Legal Insight | Public Security Offense Records Poised for Comprehensive Sealing—What Are the Implications? (AI Translation)

法眼｜治安违法记录有望全面封存，影响几何？

The third draft amendment to China's "Public Security Administration Punishments Law" introduces a significant institutional advancement—a sealed records system for administrative violations. On June 24, 2024, the draft was presented to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. According to Xinhua News Agency, the draft stipulates that records of public security violations should be sealed and not disclosed to any organizations or individuals, except in cases where state organs require them for investigative purposes or relevant entities inquire according to national regulations. Entities permitted by law to access these records must keep them confidential[para. 1].

This proposal aligns with the 20th Communist Party Central Committee’s resolution calling for a sealed records system for minor offenses and responds to suggestions from legislators and academics during the public consultation phase. Crucially, if enacted, the policy would apply universally, without distinguishing between adults and minors—all administrative violation records would be sealed[para. 2].

The draft's progression reflects continuous broadening: while earlier versions only addressed minors, the third draft now extends sealed record protections to all social groups. Legal scholar Zhao Hong of Peking University regards this as a significant leap, highlighting that nearly eight million people face public security administrative sanctions each year. Unlike criminal records, administrative violations are not highly dangerous to society, yet traditionally, such records have followed people for life, impacting employment, education, military enlistment, and causing lasting stigma. The proposed system would thus mitigate disproportionate hardships, aid rehabilitation, and uphold constitutional dignity[para. 3][para. 4].

Qing Qichen, a legal academic, emphasizes that sealing administrative records will reduce discrimination in education, employment, and military service, preventing long-term stigmatization for one-time minor violations and better protecting citizens’ rights. This legislative development also closes long-standing gaps in administrative records management[para. 5].

Zhao Hong explains that sealing involves restricting access to, and the use of, violation records to mitigate their negative effects, especially while Chinese law lacks clear record-expungement provisions. Real-life correspondence shows that people with violation records—much broader than just criminal offenders—face extensive discrimination and difficulties even in tasks like school transfers[para. 6].

In China, administrative violations (handled administratively) are distinct from crimes (handled judicially). Unlike criminal records (case files kept by police), administrative detention data is not considered a "criminal record" but may affect candidates for public office or sensitive roles during background checks[para. 7].

Zhao points out that, beyond explicit legal restrictions, the impact of even administrative violation records far exceeds expectations, often affecting public participation and professional opportunities without clear processes for correction or deletion[para. 8].

While sealing minor criminal records for juveniles was legally established in 2012, unified regulations only materialized in 2022. Similarly, recent amendments to laws protecting minors require sealed records for administrative violations, building protections for minors' privacy and integrating these principles into the new draft[para. 9][para. 10][para. 11].

Some legal scholars argue that sealing records may be even more vital for adults, given their more complex societal roles[para. 12]. The third draft allows limited, regulated access for state organs where necessary, but experts caution that vague definitions of eligible agencies and rules could risk unjustified disclosures. They recommend specifying authorized agencies and the legal grounds for queries, as well as explicit procedures for applying, reviewing, and recording all inquiries[para. 13][para. 14].

Finally, the third draft lacks specifics on record retention periods and deletion mechanisms. Prolonged retention risks harming individuals’ reintegration and burdens record-keepers. Experts urge the law to set clear expiry and deletion protocols, especially for juveniles, to prevent sealed records from becoming de facto permanent files and to fulfill China’s international treaty obligations in juvenile justice[para. 15][para. 16].