There are different approaches worldwide on how to regulate cryptocurrency: legalization, partial ban, or absolute ban. China has chosen the third option. Since 2013 the PRC has been introducing restrictive measures targeting ICO, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency activities. In 2022 it finalized the formation of a legal framework for cryptocurrency regulation by publishing “Judicial Interpretation on Illegal Fundraising Criminal Cases.” The main reasons for the prohibitive Chinese approach are combating money laundering, ICO related scams, and illegal financing, i.e., public interest prevails over private interests. An analysis of the judicial practice of Chinese courts demonstrates that despite a rising number of cryptocurrency related civil disputes, plaintiffs are deprived of judicial protection because investing in digital financial assets is illegal and the rights of investors are not legitimate. The paper argues that a cryptocurrency ban makes it impossible to satisfy claims concerning illegal fundraising activities, while encouraging investors not to have any relations with illegal agents, brokers or exchanges.

Since 2015 China has been actively developing the cross-border e-commerce comprehensive pilot areas. They are one of the mechanisms that the PRC has been promoting international trade in the digital era. Enterprises registered in the cross-border e-commerce comprehensive pilot areas enjoy preferential tax policies and may draw upon the support measures delivered by provinces and municipalities. The State Council also introduced the “Six Systems and Two Platforms” principle which revolutionized the sphere of public administration of crossborder e-commerce trade. This helps to solve many the problems concerning taxation, customs clearance and logistics. Analysis of Chinese legislation and local regulations illustrates that the PRC elaborated a new type of economic zone integrating small and medium sized enterprises into the global trade market. A comparison of Chinese policy with a Russian initiative to introduce new experimental regimes for foreign online trade shows that both states could cooperate by establishing a joint mechanism for cross-border e-commerce promotion. Russia also could use China’s experience in order to launch its own system of cross-border e-commerce support.

The regulation of digital financial assets has been a topic of discussion for many countries over the last decade. China is among the world leaders in the digitalization and blockchain technologies. Under the “one country, two systems,” two different approaches to the digital financial assets have been implemented in the PRC. Although the COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated many investors to diversify their investment portfolios to include digital financial assets, the People’s Bank of China has not changed its prohibitive position on tokens and cryptocurrencies and even launched a campaign against miners and crypto exchanges. Macau and Taiwan have also prohibited initial coin offerings and the transfer of cryptocurrencies due to the risks of money laundering connected with the citizens of mainland China. Macau, Taiwan, and the Monetary Authority of Hong Kong have implemented less stringent regulations of digital financial assets. Comparative analysis demonstrates that Hong Kong acts as an intermediary for China to the digital financial assets.

The article provides a general description of liability for administrative offenses under the PRC legislation. It considers general principles of responsibility for administrative offenses, the system of bodies that impose administrative penalties, the system of administrative penalties and the procedures for imposing them. The authors determine how well it is possible to strike a balance between public and private interests in the legislation on administrative penalties. “Legality” is declared as a basic principle of administrative liability in the PRC. In this article, the authors have concluded that the principle of legality has a rather specific content. Administrative offenses and penalties are not codified in China but are dispersed in a significant amount of laws and regulations. This approach ensures the existence of a fairly dynamic system of administrative measures which guarantee a proper order in the rapidly developing Chinese economy. At the same time, this approach carries a risk of abuse of power by public bodies and excessive state intervention in the life of individuals.