In Depth: China’s Shift Toward Splitting Criminal Cases Has Scholars Worried About Judicial Impartiality

A recent high-profile fraud case in Qingdao, involving 63 defendants divided into three separate trials, has sparked renewed debate about fairness and transparency in China's judicial system. Central to the controversy is that the same judge presided over both the first trial, which convicted 11 individuals, and also over the appeal of the second trial where 37 others were found guilty. Legal analysts argue this overlap could compromise judicial impartiality and consistency, amplifying existing doubts about the integrity with which multi-defendant cases are handled in China [para. 1].

The splitting of complex, multi-defendant cases is a widespread practice in China, intended to facilitate more manageable proceedings. However, critics highlight that such fragmentation can sometimes undermine fairness, particularly by allowing outcomes in separate trials to influence one another. In cases of organized crime or corruption, separately judging bribe givers or takers risks prejudicing one verdict with evidence or judgments from another. Legal scholars advocate for reforms to the Criminal Procedure Law, specifically calling for guidelines to protect the rights of all defendants and ensure transparent processes [para. 2][para. 3].

At the core of the Qingdao case is Qingdao Pinxiang Pharmaceutical Technology Co. Ltd., charged with fraudulent marketing, including exaggerated drug benefits and fabricated patient stories. Employee arrests took place between late 2021 and mid-2023, with 63 people ultimately prosecuted in three groups. The first trial convicted 11, including legal representative Wang Haiying, sentencing Wang to life and others to terms ranging from 3.5 to 11 years, based on 280 million yuan ($39 million) in fraud. On appeal, the Shandong High Court overturned the verdict for unclear facts and required a retrial. The second trial saw 37 sales staff receive mostly suspended sentences; their appeals forced retrial as well, with defense attorneys raising concerns when they discovered the same judge presided over both the original and appeal proceedings. The court subsequently replaced the judge. The third group of 15 defendants awaits trial. Defense counsel argued the cases should have been combined, in line with a 2021 Supreme People’s Court interpretation that multi-defendant cases with overlapping jurisdiction should be heard together [para. 4][para. 5][para. 6][para. 7][para. 8][para. 9].

The overuse of case splitting in China’s courts is a growing concern. Originally designed to protect defendant rights and enable fairer trials—by avoiding excessive pretrial detention and improper associations—splitting is now routine. Critics warn this practice prevents comprehensive evidence review and can lead to duplicated efforts and inconsistent verdicts, emphasizing the judiciary’s procedural challenges. Some courts split trials of defendants who plead guilty from those who claim innocence, especially since the 2018 introduction of a leniency system for those who admit guilt; over 86% of suspects nationwide used this plea in 2024. However, experts point out that splitting makes it harder for defendants to challenge co-defendant testimony, undermining the confrontation right fundamental to fair trials, a right not explicitly protected in the law but in judicial practice [para. 10][para. 11][para. 12][para. 13][para. 14][para. 15][para. 16][para. 17][para. 18][para. 19][para. 20][para. 21].

China’s Criminal Procedure Law offers limited guidance, delegating to judicial interpretation the conditions under which cases may be split. Prosecutors and police often initiate splitting for practical investigative or workload reasons, sometimes prioritizing efficiency over defendant protections. Recent reforms and interpretations stress joint trials as the norm, yet practice is inconsistent. Legal experts push for explicit legislative standards and greater protection of confrontation rights in split trials, arguing that clearer guidelines would improve accuracy, fairness, and public trust in the judicial system [para. 22][para. 23][para. 24][para. 25][para. 26][para. 27][para. 28][para. 29].