China is considering legislation that could significantly affect how multinational businesses manage corruption risks involving the country. On 28 August 2026, the Standing Committee of China’s 14th National People’s Congress released the Draft Anti-Cross-Border Corruption Law (中华人民共和国反跨境腐败法(草案)) for public comment, with the consultation period closing on 26 September 2026. If enacted in its current form, the Draft Anti-Cross-Border Corruption Law (Draft ACBCL) would be China’s first comprehensive legislation specifically addressing cross-border corruption.
The significance of the draft extends beyond creating a new standalone framework for cross-border corruption. It would bring aspects of China’s existing anti-corruption framework into a standalone statute, introduce specific compliance obligations for enterprises involved in cross-border operations, establish mechanisms for tracing and recovering corruption-related assets, and place restrictions on foreign authorities seeking to conduct corruption investigations or obtain assistance within China.
Why is China introducing a cross-border corruption law?
China’s anti-corruption framework has developed over more than a decade through amendments to several different pieces of legislation. The eighth amendment to the Criminal Law in 2011 established an offence relating to the bribery of foreign public officials and officials of international organisations for the purpose of obtaining improper commercial benefits. Further provisions were subsequently introduced through legislation including the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the Supervision Law.
While these provisions have created a broader framework for addressing corruption, they remain spread across different statutes. The Draft ACBCL would bring important aspects of cross-border corruption regulation into a single framework and introduce additional mechanisms dealing with enforcement, international cooperation, asset recovery and corporate compliance.
The draft is therefore relevant not only to Chinese companies operating overseas, but also to multinational businesses with Chinese subsidiaries, joint ventures, employees or significant cross-border transactions involving China.
What does the Draft ACBCL cover?
The proposed legislation addresses several areas of cross-border corruption, including overseas bribery, corruption involving Chinese officials, other corruption-related conduct with a cross-border nexus, the movement of corruption-related assets across borders, corporate compliance obligations and restrictions on foreign anti-corruption enforcement within China.
Overseas bribery
The draft targets the bribery of foreign public officials and officials of international organisations by Chinese individuals and entities, including their overseas subsidiaries. It also addresses certain forms of foreign bribery involving foreign persons operating in China.
In this respect, the proposed framework reflects an approach already seen in other major anti-corruption regimes, including the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the UK Bribery Act.
For businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions, the development is significant because conduct that takes place outside China may increasingly fall within the scope of Chinese anti-corruption enforcement. Companies with Chinese ownership, operations or personnel involved in overseas business may therefore need to consider Chinese requirements alongside the anti-corruption laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate.
The draft targets the bribery of foreign public officials and officials of international organisations by Chinese individuals and entities, including their overseas subsidiaries. It also addresses certain forms of foreign bribery involving foreign persons operating in China.
Corruption involving Chinese officials overseas
The draft also addresses corruption committed by Chinese officials in connection with their overseas activities. This is intended to extend the reach of the anti-corruption framework to circumstances where an official, relevant conduct or associated assets may be outside China.
The provision is part of the broader approach taken by the draft, which seeks to address corruption that crosses national borders rather than treating the location of the conduct or assets as the end of the regulatory question.
Cross-border movement of corruption-related assets
Asset recovery is another important element of the proposed framework. The Draft ACBCL provides mechanisms for locating, freezing, confiscating and recovering assets moved across borders in connection with corruption.
This addresses a practical challenge in cross-border corruption cases, where the proceeds of alleged misconduct may be transferred between jurisdictions. Existing asset recovery processes can depend heavily on cooperation between governments and applicable bilateral or multilateral arrangements, making the proposed mechanisms potentially significant for investigations involving assets held outside China.
Corporate compliance obligations
Articles 29 to 34 of the draft introduce proposed compliance obligations for enterprises involved in cross-border operations. These provisions would require businesses to establish integrity and compliance management systems, conduct risk assessments, maintain appropriate reporting mechanisms and controls, and address areas such as third-party due diligence, books and records and employee training.
Where suspected cross-border corruption is discovered, the draft also provides for reporting to the relevant authorities in accordance with the law. At the same time, the draft recognises self-reporting as a mitigating factor.
For multinational businesses, this creates an important compliance consideration because an existing anti-corruption programme may have been designed primarily around requirements such as the FCPA, the UK Bribery Act or the company’s home-jurisdiction laws. Those programmes may need to be assessed against the requirements ultimately introduced under Chinese law.
Restrictions on foreign investigations
One of the provisions likely to have the greatest practical significance for multinational businesses is Article 26. The draft provides that foreign entities, organisations and individuals may not conduct law enforcement activities in China without the required approval from Chinese authorities, including in relation to anti-corruption investigations. It also restricts individuals and organisations in China from providing evidence or assistance to foreign enforcement activities without the required authorisation.
This reflects existing restrictions in Chinese law on unauthorised foreign law-enforcement activity and the provision of evidence or assistance to foreign authorities.
What Article 26 adds is the express application of this framework to anti-corruption investigations specifically. This creates an important issue for multinational businesses that may be subject to anti-corruption laws in more than one jurisdiction.
The provision appears primarily directed at foreign government enforcement activities rather than bona fide internal corporate investigations. However, multinational businesses may still need to carefully assess how an investigation is conducted where it involves Chinese employees, documents or other information.
A potential conflict for multinational businesses
The proposed framework creates a situation in which a company could potentially face competing obligations when responding to a foreign corruption investigation. For example, a multinational company with a Chinese subsidiary may be required under the laws of another jurisdiction to cooperate with a foreign regulator by providing documents or making witnesses available.
If those documents or employees are located in China, however, the Draft ACBCL could restrict the company from providing that assistance without Chinese government authorisation. The business could therefore be required to navigate the requirements of the foreign investigation while also complying with restrictions imposed under Chinese law.
The draft does not currently provide a clear mechanism for resolving this potential conflict. It is also not yet clear how the proposed restrictions would interact with existing bilateral mutual legal assistance arrangements to which China is a party. The way these issues are ultimately addressed will be important for companies operating under multiple anti-corruption regimes.
What remains unclear?
The Draft ACBCL is still at the legislative stage, and several provisions require further clarification before businesses can determine precisely what their obligations will be.
One issue concerns self-reporting. The draft requires reporting of suspected cross-border corruption while also recognising voluntary self-reporting and cooperation as mitigating factors. However, important questions remain about the circumstances that trigger the reporting obligation, the timing and threshold for reporting, and how mandatory reporting would interact with the mitigating treatment given to voluntary cooperation.
The proposed corporate compliance requirements also leave questions about what will constitute an adequate integrity and compliance management system. Articles 29 to 34 establish the framework, but further detail may need to be provided through implementing regulations if the legislation is enacted.
There is also uncertainty about the extent to which the duty to cooperate with Chinese investigations, together with any penalties for obstruction, could apply to foreign parent companies of Chinese subsidiaries. These questions will need to be considered alongside the final wording of the legislation and any subsequent regulations or guidance.
What does this mean for businesses with China exposure?
For multinational companies, the proposed legislation is an opportunity to assess whether existing anti-corruption programmes are sufficiently equipped for the Chinese regulatory environment. A compliance programme designed around the FCPA, UK Bribery Act or another home-jurisdiction framework may address many common corruption risks, but that does not necessarily mean it will address the specific obligations and cross-border restrictions proposed under the Draft ACBCL.
Businesses with Chinese subsidiaries, joint ventures, employees involved in cross-border transactions or significant Chinese counterparties should therefore consider how their existing compliance framework would operate if the proposed legislation comes into force. This includes understanding how the business would respond if a foreign regulator requested documents or witnesses located in China, how internal investigations would be managed across jurisdictions, and what process would apply to potential reporting or self-disclosure.
The draft remains subject to revision during the legislative process, and its final form may differ from the current proposal. For businesses with significant China exposure, however, the proposed framework provides an opportunity to begin assessing potential gaps now rather than waiting until the legislation is finalised.
Legal review: Stella Igidi
Please contact us for more information and/or assistance with all legal matters.
