination of the merits of the charge against him, in both fact and law, suffers a violation of the right to a fair trial contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; trial in absentia does not in itself offend the right to a fair trial, provided that the accused is guaranteed effective defence and the opportunity of a retrial upon surrender14. The retrial provided in Article 295 of our Criminal Procedure Law echoes this prevailing position.

The significance for recognition and assistance abroad also rests here. When, on the strength of a judgment in absentia, China requests a foreign state to provide criminal judicial assistance — for instance, sealing, seizure or freezing, the confiscation or return of unlawful gains, or the transfer of a sentenced person — what the requested state examines often includes whether the accused’s right to defence and right to a retrial have been safeguarded15. An irreversible conviction in absentia is exceedingly hard to obtain cooperation for abroad; whereas a judgment that has preserved room for the accused to be retried upon surrender presents a stronger appearance of legitimacy, helping to lower the obstacles to recognition or assistance in enforcement abroad. Of course, whether recognition and assistance can be obtained abroad still depends, in the end, on the domestic law of the requested state, the relevant treaties and the procedural safeguards in the individual case; extradition and repatriation follow their own treaties and cooperation arrangements and are not among the assistance matters just mentioned. The so-called unfinished quality is here not a defect but one of the very conditions of the judgment’s footing abroad.

V. Where professional judgment lies: not “whether one may convict in absentia,” but “whether this judgment can stand abroad and whether the client can shake it upon surrender”

Once this is grasped, the true professional contest in a trial in absentia lies not in whether the accused can be convicted while away, but in whether this judgment can stand abroad and whether it can be shaken when the client surrenders. The focus of the contest moves forward, from whether there is a conviction on the substance, to whether the procedure can withstand re-examination in the future.

For the prosecuting side, the important practical value of a judgment in absentia lies in whether it can support subsequent judicial assistance abroad, the recovery of assets, and arrangements for dealing with persons. For a judgment to be turned, through international criminal judicial assistance, into an actual outcome, the corresponding support is needed: the International Criminal Judicial Assistance Law lists sealing, seizure and freezing, the confiscation and return of unlawful gains, and the transfer of sentenced persons among the matters of assistance16; and the Criminal Procedure Law, from Article 298 onward, sets up a separate procedure for the confiscation of unlawful gains, applicable where the suspect or defendant has fled and cannot be brought to justice within one year of being placed on a wanted list, or has died17. Whether such support can be realised returns, again, to the premise of whether the procedural safeguards above are in place. For the defence side, the point of effort moves forward accordingly: beyond contesting the substance, the defence should especially examine whether the application of trial in absentia conforms to the statutory categories of cases, whether the evidentiary threshold for pre-departure confessions has truly been met as “verified as true,” and whether the defence under mandatory legal aid is substantively effective, and should preserve room for the client’s future retrial upon surrender.

The new Provisions, in twenty-four articles, make real, one by one, the rights of the one not present. Whether a judgment in absentia can hold turns, in the end, on whether these safeguards are truly realised in the individual case: whether the defence is substantively effective, whether the pre-departure confession can withstand substantive challenge, and whether room is left for retrial upon surrender. These are where the real weight of this proceeding lies.

This article is general information on practice only; the laws and judicial interpretations referred to are subject to their currently effective texts, and it does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter. The application of trial in absentia, the admission of evidence, and recognition and assistance abroad in any particular case must be verified case by case against the category of the case, the jurisdiction involved, and the relevant treaty and judicial-assistance arrangements.

Author & Team

  • 李睿 Li Rui
    Li RuiPartner, DeHeng Shenzhen · DeHeng Shenzhen Hengxin Legal Team (author)Handles the criminal trial-in-absentia procedure and the fugitive-type trial in absentia, mandatory legal aid and the safeguarding of defence rights in trials in absentia, the evidentiary threshold for pre-departure confessions and the defender’s challenge of evidence on the defendant’s behalf, retrial upon surrender and the legitimacy of judgments in absentia, the recognition of judgments in absentia abroad and international criminal judicial assistance, the procedure for confiscation of unlawful gains and cross-border recovery of fugitives and assets, as well as cross-border criminal defence and cross-border enforcement.
  • 肖黄鹤 Xiao Huanghe
    Xiao HuangheGlobal Partner, DeHengPRC–Hong Kong cross-jurisdiction transactions, cross-border dispute resolution and enforcement, outbound data compliance
  • 林博 Lin Bo
    Lin BoPartner, DeHeng ShenzhenCommercial transaction structuring and corporate disputes
  • 邓兆文 Deng Zhaowen
    Deng ZhaowenPractising Solicitor (HK) · GBA Lawyer, DeHeng ShenzhenCommon law, Hong Kong-related enforcement and disputes
  • 苏影彤 Su Yingtong
    Su YingtongPractising Lawyer, DeHeng ShenzhenCriminal defence, investment and financing disputes

FAQ

Q: Is trial in absentia a “weapon for pursuing fugitives” — so that anyone abroad can be convicted in absentia?
Li Rui: No. The fugitive type of trial in absentia is confined to the statutory situations under Article 291 of the Criminal Procedure Law: cases of embezzlement and bribery, and cases of crimes seriously endangering national security or of terrorist activities that require timely trial and have been approved by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, with the common requirement that the suspect or defendant be abroad. Fa Shi [2026] No. 11 only refines the criteria of application within this statutory scope: Article 1 defines the extension of “cases of embezzlement and bribery,” Article 3 makes clear that the procedure may be applied separately to part of the crimes in a multi-crime case or to some defendants in a joint crime, and Article 24 governs entry into force and conflicts; it does not expand the categories of cases. To imagine it as an all-purpose tool applicable uniformly to any fugitive is to misread its statutory boundaries.
Q: With the accused absent, can the confessions he made before leaving the territory be used directly as a basis for conviction?
Li Rui: Not directly. The accused’s absence does not mean evidence may be admitted without challenge. Under Article 13 of Fa Shi [2026] No. 11, the court investigation in a trial in absentia still proceeds by adducing and challenging evidence, with the challenge conducted by the defender on the defendant’s behalf; Article 14, paragraph 2, further provides that confessions and defences made before leaving the territory may serve as a basis for deciding the case only after being verified as true through the adducing and challenge of evidence at the hearing. This is the most exacting gate: the absent person’s pre-trial statements cannot be checked, explained or rebutted by him in person, and their probative force turns on whether the court’s grasp of “verified as true” is a substantive examination or a mere formality.
Q: After a judgment in absentia is handed down, can it still be overturned when the accused surrenders? And can such a judgment be enforced abroad?
Li Rui: A judgment in absentia has a structural “unfinished” quality. Article 295 of the Criminal Procedure Law distinguishes two situations of surrender: where the defendant surrenders or is apprehended during the trial, the case shall be retried; where he surrenders after the judgment or ruling has taken effect, he shall, before being delivered for execution, be informed of his right to object, and where he objects, the case shall be retried. It is precisely this retrial upon surrender, together with effective defence under mandatory legal aid, that gives a judgment in absentia a stronger appearance of legitimacy when recognition and criminal judicial assistance are sought abroad (service, sealing/seizure/freezing, confiscation and return of unlawful gains, transfer of sentenced persons — see the International Criminal Judicial Assistance Law). But whether recognition and assistance can be obtained depends, in the end, on the domestic law of the requested state, the relevant treaties and the procedural safeguards in the individual case; extradition and repatriation follow their own treaties and cooperation arrangements.

Knowledge anchors

  • Criminal trial-in-absentia procedure · Fa Shi [2026] No. 11
  • Fugitive-type trial in absentia · CPL Article 291
  • Mandatory legal aid · right to defence in absentia
  • Pre-departure confessions · evidentiary threshold · challenge by defender
  • Retrial upon surrender · CPL Article 295
  • Recognition and assistance in enforcement of judgments in absentia abroad
  • International criminal judicial assistance · confiscation of unlawful gains · fugitive and asset recovery

— Contact

一桩涉外刑事案件，或一份缺席判决的域外可执行性，
想先听一个独立的专业判断？A cross-border criminal matter, or the enforceability abroad of a judgment in absentia —
and you want an independent read first?

李睿 律师 · Li Rui[email protected] 肖黄鹤 律师 · Xiao Huanghe[email protected]