您的位置: 首页 » 法律资料网 » 法律论文 »

试论寻衅滋事罪的主观要件

苗 勇


寻衅滋事罪是常发性刑事案件，因此，认真研究此罪的构成要件，对司法实践具有十分重要的指导意义。如果对此罪的构成要件认识不清，就不可能准确定性。现实中，对寻衅滋事罪的主体，认识一致，即为一般主体。客观方面，刑法也作了十分明确的规定，即刑法第二百九十三条的四项规定。意见分歧较大的，是该罪的主观方面以及犯罪客体。本文拟就该罪的主观方面开展一些粗浅的讨论，以抛砖引玉。
目前，对寻衅滋事罪的主观方面，有以下一些认识。由于寻衅滋事罪是从1979年《刑法》流氓罪中分解出来的，两罪的主观特征是一脉相承的，故以下所列观点，包括对流氓罪主观要件的一些看法。
1、抽象说。认为寻衅滋事罪的主观方面是故意，过失不构成此罪。①
2、刺激说。“流氓罪的故意是明知自己的行为会发生破坏公共秩序的结果，并且希望这种结果的发生。而流氓罪的目的则是通过破坏公共秩序的行为来寻求下流无耻的精神刺激，达到某种精神上的满足。流氓罪的目的虽然不是直接故意的内容，但是二者又具有极为密切的联系。在流氓 分子眼里，只有通过对公共秩序的破坏，才能达到寻求下流无耻的精神刺激之目的，因而流氓犯罪分子对于破坏公共秩序总是抱有希望的态度。希望破坏公共秩序，正是为了达到寻求精神刺激之目的。相反，如果行为人破坏公共秩序不是为了寻求下流无耻的精神刺激，而是为了其他个人目的，那也就不是流氓犯罪。”②
3、藐视说。“由于流氓活动侵犯的是复杂客体，因而其犯罪手段和表现形式多种多样，但其共同的特点是主观上出于藐视国家法纪和社会公德的故意，客观上实施了破坏公共秩序的行为，且情节已达到恶劣的程度。”③
4、综合说。“寻衅滋事罪的主观方面是直接故意，即明知自己的行为会发生破坏社会秩序的危害结果，并且希望这种结果发生。行为人的犯罪动机是为了满足耍威风、取乐等不正常的精神刺激或 其他不健康的心理需要。”④
以上各说中，抽象说显然无助于对寻衅滋事罪主观特征的认识，因为它没有研究矛盾的特殊性，没有分析事物的本质。
刺激说有三大不足，一是在逻辑上是矛盾的。既然已肯定了是否具有寻求下流无耻的精神刺激的目的，是区分寻衅滋事罪与其他 为了个人目的而实施的犯罪的根本，也就确定了其是犯罪构成的组成部分，但同时又否认这一目的是直接故意的内容，这是自相矛盾的。因为犯罪构成理论告诉我们：“犯罪构成是指刑法所规定的，决定某一具体行为的社会危害性及其程度而为该行为构成犯罪所必需的一切客观和主观要件的总和。”⑤显然，如果“寻求下流无耻的精神”是构成寻衅滋事罪的必要条件，那么就必然是犯罪构成的组成部分。说它不是犯罪构成的组成部分，那它就对定罪起不到决定性的作用，两者应当是统一的。二是此说实际上已把寻衅滋事罪说成是目的犯了。因为，只有行为人具备了“寻求下流无耻的精神刺激的目的”，方才构成寻衅滋事罪，这就把该目的说成了构成此罪的必要条件了。而当某一特定的目的是某罪的不可缺少因素时，该罪也就成了目的犯了。但理论界和司法工作者都承认，寻衅滋事罪非目的犯。因为，有的寻衅滋事者固然是为了寻求下流无耻的精神刺激，但并非所有的寻衅滋事者都是为了追求这种刺激，而有着其他目的，如纯粹出于江湖义气去帮助他人出气而殴打他人，很难说是为了寻求下流无耻的精神刺激。由此决定了此说的第三个缺陷，即不能涵盖所有寻衅滋事罪的主观故意，因为并非所有的寻衅滋事行为都 是为了寻求下流无耻的精神刺激，因而具有极大的 片面性。
藐视说则犯了概括太广的错误。因为藐视国家法纪和社会公德，不仅仅只是寻衅滋事罪的主观特征，也是其他一些侵犯公民人身权利、民主权利罪及妨害社会管理秩序罪等所具有的。当一个概念的界定，不能把所界定的事物与其他事物区分开来时，这种界定也就是不科学的。
综合说看似全面，但并未把握住寻衅滋事罪的主观特征。因为，到底还有哪些“不健康的心理需要”，一点也没有讲，过于笼统。
那么，如何来科学地把握寻衅滋事罪的主观特征呢？我们仅仅用演绎的方法，将《刑法》关于故意犯罪的一般性规定，来界定寻衅滋事罪的主观要件，表述为“明知自己的行为会发生危害社会公共秩序的结果，并且希望这种结果发生”，是远为不够的。谁都知道寻衅滋事罪是一种故意犯罪，谁都会进行这种简单的演绎推理，但这对司法实践又有多大的指导意义呢？关键是，我们必须探寻寻衅滋事罪的主观特征，把握了这一特征，才能深刻、正确地分析寻衅滋事行为。因此，在分析寻衅滋事罪的主观要件时，上述的演绎推理固然不可少，但更重要的还是要进行归纳推理。笔者认为，应当从分析历史上的流氓现象及当前此类行为入手，从现象中挖掘其本质来。
“流氓”是一个十分古老的概念。先秦时期的“流氓”一词，从广义上讲是指“游民”，并非现代意义上的“流氓”。所谓“游民”就是“士、农、工、商”四民之外的人。在当时，真正与“流氓”含义相近的称呼，叫做“惰民”、“罢民”、“闲民”、“谪民”、“轻民”等等。从秦汉、魏晋、南北朝，直至隋唐时期，流氓称呼大体可析为三类：一是各种“恶少年”，二是各种“游侠”、“轻侠”，三是各种“游手”、“游民”、“浮浪人”等。至宋代，一般将流氓称作“捣子”，又称“闲人”、“闲汉”、“玩徒”、“无赖”、“白日鬼”等等。元代称“流氓”为“无徒”，元剧中多骂为“泼无徒”，后来在官方文书与元剧中又称“泼皮”、“绰皮”、“赖皮”等等。“光棍”一称始于明代，是当时对流氓的专称，直至清末，才将历来的所谓“无赖游民”正式称为“流氓”。⑥
解放前，在旧上海，流氓被叫做“乱人”。据不完全统计，以流氓为业的一度多达二万余人。他们根本无职业可言，平时不想别的，满脑子琢磨的都是如何害人。他们白天敲饭馆，晚上摸茶房，踢寡妇门，挖掘户坟，极尽损人利己、敲诈掠夺之能事，搅得社会不得安宁。⑦
解放初期，流氓恶势力凭借其封建帮会势力，在车站码头、桥南桥北、路东路西，划分地段，分疆而“治”，成为各自的势力范围。如号称“沪西半爿天”的柏文龙，手下控制着“薄刀党”、“斧头党”，按月向沪西一带工厂、商店勒索钱财，稍有不从，就拔拳相向，打了人还要收手工钱。⑧
经过十年动乱，政治、经济和社会公德风尚都遭到严重破坏。特别是部分青少年，由于受了林彪、“四人帮”“读书无用论”、“捅刀子勇敢”和“青少年违法无罪”等的谬论的毒害，沦为“文盲加流氓”式的人物。他们思想空虚，头脑简单，无政府主义和极端个人主义恶性膨胀，追求吃喝玩乐、江湖义气，把打架斗殴、寻衅滋事当成家常便饭，把摧残女性、行凶伤人作为寻欢作乐。
时至今日，寻衅滋事行为与以往的流氓行为，在本质上没有任何区别。随意殴打他人，追逐、拦截、辱骂他人，强拿硬要或者随意损毁、占用公私财物，在公共场所起哄闹事，是一些毫无道理可讲的无赖。
对上述现象进行分析，我们不难看出，寻衅滋事罪的主观特征表现为：公然藐视社会主流文化所确定的人与人之间日常交往中所必须遵循的行为规范。具体分述如下。
1、必须是公然藐视。藐视人与人之间日常交往中所必须遵循的行为规范，也是其他一些犯罪的主观特征。如招摇撞骗罪，行为人显然也藐视人与人之间日常交往中所必须遵循的行为规范。因此，没有“公然”两字的限定，就不能区分出寻衅滋事罪与其他一些犯罪主观方面的差异。寻衅滋事罪是公然犯罪，表现为主观方面，必须具有“公然”的特征，即自己对行为规范的藐视完全没有掩饰。他们以蛮不讲理的行为，毫无顾忌、肆无忌惮地破坏人与人之间日常交往的正常秩序，具有“我是流氓，我怕谁”的卑劣意识。这可从对流氓的几种称呼中看出，如“恶少年”、“捣子”、“无赖”、“泼皮”等，无不具有对日常生活行为规范的公然对抗的性质。
2、必须是与主流文化相悖。公然藐视的行为规范，必须是主流文化所确定的、维护人与人之间正常交往的行为规范。而非处于亚文化人群中的行为规范。寻衅滋事者乃是一种社会边缘性人物，他们突出的特征是以无道德为道德，以无秩序为秩序，以无规则为规则，以耻为荣，根本无视维护社会日常生活秩序的行为规范。他们（多为青少年）的社会化程度很低，文化水平不高，道德修养缺乏，头脑空空如也，但感情充沛、精力旺盛。而这种感情、精力缺乏理性的控制，而是受到社会亚文化的感染，被低级趣味的需要所支配。因此，主流文化所确定的日常行为规范，在他们的头脑中相当淡薄。
3、藐视的必须是人与人之间日常生活交往中所应遵循的行为规范。寻衅滋事扰乱的是社会的日常生活秩序，因此，行为人所公然藐视的必须是人与人之间日常生活交往中所应遵循的行为规范。如社会生活中要求人与人之间互相尊重，以礼相待，以理服人。而寻衅滋事者则根本无视这些规范，随意殴打、追逐、拦截、辱骂他人。如果藐视的是其他的、不属于人们日常生活交往中的行为规范，就不是寻衅滋事的主观内容了。比如故意伤害致人轻伤的案件，为什么有的定故意伤害罪，有的定寻衅滋事罪，原因就在于主观要件的不同。前者往往出于特定的原因，以伤害他人身体健康为目的；而后者则主要是“蛮不讲理”、一脸孔“霸气”，公然藐视人与人之间日常交往所必须遵循的“以礼相待、以理服人”的行为规则。因此，后者行为显然不同于前者，具有“流氓”的特征。
只有同时具有了以上三个方面的特征，才符合寻衅滋事罪的主观要件。缺少一项，便不能把罪与非罪、 此罪与彼罪区分开来。
案例1，抢劫与寻衅滋事。1996年7月的一天，上虞市某镇五名年青人酗酒后并排行走在公路上，拦住一辆出租车，要驾驶员拿出“香烟钿”。驾驶员不肯，一青年上前打了其一个耳光。驾驶员无奈，只好从装有近800元钱的上衣口袋里，掏出50元给他们。
分析该案例时，不少同志提出五人均构成抢劫罪，另一些同志则认为应定性为寻衅滋事行为。从表面上看，认定为抢劫罪似乎有道理，行为人有暴力行为，又非法占有了他人的财物。但对他们的主观特征进行深入地分析，认定为抢劫罪就不妥了。行为人主观上主要并非是为了非法占有他人的财物。如果是，他们完全可以采用搜身等手段，将被害人身上的700余元钱全部抢去。他们主观上主要还是表现为公然藐视人与人之间日常生活交往中所必须遵循的行为规范，是非颠倒，荣辱不分，视此举为“十分有趣”的言行。因此，更符合寻衅滋事的特征。由于该行为尚未达到情节恶劣的程度，故不构成流氓罪（当时的罪名）。
案例2，故意伤害与寻衅滋事。1998年11月一天的晚上，裘某等三人在嵊州市某公路上游荡。一辆摩托车驶来，三人以灯太亮为由，拦住车，将二人拉下殴打，致一人轻伤。
对本案的争议不大，认为构成寻衅滋事罪。为什么表面上看似故意伤害，而认定为寻衅滋事，原因还是在于行为人主观上具有了寻衅滋事罪的特征。一个道德健全的人，是绝对不会在这种情况下拦车并伤害他人的。之所以会在这种情形下，产生如此后果，全在于行为人根本无视社会交往规则 ，公然藐视他人在社会生活中应受尊重的权利，肆意挑衅、侵犯他人，完全符合寻衅滋事罪的主观特征，故构成寻衅滋事罪。
案例3、4，起因与寻衅滋事。
某日，被告人孙某与另两人在饭店喝酒。在喝酒过程中，孙某给某厂打电话找甲，负责生产的边乙接电话后，孙某与边乙在电话里发生口角，边乙便将电话搁断。孙某便伙同另两人赶去，殴打边乙，致其轻伤。
1996年夏季的一天，沈某下河游泳，不慎被他人放置的鱼钩扎伤流血。沈某十分恼火，上岸后，即殴打放置鱼钩者甲。甲妻相劝，亦遭殴打。
起因对认定寻衅滋事有否影响，是一个常常困惑司法人员的问题。有的人认为，凡是有起因的，均是“事出有因”，就不是寻衅滋事行为。有的人认为，虽然“事出有因”，但不能以错对错，只要做了违反社会日常生活交往规则的行为，都具有寻衅滋事的性质。其实，这两种看法，都是片面的。第一种认识没有看到，寻衅滋事行为的产生和其他社会现象一样，都是存在着某种原因的。只是这种产生寻衅滋事的原因，在具有正常伦理道德观念的人看来，都不应该是出现随意殴打他人等行为的原因。如上述案例3，仅仅是由于对方没有去叫人便搁下电话赶去殴打他人，表面看事出有因，实际上仍是“随意殴打他人”。因为，诸如此类的小摩擦，在生活中经常会出现，一个道德观念健全的人，绝对不可能因此去殴打他人，“小因”不可能产生“大果”。赶去殴打他人的行为，完全是在其公然藐视社会日常生活交往规则的主观意识支配下的结果，是一种典型的寻衅滋事行为。显然，第一种看法，是一叶蔽目，只见“小因”，而忽视了行为人寻衅滋事的主观特征。第二种看法则走到了另一个极端。所谓寻衅滋事，当然是无事生非、无理取闹。如果有相当的原因存在，就不能说是寻衅滋事行为——尽管行为人的行为很不对。上述案例4便是如此，行为人因为被违章放置的鱼钩致伤而殴打他人，前因与后果具有联系的必然性——尽管不能以错对错，但此时他的行为，很难说就是由其公然藐视社会交往规则的意识支配下实施的。因为具有正常道德观念的人，于某时某刻，在外因的刺激下，由于特定的个性使然，也会做出过分甚至不道德的行为来。所以，在这种情况下，就不能说其是“随意殴打他人”、具有寻衅滋事的性质，而只是社会生活中的一种矛盾冲突，应以造成的后果定性。如致人轻伤 ，则定为故意伤害罪；如尚未达到定罪标准的，则是一种一般违法行为或民事纠纷。
总之，科学地把握寻衅滋事罪的主观要件，乃是正确认识此罪的前提之一。司法实践中，由于办案人员缺乏理性思考,仅凭行为“象不象流氓”、“流氓味道有没有”、“人坏不坏”等经验主义的办法来判断行为的性质，往往会把案件搞错。只有理性地把握寻衅滋事罪的主观要件，我们才能对此类犯罪进行自觉地分析，正确定性，做到不枉不纵。


注释：

①单长宗、梁华仁、张军、阮齐林主编：《新刑法研究与适用》，人民法院出版社2000年版，第641页。
②张智辉著:《我国刑法中的流氓罪》，群众出版社1988年版，第20页。
③⑧华东政法学院法学编辑部编《流氓罪法理探索》，第96、3页。
④赵秉志主编：《疑难刑事问题司法对策》第七册，吉林人民出版社1999年版，第375页。
⑤《刑法学全书》，上海科学技术文献出版社1993年版，第37页。
⑥刘为民著：《痞子文化》，中国经济出版社1995年版，第5页。
⑦《中国黑社会》，时代文艺出版社1998年版，第586




Partnership - New option for foreign investment in China

Zhiguo Li


　A new door to partnership is opened by the Chinese government to the foreign investors under this post-financial turmoil era in order to attract more foreign investment and provide more employment. On November 25, 2009, the State Council of the PRC promulgated the Measures for the Administration on the Establishment of Partnership Business by Foreign Enterprises or Individuals in China adopted at the 77th executive meeting of the State Council on August 19, 2009, which shall come into effect as of March 1, 2010 (“the Foreign Partnership Measures”). The Foreign Partnership Measures is regarded as supplementary to the Partnership Business Law of the People's Republic of China (“the Partnership Law”), article 108 of which provides that the measures for the administration on the establishment of partnership business by foreign enterprises or individuals shall be formulated by the State Council. Therefore the Partnership Law is the basic law for foreign enterprises or individuals (collectively “foreign partners”) to establish the partnership business in China (“foreign partnership”).

　The initial effort to formulate this kind of measures with the authorization of the Partnership Law can be tracked to January 2007 when the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (MOC), as requested by the Legislative Affair Office of the State Council, promulgated a draft of the Measures for the Administration on the Foreign Funded Partnership Business (“the Draft”) for public consultation. The Draft mostly reflect the intention of the MOC to remain the approval authority for the foreign partnerships as it does in the setup of the other three types of FIEs, such as equity joint venture, contractual joint venture and wholly foreign owned enterprise (i.e., EJV, CJV and WFOE, collectively FIEs). But the final Foreign Partnership Measures kick the MOC and its local branches (“the MOC local branches”) out from the charging authority with the replacement by the local authorized branch of the State Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC local branch), which is unexpected to but welcome by the professionals and entrepreneurs. This article will do analysis on the Foreign Partnership Measures from four perspectives: foreign partnership models, foreign partners’ qualification, thresholds and registration of the foreign partnership, in aiming to describe a clear foreign partnership roadmap for foreign partners.


Foreign Partnership Models

　Foreign partners can set up the foreign partnership in China in three models: a. with the other foreign partners; b. with the Chinese individuals, legal persons and the other organizations registered and located in Mainland China; c. through participating the existing domestic partnership.

　In the models above, the foreign partners have the option to take the form of general partnership, limited liability partnership or limited partnership stipulated by the Partnership Law, among which the limited liability partnership is only for the professional institutions such as law firms and accounting firms. Comparing with model a and b, model c seems more feasible and time-and-cost saving for the foreign partners. A complete due diligence will be conducted in order to minimize the risk from the operation of the domestic partnership before the participation date of the foreign partners. In consideration of the current administration and nature of the partnerships, lack of credibility and the other elements in China, it will be difficult to get a complete due diligence report satisfied with the foreign partners. Therefore, models a and b are highly recommended. Which model of a or b take needs the consideration and balance of the foreign partners based on their business plan, legal structuring, such as whether foreign partners themselves intend to do the business competing with the foreign partnership and how to exit by transferring the contribution in the partnership, ect., and the thresholds discussed below.

Foreign Partners’ Qualification

　The difference in the expression on the partners from overseas and China should be noted. Foreign partners only include foreign enterprises and individuals. The Chinese partners include Chinese individuals, legal persons and the other organizations. There is no unified legal interpretation on the “enterprise”, though mostly it refers to the profitable organizations. This uncertainty may come from the prudency of the legislator of China on the qualifications of foreign partners. Under article 184 of the Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China for Trial (“the Opinions”), this expression of “enterprise” on the foreign partners allow the SAIC local branch more discretion to judge whether the foreign partner is a qualified “enterprise” or not in accordance with the relevant Chinese laws. In this scenario, the foreign partners need to note that they should not fall into the types of entities prescribed in article 3 of the Partnership Law if they aim to be a general partner, which says that wholly state-funded company, state-owned company, listed company, public-welfare-oriented institution or social organization may not become a general partner.

　Regarding the foreign individuals, they must have full capacity for civil conduct in accordance with article 14 of the Partnership Law. The international private law problem will also be involved here. Pursuant to article 180 of the Opinions, the foreign individuals who conduct civil activities in the territory of China, shall be regarded as having full capacity for civil conduct if they have that in accordance with China laws, no matter what their national laws requires for their capacity for civil conduct. Foreign individuals at or above the age of 18 years old are qualified to be the foreign partners if they are not mentally ill.

Thresholds for Foreign Partnership

　Some thresholds, such as the approval by the MOC, imposed on the FIEs are lifted for foreign partnership. This means that the foreign partnership and the domestic partnership will be treated with unified threshold in the aspect of approval, which will definitely reduce the criticism from the international community, but may cause more from the domestic public (including those FIEs). But it does not mean that there will be no thresholds review on foreign partnership.

　Article 3 of the Foreign Partnership Measures lists the general thresholds for the foreign partnerships. The establishment of foreign partnership shall abide by the Partnership Law and the other relevant laws, regulations and rules, and comply with the industrial policies for foreign investment. These general thresholds need to be analyzed together with the reference to the other relevant laws, regulations, rules and policies.

　First, the threshold provided by the Partnership Law is the pre-approval on the business scope. Where the business cope of a foreign partnership contains any item, for example oil distribution, that is subject to approval prior to registration according to laws or regulations, such approval shall be sought in advance and submitted at the time of registration with SAIC local branch. These pre-approvals involve , but not limited to, the Ministry of Land, the Ministry of Transport, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the China Banking Regulatory Commission and the China Insurance Regulatory Commission, etc., which depends on the business of the foreign partnership.

　Second, the Provisions on Guiding the Orientation of Foreign Investment (2002) and the Catalogue for the Guidance of Foreign Investment Industries (revised in 2007) (collectively “foreign investment industrial policies”) set up the industrial threshold for the foreign partnerships, which are the industrial policy basis for the SAIC local branch to review registration application to establish foreign partnership in China. This will obviously increase the working load of the SAIC local branches since they are lack of the experience in this kind of foreign investment industrial policies review. We may also anticipate that there might be different explanation and implementations on the above two documents, which will be the problem faced by those foreign partners who submit the application in the first half year after the Foreign Partnership Measures comes into force on March 1, 2010.

　The third threshold is that the verification is required if the project invested by the foreign partners falls into the scope described in the Provisional Measures Governing Verification of Foreign Invested Projects. The charging authority is the National Development and Reform Commission and its local branches, which depending on the amount of the total investment and the nature of the project.

　It is necessary to note the forth threshold hidden in the important expression in article 3 of the Foreign Partnership Measures, which put the “rules” as the legal basis for the establishment of foreign partnerships. In the legal system of China, it indicates that the State Council authorizes the ministries or departments under the State Council (“the Ministries”) to issue necessary “rules” applicable to foreign partnerships. It also reflects that the existing valid “rules” issued by the Ministries, including those applicable to the representative offices opened by foreign law firms in China, are still the barrier for the foreign partners to access the local market in China.

　The final threshold comes from the commitment of China in its WTO accession. Although the State Council encourages those foreign partners who have advanced technology and management experience to establish foreign partnership in China with the purpose to facilitate the development of the modern service industry, at this stage, the services industries may only limited to those listed in the Schedule of Specific Commitments on Services (Annex 9 of the Protocol on the Accession of the People’s Republic of China) and the openness will not be wider than the commitments therein.

Registration of the Foreign Partnership

　In the FIEs regime, all investments by foreign investors need the pre-approvals of the MOC or MOC local branches. In the approval process, the MOC or MOC local branches will review, but not limited to, the content of the application, the article of associations of FIEs and contracts signed by the parties if any. Generally, this approval procedure will take 5 working days to 90 working days depending on the nature and total investment of the project. In this regard, the cancel of this approval for the foreign partnership will significantly escalate the speed of the establishment in the procedural stage and to a great extent reduce the uncertainty from the MOC or MOC local branches.

　The Foreign Partnership Measures stipulates that the representative or agent of all the partners shall submit the establishment application only to the SAIC local branch and not the SAIC. The submission shall include, besides the documents required by the Regulations on the Administration of Registration of Partnership Business (revised in 2007, “Partnership Registration Regulation”), the explanation on compliance of the foreign partnership with the foreign investment industrial policies, which will ease the review by the SAIC local branch. In this regard, the review may not be limited to the formality as provided in article 16 of Partnership Registration Regulation. It seems impossible for the SAIC local branch to issue the license to the foreign partnership on the spot. In this scenario, the SAIC local branch shall make a decision on whether to issue the license to the foreign partnership within 20 working days after the date it accepts the complete application.

　The Foreign Partnership Measures is the second case for MOC and MOC local branches to lose approval authority in the recent years. The first case is for the representative office opened by most of foreign enterprises in China since 2004. Although the loss of approval authority, the MOC local branches at the same level with the SAIC local branches accepting the application for establishment of foreign partnership shall be advised the registration information (including the establishment, alteration and cancel) of the foreign partnerships by the latter.

Conclusion

　For those foreign partners not interested in establishing professional foreign partnerships such as law firms in China, they are now can access the Chinese market with a presence in the option of partnership. The approval procedures involved with the MOC or its local branches as set up for FIEs has been removed. The minimum investment (registered capital) requirement for FIEs has been reduced to RMB30,000 (RMB100,000 for one-person limited liability company) by the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (revised in 2005), the Foreign Partnership Measures leave the minimum investment open to the partners. The foreign partners can contribute with the currency (freely exchanged foreign currency or legally earned RMB), in kind, IPR, land use right, the other properties or labor service (limited to general partners) to the foreign partnerships. All these will minimize the cost for foreign partners to achieve their goal of profit maximization in China. But those enterprises focusing on the investment business, such as the foreign-funded venture capital investment enterprises and foreign-funded investment companies, are excluded from the Foreign Partnership Measures due to lack of experience in administrating this kind of enterprises by the government.