境外取得的证据，是不是一概不能在中国刑事审判中使用？

不是。“境外取得”本身既非排除证据的事由，也非豁免审查的理由。证据能否作为定案根据，首先是证据能力问题，须经查证属实；境外证据的特殊在于其来源与合法性须接受有别于境内证据的审查。依《最高人民法院关于适用刑事诉讼法的解释》第七十七条，对来自境外的证据材料应随案移送来源、提供人、提取人、提取时间等说明，经审查能够证明案件事实且符合刑事诉讼法规定的，可作为证据使用；材料来源不明或真实性无法确认的，不得作为定案根据。决定其命运的不是取自境外，而是循何渠道取得、能否经得起来源与合法性审查。

为什么跨境取证要走国际刑事司法协助，能不能直接派人去境外取证？

因为取证是公权力的行使、系主权的延伸，一国侦查权止于本国法域之边，不能径直伸入另一法域。《中华人民共和国国际刑事司法协助法》确立主权保留原则：非经我国主管机关同意，外国机构组织个人不得在我国境内进行该法规定的刑事诉讼活动，我国境内机构组织个人亦不得向外国提供证据材料和协助。向境外调取证据须经请求与许可程序，由主管机关循该法第四章渠道提出。绕开协助通道、径自越境取得的材料，其合法性根基自始可疑。

当事人或辩护人自己从境外取得对己有利的材料，要办哪些手续才能被法院采纳？

当事人及其辩护人、诉讼代理人提供来自境外的证据材料，应当经所在国公证机关证明，经所在国中央外交主管机关或其授权机关认证，并经我国驻该国使领馆认证；或履行我国与该国所订条约规定的证明手续；我国与该国之间订有互免认证协定的除外。涉外文字者应附中文译本。手续不备则形式要件有亏，纵内容为真亦难径行采纳。是否需要公证认证、走哪条途径，须结合所涉法域与条约安排逐案判断。

← 返回法律洞察

跨境涉外 · 刑事证据

境外取得的证据，能用于中国刑事审判吗：可否采用，取决于循何渠道取得，而非取自何地

一份境外材料能否进入中国法庭，真正的分界从来不是它取自境外，而是它由谁取得、循哪条渠道而来。取证系主权之延伸，止于法域之边；这一条边界，既决定数据要不要按“出境”合规，也决定一份证据能否跨越法域、进入审判。

跨境涉外作者 · 肖黄鹤律师约 8 分钟阅读中 / EN 双语

随着案件越来越多地牵出境外的人、财、数据，办案一方时常会拿到一份形成于境外的材料：一份境外银行的流水、一段存放于境外服务器的通讯记录，或一位身在境外的证人的陈述。常见的第一反应是，事实既已清楚、材料又在手中，呈交法庭即可。然而材料在手并不等于能够进入审判。它从哪一条渠道而来、由谁取得、来源能否说清、是否经过法定的转递与认证，决定了它究竟是定案的根据，抑或连证据资格都不具备。

本文要厘清的，正是这条常被忽略的分界。它的根，与跨境数据合规同出一脉：决定一笔数据要否按“出境”处理者，是它有没有越过法域的边界；决定一份证据能否进入中国审判者，则是它在跨越法域边界时，循的是不是一条经主权许可的通道。前者已在另文论及，本文沿同一条“法域之境”，转入刑事证据。

一、“境外取得”并非排除事由；可否用于审判，取决于证据能力而非取证地点

实务中存在两种方向相反、却同样失之轻率的认识。一种以为，凡取自境外的材料，因不合我国侦查程序，便一概不能在中国法庭使用；另一种以为，只要材料客观真实、足以说明事实，取自何处皆无妨，到手即可呈交。两者都把问题问错了。

证据能否作为定案的根据，首先是一个证据能力的问题。依《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》，可以用于证明案件事实的材料都是证据，惟证据必须经过查证属实，方能作为定案的根据¹。这一要求并不因材料形成于境内或境外而有别。就此而言，“境外取得”本身既非排除证据的事由，亦非豁免审查的理由。

境外证据的特殊，不在于它取自异地，而在于它的合法性与来源须接受一套有别于境内证据的审查。《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法〉的解释》对来自境外的证据材料设有专门规定：人民检察院应当随案移送材料来源、提供人、提取人、提取时间等情况的说明，经人民法院审查，相关证据材料能够证明案件事实且符合刑事诉讼法规定的，方可作为证据使用；材料来源不明或者真实性无法确认的，不得作为定案的根据²。审查的重心，由此落在材料的来源与渠道，而非它形成于何地。明乎此，问题便从“境外的证据能不能用”，转为“这一份境外材料，循的是哪一条渠道、能否经得起来源与合法性的审查”。

二、取证系主权行为，止于法域之边；跨境取证须借道刑事司法协助这一经许可之通道

何以一份境外材料的渠道如此要紧？根由在于，取证并非纯粹的事实搜集，而是公权力的行使，系主权的延伸。一国的侦查权止于本国的法域之边，不能径直伸入另一法域。一方的侦查机关若未经对方许可，便在对方境内讯问、搜查、调取，所触动的已不止于程序瑕疵，而是另一法域的主权。

正因如此，国家之间的跨境取证须借道一条经彼此许可的通道，这条通道即国际刑事司法协助。《中华人民共和国国际刑事司法协助法》所称的国际刑事司法协助，指中华人民共和国和外国在刑事案件办理活动中相互提供协助，调查取证即在其列³。该法进而确立了一条主权保留的原则：非经中华人民共和国主管机关同意，外国机构、组织和个人不得在中华人民共和国境内进行本法规定的刑事诉讼活动，中华人民共和国境内的机构、组织和个人亦不得向外国提供证据材料和本法规定的协助⁴。这一条款双向而立，其要旨在于取证权不得越界自专；向境外调取证据，须经请求与许可的程序，由主管机关循该法第四章所定的渠道提出⁵。

由此可知，绕开协助通道、由一方径自越境取得的材料，其合法性的根基自始可疑。沿同一条“法域之境”的线索看去，跨境数据合规所约束的，是数据这一客体越过法域边界时的路径与义务；跨境取证所约束的，是侦查这一行为越过法域边界时的许可与渠道。一为客体之流动，一为公权之行使，落点却同在法域那一条边界之上。

三、同一材料，三种渠道，三种命运：官方协助、当事人自行提供、径自越境取证，证据能力依次递减

把上述原理落到实务，最清晰的呈现是：同一份境外材料，因取得渠道不同，证据能力的命运迥异。大体可分三途。

其一，经官方刑事司法协助渠道取得。此途由办案机关循请求与许可的程序，自境外主管机关处取得，是法域边界所许可的正途。这类材料移送时附有来源、提供人、提取人、提取时间等说明，经法院审查，能够证明案件事实且符合刑事诉讼法规定的，可作为证据使用²。惟其使用并非全无拘束：提供人或者我国与有关国家签订的双边条约对材料使用范围另有明确限制的，从其限制²；且就外国请求而言，将经协助取得的证据用于请求所针对案件以外的其他目的，尚须另经主管机关同意⁶，此即国际司法协助上的专用之义。

其二，由当事人及其辩护人、诉讼代理人自行提供。此途常见于辩方自境外取得对己有利的材料。司法解释对其设有明确的形式要件：该证据材料应当经所在国公证机关证明，所在国中央外交主管机关或者其授权机关认证，并经中华人民共和国驻该国使领馆认证，或者履行我国与该所在国订立的有关条约中规定的证明手续，惟我国与该国之间订有互免认证协定者除外⁷。手续不备，则形式要件有亏，纵其内容为真，亦难径行采纳。涉外文字者，并应附中文译本⁸。

其三，由侦查一方绕过协助渠道、径自越境取得。此途的合法性根基最为薄弱，盖其取证行为本身已逾法域之边、未经对方主权许可。其所得材料一旦回到审判，既要面对来源合法性之诘问，亦须接受非法证据排除规则的检视：以刑讯逼供等非法方法取得的供述，以暴力、威胁等非法方法取得的证人证言、被害人陈述，应当予以排除；收集物证、书证不符合法定程序，可能严重影响司法公正，不能补正或者作出合理解释的，亦应排除⁹。

三途相较可见，决定一份境外材料命运的，并非它取自境外这一事实，而是它越过法域边界时所循的那一道门。择门得正，材料可成定案的根据；择门有误，纵事实为真，亦可能止步于证据资格之外。

四、合法性审查的特殊尺度：不以“是否契合我国侦查程序”为唯一标尺，而审来源、手续与对被追诉人权利之侵害

境外证据的合法性审查，自有其特殊的尺度。取证行为既发生于境外、依据的是所在法域的程序，若强求其逐一对齐我国侦查程序的每一细节，既不合实际，亦非法律本意。实务中通常的做法，是审查证据来源是否清楚、转递与认证手续是否齐备、移交保管与转换的过程是否连续规范，以及真实性能否确认；对经由刑事司法协助正途取得的证据，一般不因其“未契合我国侦查程序”而径予排除¹⁰。

然此种宽缓并非无边。学理与检察机关系统的刊文亦指出，对严重违反我国刑事诉讼法基本原则、严重侵害被追诉人权利，或者经补正仍不能确认真实性的境外证据，仍应排除¹⁰。合法性审查之所谓特殊，是审查的标尺有别，而非审查本身的放弃：所宽者，在于不以本国侦查程序为唯一对照；所守者，则是来源、真实与对被追诉人基本权利之保障，仍须一一过问。

五、专业判断之所在：为一份境外材料择定渠道与档位，而非到手即用

回到开篇那一份境外材料。真正决定它能否进入审判的，往往不在到手之后的辩说，而在取得之前的择路。同一项境外事实，事前择定正途，由办案机关请求司法协助，或指导当事人办妥公证与认证，与到手之后方才发觉渠道错置、手续阙如，结果判若两途：循正途者，得一份可用于定案的证据；错置渠道者，所余或仅是一叠不具证据资格的材料。

这正是专业判断的价值所在。它不在于背诵境外证据的种种规则，而在于为一份具体的境外材料，准确判断其应循的渠道、应备的手续与可能受到的使用限制，并据以在取证之前作出安排。

这份判断所产出的，与其说是一摞盖章的材料，毋宁说是一份经得起合法性复核的取证路径与证据能力评估；专业之所在，不在到手之后的辩说，而在取得之前的择路。

本文所陈，是判断的框架，而非某一具体材料的结论。一份境外材料究竟能否采用、应循何途，仍须结合材料的类型、所涉的法域、相关国家或地区与我国之间是否订有双边条约或互免认证协定等，逐项核查。可以预见的是，随着数据主权与跨法域规则的次第展开，证据可否采用，会越来越多地取决于它循哪一条法域通道取得，而非取自境内还是境外。企业与当事人要及早建立的，是一套以法域与渠道为坐标的取证判断，而非继续依赖以取证地点为坐标的旧直觉。

本文为一般性实务说明，所涉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；具体材料的证据能力及取证路径，须结合所涉法域、取证渠道、条约与认证安排逐案核查。

作者与团队 · Author & Team

肖黄鹤Xiao Huanghe德恒全球合伙人 · 德恒深圳恒信律师团队在涉外刑事与跨境取证领域，办理境外证据的证据能力与可采性审查、循国际刑事司法协助渠道的跨境取证、当事人提供境外材料的公证认证与使领馆认证安排、国际司法协助上的专用原则与用途限制、以及非法证据排除与境外证据合法性审查等事项；并办理内地与香港跨法域交易、跨境争议解决与判决执行。
李睿Li Rui德恒深圳合伙人融资租赁与商事金融争议、投融资争议解决、跨境执行、刑事辩护
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德恒深圳执业律师刑事辩护、投融资争议解决

脚注 · Notes

《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》（2018 年 10 月 26 日第三次修正）第五十条：可以用于证明案件事实的材料，都是证据。证据包括：（一）物证；（二）书证；（三）证人证言；（四）被害人陈述；（五）犯罪嫌疑人、被告人供述和辩解；（六）鉴定意见；（七）勘验、检查、辨认、侦查实验等笔录；（八）视听资料、电子数据。证据必须经过查证属实，才能作为定案的根据。↩
《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法〉的解释》（法释〔2021〕1 号，2021 年 3 月 1 日施行）第七十七条第一款：对来自境外的证据材料，人民检察院应当随案移送有关材料来源、提供人、提取人、提取时间等情况的说明。经人民法院审查，相关证据材料能够证明案件事实且符合刑事诉讼法规定的，可以作为证据使用，但提供人或者我国与有关国家签订的双边条约对材料的使用范围有明确限制的除外；材料来源不明或者真实性无法确认的，不得作为定案的根据。↩
《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：本法所称国际刑事司法协助，是指中华人民共和国和外国在刑事案件调查、侦查、起诉、审判和执行等活动中相互提供协助，包括送达文书，调查取证，安排证人作证或者协助调查，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，移管被判刑人以及其他协助。↩
同上法第四条：中华人民共和国和外国按照平等互惠原则开展国际刑事司法协助。国际刑事司法协助不得损害中华人民共和国的主权、安全和社会公共利益，不得违反中华人民共和国法律的基本原则。非经中华人民共和国主管机关同意，外国机构、组织和个人不得在中华人民共和国境内进行本法规定的刑事诉讼活动，中华人民共和国境内的机构、组织和个人不得向外国提供证据材料和本法规定的协助。↩
同上法第四章“调查取证”（第二十五条至第三十条），分“向外国请求调查取证”与“向中华人民共和国请求调查取证”两节。其中第二十五条规定，办案机关需要外国就查找辨认人员、查询核实涉案财物及金融账户信息、获取证言或陈述、获取文件记录电子数据和物品、获取鉴定意见、勘验检查、搜查等事项协助调查取证的，应当制作刑事司法协助请求书并附相关材料，经主管机关审核同意后，由对外联系机关向外国提出请求。↩
同上法第十八条：外国请求将通过刑事司法协助取得的证据材料用于请求针对的案件以外的其他目的的，对外联系机关应当转交主管机关，由主管机关作出是否同意的决定。↩
同脚注〔2〕解释第七十七条第二款：当事人及其辩护人、诉讼代理人提供来自境外的证据材料的，该证据材料应当经所在国公证机关证明，所在国中央外交主管机关或者其授权机关认证，并经中华人民共和国驻该国使领馆认证，或者履行中华人民共和国与该所在国订立的有关条约中规定的证明手续，但我国与该国之间有互免认证协定的除外。↩
同脚注〔2〕解释第七十八条：控辩双方提供的证据材料涉及外国语言、文字的，应当附中文译本。↩
同脚注〔1〕法第五十六条第一款：采用刑讯逼供等非法方法收集的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人供述和采用暴力、威胁等非法方法收集的证人证言、被害人陈述，应当予以排除。收集物证、书证不符合法定程序，可能严重影响司法公正的，应当予以补正或者作出合理解释；不能补正或者作出合理解释的，对该证据应当予以排除。↩
此为实务通说，非司法解释明文。参见王玫黎、杨逸琼《刑事司法协助所获“境外证据”如何适用》（载《检察日报》，2021 年 4 月 6 日）、《构建境外刑事证据合法性审查规则》（载《检察日报》，2024 年 5 月 30 日）：境外证据须符合真实性、关联性、合法性“三性”要求，审查重在来源是否合法、手续是否齐备、移交保管转换是否连续规范；对经司法协助取得且具备完整证据属性者，原则上不就其程序手续另作限制，但对严重侵害被追诉人权利、或经补正仍不能确认真实性者，仍应予以排除。↩

常见问题 · FAQ

Q：境外取得的证据，是不是一概不能在中国刑事审判中使用？: A：不是。“境外取得”本身既非排除证据的事由，也非豁免审查的理由。证据能否作为定案根据首先是证据能力问题，须经查证属实；境外证据的特殊，在于其来源与合法性须接受有别于境内证据的审查。依《最高人民法院关于适用刑事诉讼法的解释》第七十七条，对来自境外的证据材料应随案移送来源、提供人、提取人、提取时间等说明，经审查能够证明案件事实且符合刑事诉讼法规定的，可作为证据使用；来源不明或真实性无法确认的，不得作为定案根据。决定其命运的不是取自境外，而是循何渠道取得、能否经得起来源与合法性审查。
Q：为什么跨境取证要走国际刑事司法协助，能不能直接派人去境外取证？: A：取证是公权力的行使、系主权的延伸，一国侦查权止于本国法域之边，不能径直伸入另一法域。《中华人民共和国国际刑事司法协助法》确立主权保留原则：非经我国主管机关同意，外国机构、组织和个人不得在我国境内进行该法规定的刑事诉讼活动，我国境内机构、组织和个人亦不得向外国提供证据材料和协助。向境外调取证据须经请求与许可程序，由主管机关循该法第四章渠道提出。绕开协助通道、径自越境取得的材料，其合法性根基自始可疑。
Q：当事人或辩护人自己从境外取得对己有利的材料，要办哪些手续才能被法院采纳？: A：当事人及其辩护人、诉讼代理人提供来自境外的证据材料，应当经所在国公证机关证明，经所在国中央外交主管机关或其授权机关认证，并经我国驻该国使领馆认证；或履行我国与该国所订条约规定的证明手续；我国与该国之间订有互免认证协定的除外。涉外文字者应附中文译本。手续不备则形式要件有亏，纵内容为真亦难径行采纳。是否需要公证认证、走哪条途径，须结合所涉法域与条约安排逐案判断。

知识锚点 · Knowledge anchors

境外证据 / 取证地点
证据能力 · 可采性 Admissibility
国际刑事司法协助 · 主权保留
三条渠道 · 官方协助 / 当事人提供 / 径自取证
公证认证 · 使领馆认证 · 互免认证协定
专用原则 · 用途限制 Specialty
非法证据排除 · 合法性审查

← Back to insights

Cross-border · Criminal evidence

Can Evidence Obtained Abroad Be Used in a Chinese Criminal Trial? Admissibility Turns on the Channel of Acquisition, Not the Place

Whether a piece of foreign-sourced material can enter a Chinese courtroom turns, in the end, not on the fact that it was obtained abroad, but on who obtained it and through which channel. Evidence-gathering is an extension of sovereignty and stops at the edge of the jurisdiction; that one border decides both whether data must be handled as an “outbound transfer” and whether a piece of evidence may cross the jurisdiction and enter the trial.

Cross-borderBy Xiao Huanghe8 min read中 / EN bilingual

As cases increasingly reach out to persons, assets and data located abroad, a party will often come into possession of material formed outside the territory: a statement of account from an overseas bank, a record of communications held on a server abroad, or the account of a witness who is physically outside the country. The common first reaction is that, the facts being clear and the material in hand, it may simply be tendered to the court. Yet material in hand does not equal material that may enter the trial. The channel through which it came, the person who obtained it, whether its source can be accounted for, and whether it has passed the prescribed steps of transmission and authentication, all determine whether it is a basis for deciding the case or lacks even the standing of evidence.

What this article seeks to clarify is precisely this often-overlooked dividing line. Its root is one with that of cross-border data compliance: what decides whether a data flow must be handled as an “outbound transfer” is whether it has crossed the border of the jurisdiction; what decides whether a piece of evidence may enter a Chinese trial is, likewise, whether, in crossing that jurisdictional border, it travelled through a channel sanctioned by sovereignty. The former has been addressed elsewhere; this article follows the same “jurisdictional border” into criminal evidence.

I. “Obtained abroad” is not a ground for exclusion; usability at trial turns on evidentiary capacity, not on the place of acquisition

Two views, opposite in direction yet equally hasty, are current in practice. One holds that any material obtained abroad, being out of step with our investigative procedure, simply cannot be used in a Chinese court at all; the other holds that, so long as the material is objectively true and sufficient to show the facts, the place of acquisition is immaterial and it may be tendered as soon as it is in hand. Both put the question wrongly.

Whether evidence may serve as a basis for deciding a case is, first of all, a question of evidentiary capacity. Under the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, all material that may be used to prove the facts of a case is evidence, but evidence may serve as a basis for deciding a case only after it has been verified as true¹. This requirement does not differ according to whether the material was formed within or outside the territory. In that sense, “obtained abroad” is in itself neither a ground for excluding evidence nor a reason for exempting it from scrutiny.

The particularity of foreign evidence lies not in its having been obtained elsewhere, but in the fact that its legality and its source must undergo a scrutiny distinct from that applied to domestic evidence. The Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law makes specific provision for material coming from outside the territory: the People’s Procuratorate shall, together with the case, transmit an account of the material’s source, the person providing it, the person extracting it, the time of extraction and the like; where, on the court’s examination, the material can prove the facts of the case and conforms to the Criminal Procedure Law, it may be used as evidence; where the source of the material is unclear or its authenticity cannot be confirmed, it shall not serve as a basis for deciding the case². The focus of scrutiny thus falls on the source and the channel of the material, rather than on the place where it was formed. Once this is grasped, the question shifts from “can foreign evidence be used” to “through which channel did this particular piece of foreign material come, and can it withstand scrutiny as to source and legality.”

II. Evidence-gathering is a sovereign act that stops at the edge of the jurisdiction; cross-border evidence-gathering must travel through the sanctioned channel of criminal judicial assistance

Why should the channel of a piece of foreign material matter so much? The reason is that evidence-gathering is not the mere collection of facts but the exercise of public power, an extension of sovereignty. A state’s investigative power stops at the edge of its own jurisdiction and may not reach directly into another. Where the investigating authority of one side, without the permission of the other, interrogates, searches or collects within the other’s territory, what is touched is no longer a mere procedural defect but the sovereignty of another jurisdiction.

For this reason, cross-border evidence-gathering between states must travel through a channel mutually sanctioned, and that channel is international criminal judicial assistance. International criminal judicial assistance, as the International Criminal Judicial Assistance Law of the People’s Republic of China uses the term, means the mutual provision of assistance between the People’s Republic of China and a foreign state in the handling of criminal cases, of which the gathering of evidence is one item³. The Law goes on to establish a principle of sovereign reservation: without the consent of the competent authority of the People’s Republic of China, no foreign institution, organisation or individual may conduct, within the territory of the People’s Republic of China, the criminal-procedure activities provided for in the Law, and no institution, organisation or individual within the territory of the People’s Republic of China may provide a foreign state with evidentiary material or the assistance provided for in the Law⁴. The provision runs in both directions, its essence being that the power to gather evidence may not be exercised across the border on one’s own authority; to obtain evidence from abroad, the procedure of request and permission must be observed, and the request put forward by the competent authority through the channel laid down in Chapter Four of the Law⁵.

It follows that material obtained by one side unilaterally across the border, bypassing the channel of assistance, is suspect in the very foundation of its legality. Viewed along the same thread of the “jurisdictional border,” cross-border data compliance governs the pathway and obligations of data, an object, in crossing the jurisdictional border; cross-border evidence-gathering governs the permission and channel of investigation, an act, in crossing the same border. The one is a movement of an object, the other an exercise of public power, yet both come to rest on that single line of the jurisdiction.

III. One piece of material, three channels, three fates: official assistance, party submission, and unilateral cross-border gathering, with evidentiary capacity descending in turn

Brought down to practice, the principle shows itself most clearly thus: one and the same piece of foreign material, differing in the channel of its acquisition, meets a markedly different fate as to evidentiary capacity. Three routes may broadly be distinguished.

The first is acquisition through the official channel of criminal judicial assistance. By this route the case-handling authority obtains the material from the competent authority abroad, following the procedure of request and permission; it is the proper route sanctioned by the jurisdictional border. Such material is transmitted with an account of its source, the person providing it, the person extracting it and the time of extraction; where, on the court’s examination, it can prove the facts of the case and conforms to the Criminal Procedure Law, it may be used as evidence². Its use, however, is not wholly unconstrained: where the provider, or a bilateral treaty between China and the state concerned, expressly limits the scope of the material’s use, that limitation governs²; and, as regards a foreign request, to use evidence obtained through assistance for a purpose other than the case to which the request was directed requires the further consent of the competent authority⁶, which is the principle of specialty in international judicial assistance.

The second is submission by a party, or by their defender or agent ad litem, of their own accord. This route is common where the defence obtains, from abroad, material favourable to itself. The judicial interpretation lays down express formal requirements for it: the material shall be certified by a notary of the state where it is located, authenticated by the central foreign-affairs authority of that state or a body authorised by it, and authenticated by the embassy or consulate of the People’s Republic of China in that state, or shall complete the certification formalities provided in the relevant treaty between China and that state, save where China and that state have an agreement mutually exempting authentication⁷. Where the formalities are wanting, the formal requirements are not met, and the material, true though its content may be, can hardly be admitted as it stands. Where foreign language or script is involved, a Chinese translation shall be attached⁸.

The third is acquisition by the investigating side unilaterally across the border, bypassing the channel of assistance. The legal foundation of this route is the weakest, for the act of gathering has itself crossed the edge of the jurisdiction without the sovereign permission of the other side. Once such material returns to the trial, it faces not only a challenge to the legality of its source but also the scrutiny of the rule excluding illegally obtained evidence: confessions obtained by torture or other illegal means, and witness testimony or victim statements obtained by violence, threats or other illegal means, shall be excluded; where the collection of physical or documentary evidence does not conform to statutory procedure and may seriously affect judicial fairness, and the defect can be neither corrected nor reasonably explained, that evidence too shall be excluded⁹.

Comparing the three routes, one sees that what decides the fate of a piece of foreign material is not the fact that it was obtained abroad, but the door through which it passed in crossing the jurisdictional border. Choose the door rightly, and the material may become a basis for deciding the case; choose it wrongly, and the material, true though the facts may be, may stop short of the very standing of evidence.

IV. The distinctive standard of legality review: not whether it conforms to our investigative procedure as the sole yardstick, but the source, the formalities, and the infringement of the rights of the accused

The legality review of foreign evidence has a standard of its own. Since the act of gathering took place abroad and proceeded under the procedure of the jurisdiction where it was located, to demand that it correspond, detail for detail, to every step of our investigative procedure is neither realistic nor the intent of the law. The usual practice is to examine whether the source of the evidence is clear, whether the formalities of transmission and authentication are complete, whether the process of handover, custody and conversion is continuous and regular, and whether authenticity can be confirmed; evidence obtained by the proper route of criminal judicial assistance is generally not excluded outright merely because it “does not conform to our investigative procedure”¹⁰.

This latitude, however, is not without limit. Scholarship and writings within the procuratorial system likewise point out that foreign evidence which seriously violates the basic principles of our Criminal Procedure Law, seriously infringes the rights of the accused, or whose authenticity still cannot be confirmed after correction, is to be excluded all the same¹⁰. What is distinctive about the legality review is that its yardstick differs, not that the review is abandoned: what it relaxes is the insistence on our own investigative procedure as the sole point of comparison; what it holds to is that source, authenticity, and the safeguarding of the basic rights of the accused must each still be inquired into.

V. Where professional judgment lies: to fix the channel and tier of a piece of foreign material, rather than to use it as soon as it is in hand

Return to that piece of foreign material of the opening. What truly decides whether it can enter the trial lies, more often than not, not in the argument made after it is in hand, but in the choice of route before it is obtained. For one and the same foreign fact, to fix the proper route in advance, whether by having the case-handling authority request judicial assistance or by guiding the party to complete notarisation and authentication, and to discover only after acquisition that the channel was misplaced and the formalities wanting, lead to outcomes far apart: by the proper route one obtains evidence usable in deciding the case; by a misplaced channel one is left, perhaps, with no more than a stack of material lacking the standing of evidence.

This is precisely where the value of professional judgment lies. It lies not in reciting the various rules on foreign evidence, but in judging accurately, for a specific piece of foreign material, the channel it should travel, the formalities it should carry and the limits its use may be subject to, and in arranging matters accordingly before the evidence is gathered.

What such judgment yields is less a stack of stamped material than a reviewable assessment of the evidence-gathering route and the evidentiary capacity; the professional work lies not in the argument made after the material is in hand, but in the choice of route before it is obtained.

What this article sets out is a framework for judgment, not the conclusion for any particular piece of material. Whether a given piece of foreign material can be used, and which route it should travel, must still be verified item by item against the type of material, the jurisdiction involved, and whether the country or region concerned and China are bound by a bilateral treaty or an agreement mutually exempting authentication. It may be foreseen that, as the rules of data sovereignty and of cross-jurisdiction unfold, whether evidence can be used will increasingly turn on which jurisdictional channel it travelled through, rather than on whether it was obtained within or outside the territory. What enterprises and parties should establish early is a framework for judging evidence-gathering by reference to jurisdiction and channel, rather than continuing to rely on the old instinct that takes the place of acquisition as its coordinate.

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 evidentiary capacity and acquisition route of any particular material must be verified case by case against the jurisdiction involved, the channel of acquisition, and the relevant treaty and authentication arrangements.

Author & Team

Xiao HuangheGlobal Partner, DeHeng · DeHeng Shenzhen Hengxin Legal TeamIn cross-border criminal and evidence-gathering matters, handles the evidentiary capacity and admissibility review of foreign evidence, cross-border evidence-gathering through the channel of international criminal judicial assistance, notarisation and consular authentication for material a party submits from abroad, the principle of specialty and use limitations in international judicial assistance, and the exclusion of illegal evidence and legality review of foreign evidence; and PRC–Hong Kong cross-jurisdiction transactions, cross-border dispute resolution and enforcement.
Li RuiPartner, DeHeng ShenzhenFinance-lease and commercial-finance disputes, investment and financing disputes, cross-border enforcement, criminal defence
Lin BoPartner, DeHeng ShenzhenCommercial transaction structuring and corporate disputes
Deng ZhaowenPractising Solicitor (HK) · GBA Lawyer, DeHeng ShenzhenCommon law, Hong Kong-related enforcement and disputes
Su YingtongPractising Lawyer, DeHeng ShenzhenCriminal defence, investment and financing disputes

FAQ

Q: Is material obtained abroad simply unusable in a Chinese criminal trial?: A: No. “Obtained abroad” is in itself neither a ground for excluding evidence nor a reason for exempting it from scrutiny. Whether evidence may serve as a basis for deciding a case is, first of all, a question of evidentiary capacity, and it must be verified as true. What is distinctive about foreign evidence is that its source and legality undergo a scrutiny different from that applied to domestic evidence. Under Article 77 of the Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on the Criminal Procedure Law, material from abroad must be transmitted with an account of its source, the person providing it, the person extracting it and the time of extraction; where, on examination, it can prove the facts of the case and conforms to the Criminal Procedure Law, it may be used as evidence; where the source is unclear or authenticity cannot be confirmed, it shall not serve as a basis for deciding the case. What decides its fate is not that it was obtained abroad, but the channel through which it came and whether it withstands scrutiny as to source and legality.
Q: Why must cross-border evidence-gathering go through international criminal judicial assistance — can investigators simply gather evidence abroad directly?: A: Evidence-gathering is an exercise of public power and an extension of sovereignty; a state’s investigative power stops at the edge of its own jurisdiction and may not reach directly into another. The International Criminal Judicial Assistance Law of the PRC establishes a principle of sovereign reservation: without the consent of the competent PRC authority, no foreign institution, organisation or individual may conduct within PRC territory the criminal-procedure activities provided for in the Law, and no institution, organisation or individual within PRC territory may provide a foreign state with evidentiary material or assistance. Obtaining evidence from abroad requires the procedure of request and permission, put forward by the competent authority through the channel in Chapter Four of the Law. Material obtained unilaterally across the border, bypassing the channel of assistance, is suspect in the very foundation of its legality.
Q: If a party or defender obtains favourable material from abroad on their own, what formalities are needed for a court to admit it?: A: Where a party, their defender or agent ad litem submits material from abroad, it shall be certified by a notary of the state where it is located, authenticated by that state’s central foreign-affairs authority or a body it authorises, and authenticated by the PRC embassy or consulate in that state; or it shall complete the certification formalities in the relevant treaty between China and that state; save where the two states have an agreement mutually exempting authentication. Where foreign language or script is involved, a Chinese translation shall be attached. Where the formalities are wanting, the formal requirements are not met, and the material, true though its content may be, can hardly be admitted as it stands. Whether notarisation and authentication are needed, and which route to take, must be judged case by case against the jurisdiction involved and the treaty arrangements.

Knowledge anchors

Place of acquisition vs. channel of acquisition
Evidentiary capacity · admissibility
International criminal judicial assistance · sovereign reservation
Three channels · assistance / party submission / unilateral gathering
Notarisation · consular authentication · mutual exemption
Principle of specialty · use limitation
Exclusion of illegal evidence · legality review

— Contact

一桩涉外刑事案件，或一份境外证据的可用性，
想先听一个独立的专业判断？A cross-border criminal matter, or the usability of a piece of foreign evidence —
and you want an independent read first?

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

一、“境外取得”并非排除事由；可否用于审判，取决于证据能力而非取证地点

二、取证系主权行为，止于法域之边；跨境取证须借道刑事司法协助这一经许可之通道

三、同一材料，三种渠道，三种命运：官方协助、当事人自行提供、径自越境取证，证据能力依次递减

四、合法性审查的特殊尺度：不以“是否契合我国侦查程序”为唯一标尺，而审来源、手续与对被追诉人权利之侵害

五、专业判断之所在：为一份境外材料择定渠道与档位，而非到手即用

作者与团队 · Author & Team

脚注 · Notes

常见问题 · FAQ

知识锚点 · Knowledge anchors

I. “Obtained abroad” is not a ground for exclusion; usability at trial turns on evidentiary capacity, not on the place of acquisition

II. Evidence-gathering is a sovereign act that stops at the edge of the jurisdiction; cross-border evidence-gathering must travel through the sanctioned channel of criminal judicial assistance

III. One piece of material, three channels, three fates: official assistance, party submission, and unilateral cross-border gathering, with evidentiary capacity descending in turn

IV. The distinctive standard of legality review: not whether it conforms to our investigative procedure as the sole yardstick, but the source, the formalities, and the infringement of the rights of the accused

V. Where professional judgment lies: to fix the channel and tier of a piece of foreign material, rather than to use it as soon as it is in hand

Author & Team

FAQ

Knowledge anchors

一桩涉外刑事案件，或一份境外证据的可用性，想先听一个独立的专业判断？A cross-border criminal matter, or the usability of a piece of foreign evidence —and you want an independent read first?

一桩涉外刑事案件，或一份境外证据的可用性，
想先听一个独立的专业判断？A cross-border criminal matter, or the usability of a piece of foreign evidence —
and you want an independent read first?