China's Ministry of Justice Rules EU Subsidy Investigation Into JD.com Constitutes Improper Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

nashnova research
2026-08-19发布阅读约 6 分钟

China's Ministry of Justice, jointly with the Ministry of Commerce, has formally ruled that the EU's cross-border investigation into JD.com under its Foreign Subsidies Regulation constitutes improper extraterritorial jurisdiction — meaning any Chinese entity that cooperates now risks breaking Chinese law.

01

What happened?

China's Ministry of Justice, together with the Ministry of Commerce and other agencies, issued a formal notice declaring that the EU's subsidy investigation into JD.com (京东) — specifically, its cross-border evidence-gathering from Chinese entities — constitutes improper extraterritorial jurisdiction.
The ruling invokes Articles 3 and 6 of the *PRC Anti-Foreign Improper Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation*.
In plain terms = the EU wanted to examine how much Chinese government subsidy JD.com received, and reached into Chinese organizations to do so. Beijing has now officially said: that reach crossed the line.
02

What does this mean for Chinese companies?

The notice explicitly orders: no organization or individual may execute or assist in executing the EU's investigative measures. The ban takes effect immediately.
This means → any Chinese entity that cooperates with the EU probe now faces direct legal liability under Chinese law.
In plain terms = Chinese companies are caught in a legal pinch — cooperate with the EU, break Chinese law; refuse the EU, risk EU penalties. Both directions carry legal consequences.
03

How much does this constrain the EU?

The EU's Foreign Subsidies Regulation — FSR, a law designed to scrutinize whether foreign-government subsidies distort competition inside the EU single market — now faces a direct institutional barrier in China-related cases.
This reflects an escalating legal standoff between China and the EU over extraterritorial jurisdiction: the EU seeks to extend regulatory reach into Chinese subsidy flows, while China uses domestic legislation to cut the investigation chain at the source.
This means → if the EU wants to probe the subsidy background of Chinese firms in future, gathering evidence and securing cooperation inside China will be significantly harder.

市场有风险,内容仅供研究参考,不构成投资建议。