China

1. Legal Status

NFTs in their global, cryptocurrency-native form are effectively prohibited in mainland China, but a tightly controlled domestic variant — marketed almost universally as "digital collectibles" (数字藏品, shùzì cángpǐn) — is legal and actively issued. China operates the world's largest regulated digital-collectibles market under a distinctive model: primary issuance is permitted through state-aligned, licensed platforms running on permissioned ("consortium" / "alliance") chains, while secondary trading and resale are prohibited in practice, and any cryptocurrency, fractionalization, or financial-speculation feature is banned.

The defining features of the Chinese regime are:

• Deliberate decoupling from cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency trading and related financial activity have been comprehensively prohibited since the People's Bank of China (PBOC)-led notice of 24 September 2021 (Yin Fa [2021] No. 237). Digital collectibles are kept separate by mandating that they be denominated and settled only in Renminbi (RMB) via bank cards, Alipay, or WeChat Pay — never in crypto.
• Avoidance of the "token" label. Issuers describe products as "digital collectibles" (数字藏品) or "digital cultural and creative goods" rather than "NFTs" or "tokens", to emphasise non-tradable, collectible status and distance them from financial instruments.
• Permissioned infrastructure. Collectibles are minted on private/consortium chains operated by the issuing platform or by state infrastructure such as the Blockchain-based Service Network (BSN) and its BSN-DDC (Distributed Digital Certificate) layer — not on public chains like Ethereum.
• No bespoke statute. There is no national NFT/digital-collectibles law. The regime is constructed from cryptocurrency-prohibition notices, industry self-discipline initiatives, court precedent, and existing telecom, culture, copyright, e-commerce, AML, and tax law.

China has not banned the issuance or holding of digital collectibles. But authorities — including the Supreme People's Procuratorate (SPP) — have repeatedly warned that collectibles carry "the attributes of virtual assets" and pose financial, management, cybersecurity, and legal risks where they acquire speculative or financialized characteristics.

Source: China Briefing (Dezan Shira), "How China Views NFTs and What Are Its Market Prospects?" (RMB-only settlement; consortium-chain model; April 2022 self-regulation)

Source: CoinDesk, "China's Top Prosecution Agency Says Although Not Banned NFTs Have Crypto-Like Attributes" (17 May 2023)

2. Regulatory Framework

China has no single NFT regulator and no NFT-specific statute. The regime is assembled from cryptocurrency-prohibition notices issued by financial regulators, self-discipline initiatives by industry associations, and existing sectoral law (telecoms, culture, copyright, e-commerce, AML, tax). Multiple authorities share jurisdiction.

2.1 PBOC Notice on Virtual Currency Risks — Yin Fa [2021] No. 237 (September 2021)

On 24 September 2021, the PBOC and nine other departments issued the Notice on Further Preventing and Handling the Risks of Speculation in Virtual Currency Trading (Yin Fa [2021] No. 237), which declared virtual-currency-related business activities illegal financial activity, banned crypto exchanges and trading, and provided the foundational policy that segregates digital collectibles from crypto. Digital-collectibles platforms structure themselves to avoid any conduct that would bring them within this prohibition (no crypto settlement, no exchange-style continuous trading).

Source: Hogan Lovells Digital Assets & Blockchain Hub — China NFT guide (Notice 237 / 银发[2021]237号; PBOC + 9 departments)

2.2 Three-Association Initiative on Preventing NFT-Related Financial Risks (April 2022)

On 13 April 2022, the National Internet Finance Association of China (NIFA), the China Banking Association (CBA), and the Securities Association of China (SAC) jointly issued the Initiative on Preventing NFT-Related Financial Risks (关于防范NFT相关金融风险的倡议). This is the cornerstone document of China's anti-financialization stance. It sets behavioural standards that prohibit, among other things:

• Packaging securities, insurance, credit, precious metals, and other financial assets as the underlying of an NFT
• Weakening non-fungibility through batch/bulk creation or excessive fractionalization (a structure resembling an ICO or split securities)
• Operating or providing centralized trading venues, continuous listed trading, or standardized-contract trading
• Using Bitcoin, Ether, or other virtual currencies as the pricing or settlement medium
• Providing trading, custody, or derivative services that facilitate speculation
• Direct or indirect investment in NFTs, or providing financing for such investment

It also requires platforms to perform real-name authentication of issuers, sellers, and buyers and to fulfil AML obligations (customer identification, record retention, suspicious-transaction handling).

Source: Hogan Lovells — China NFT guide (April 2022 三协会倡议; six behavioural standards; real-name + AML)

Source: SCMP, "China's NFT industry agrees to ban cryptocurrency and fight speculation" (real-name authentication; legal-tender-only settlement)

2.3 Industry Self-Discipline Conventions (2022–2023)

In addition to the financial-regulator initiative, the digital cultural and creative industry issued its own self-discipline conventions:

• Digital Culture and Creative Industries Self-Regulation Convention (2022) — signed by Tencent, JD.com, and Alibaba, establishing 11 principles including anti-money-laundering, dissociation from virtual currency, consumer-rights protection, and promotion of national culture.
• June 2023 self-regulatory development initiative — around 30 institutions (including Ant Group, Baidu, Tencent, and JD.com) issued an initiative on the self-regulatory development of the NFT/digital-collectibles industry, reaffirming resistance to financialization and commitments on licensing and real-name authentication.

These conventions are industry self-discipline instruments, not binding law, but in China's regulatory environment they function as de facto compliance baselines that platforms and their cloud/payment partners enforce.

Source: MIT Technology Review, "Chinese NFT platforms don't want you to trade NFTs anymore" (April 2022 platform guidance; secondary-trading restrictions)

Source: China Briefing, "How China Views NFTs" (11-principle Digital Culture and Creative Industries convention; Tencent/JD/Alibaba)

2.4 PBOC Circular on Further Preventing and Handling Virtual-Currency Risks — Yin Fa [2026] No. 42 (February 2026)

On 6 February 2026, eight departments — the PBOC, National Development and Reform Commission, MIIT, Ministry of Public Security, SAMR, National Financial Regulatory Administration, CSRC, and State Administration of Foreign Exchange — jointly issued the Notice on Further Preventing and Handling Risks Related to Virtual Currencies (Yin Fa [2026] No. 42), with the approval of the State Council and consensus among the CAC, SPC, and SPP. It took effect immediately on issuance. Key points relevant to digital collectibles:

• It reaffirms that virtual currencies (including Bitcoin, Ether, and Tether) lack the legal status of fiat currency and must not circulate as currency in China — reinforcing the crypto/collectibles separation.
• It assigns the PBOC the lead on virtual currency and the CSRC the lead on real-world-asset (RWA) tokenization, and requires Chinese entities issuing asset-backed security tokens overseas (backed by domestic assets) to obtain prior CSRC approval/filing.
• It prohibits any entity (domestic or overseas) from issuing RMB-pegged stablecoins outside China unless expressly approved.

The Circular does not itself address digital collectibles, but it underscores the policy environment: financialized or cross-border tokenization pathways for Chinese assets are funnelled to the CSRC and remain off-limits for collectibles platforms.

Source: Charltons, "China's Regulatory Position on Virtual Currencies and RWA" (Yin Fa [2026] No. 42; eight departments; 6 February 2026; CSRC RWA lead; RMB-stablecoin prohibition)

Source: Digital Policy Alert, "Notice on Further Preventing and Handling Risks Related to Virtual Currencies (Yinfa [2026] No. 42)" (2026)

3. Securities Classification

China does not classify digital collectibles as securities — but it polices the boundary aggressively. The entire regulatory architecture is designed to prevent collectibles from acquiring securities-like or other financial-instrument characteristics, rather than to bring them within the securities regime.

The April 2022 three-association initiative draws the line: a digital collectible must not be backed by securities, insurance, credit, or precious-metal assets; must not be fractionalized or batch-created in a way that weakens non-fungibility (which would resemble a standardized/split security or an ICO); and must not be traded on a centralized or continuous-listing venue. Crossing any of these lines is treated as illegal financial activity, not as a registrable securities offering.

The Supreme People's Procuratorate's May 2023 guidance reinforced this enforcement-oriented posture, warning that collectibles share "the attributes of virtual assets" and can give rise to crimes including:

• Illegal absorption of public deposits / illegal fundraising — where platforms offer fixed returns, buy-backs, equity-like rights, or cash rewards to attract funds
• Fraud — where marketing devices such as airdrops, mystery boxes ("盲盒"), or artificial scarcity inflate prices with no reasonable pricing mechanism
• Money laundering, gambling, and pyramid-selling offences in connection with collectibles schemes

There is no Howey-style "investment contract" test in Chinese law; classification turns on whether the product functions as a financial instrument or speculative asset, which is prohibited regardless of label.

Source: CoinDesk, "China's Top Prosecution Agency Says Although Not Banned NFTs Have Crypto-Like Attributes" (SPP May 2023; illegal fundraising, fraud, mystery boxes, fixed returns)

Source: Leet & Tsai, "Introduction to NFT-related Legal Issues in Mainland China — Centered on Digital Collectibles" (prohibition on securities/insurance/credit/precious-metals underlyings; anti-ICO fractionalization)

4. IP Rights & Licensing

4.1 Purchasing a Digital Collectible vs Acquiring Copyright

Under the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China and the Civil Code, purchasing a digital collectible conveys network virtual property in the token/record but does not transfer copyright in the underlying work. Buyers acquire an exclusive, blockchain-recorded right against tampering with their ownership record, but — as the SPP itself emphasised — they generally cannot prevent others from accessing, copying, or disseminating the underlying digital asset, and do not obtain civil-law "ownership" of the artwork in the conventional sense. Reproduction, distribution, adaptation, and information-network-dissemination rights remain with the copyright owner unless expressly licensed or assigned in writing.

Source: CoinDesk, "China's Top Prosecution Agency..." (consumers do not enjoy civil-law ownership; only an anti-tampering right over the on-chain record)

4.2 First NFT Infringement Judgment — Qice v. Bigverse (Hangzhou Internet Court, 2022)

In (2022) Zhe 0192 Minchu No. 1008, the Hangzhou Internet Court (hearing held 20 April 2022; open-session hearing 23 March 2022) decided China's first NFT copyright-infringement case. Plaintiff Shenzhen Qicedie (Qice) held a worldwide exclusive copyright licence to the "I am not a Fat Tiger" (不二马 / "Fat Tiger") cartoon series. A user of the "Bigverse"/"Metaverse" platform (operated by Hangzhou Yuanyuzhou Technology Co. Ltd., NFTCN) had minted and listed a "Fat Tiger Vaccination" NFT for 899 RMB, bearing the author's visible watermark.

Key holdings:

• The relevant right is the information-network-dissemination right. Minting and listing an NFT places the work on the internet for public access; the act implicates the copyright owner's information network dissemination right rather than the distribution right.
• The "exhaustion of rights" (first-sale) defence does not apply. The court rejected the platform's argument that the principle of exhaustion should excuse the conduct.
• Heightened platform duty of care. As a professional NFT platform that charged primary-market commission (10%), secondary-market commission (2.5% of the seller's gain), and "gas" fees (33 RMB), and that directly profited from and participated in the transaction, the platform owed a higher duty to review ownership before minting. Its review mechanism was "virtually useless" because it allowed a clearly watermarked work to be listed.
• Liability and remedy. The platform was held liable for assisting infringement and ordered to cease the infringement (including by sending the infringing NFT to a "black-hole"/burn address) and to pay statutory compensation of RMB 4,000 (covering economic losses and reasonable expenses).

Source: Taylor Wessing, "Hangzhou Internet Court Civil Judgment (2022) Zhe 0192 Minchu No. 1008" (English translation) (parties, fee structure 10%/2.5%/33 RMB gas, duty of care, RMB 4,000 award)

Source: DLA Piper, "Chinese court rules in first NFT copyright infringement case" (May 2022) (information-network-dissemination right; platform duty of care)

4.3 Trade Marks and Minting

Minting a digital collectible that reproduces a third party's registered trade mark or copyrighted work without authorisation can constitute trade-mark infringement or copyright infringement under Chinese law. Because compliant platforms must operate under internet-culture and telecom licences (Section 6) and perform real-name registration, platforms are expected to conduct prior-ownership review — a duty the Qice judgment made concrete.

Source: Leet & Tsai, "Introduction to NFT-related Legal Issues in Mainland China" (platform IP-review obligations; licensing)

5. Taxation

China has no NFT-specific tax law and no bespoke digital-collectibles tax guidance as of June 2026. NFTs/digital collectibles are taxed under existing rules by reference to their characterisation (most commonly as intangible assets / cultural goods). The analysis below reflects practitioner guidance applying general tax law; the State Taxation Administration has not issued a dedicated digital-collectibles ruling.

The Value-Added Tax Law of the People's Republic of China was passed by the National People's Congress Standing Committee on 25 December 2024 (effective 1 January 2026), consolidating VAT rules at statutory level; it does not single out digital collectibles, which continue to be taxed as intangible-asset supplies.

Source: AllBright Law Offices (锦天城), "NFT数字藏品合规指引（一）—税务规划篇" (NFT Digital Collectibles Compliance Guide (I) — Tax Planning) (VAT 6% / 3% intangible-asset treatment; gifting analysis)

Source: lawinfochina.com, "Value-Added Tax Law of the People's Republic of China" (VAT Law passed 25 December 2024)

6. Licensing/Registration Requirements

There is no single "digital-collectibles licence" in China. A compliant issuance platform must instead assemble a stack of existing telecom, blockchain-filing, culture, and (where applicable) art/auction qualifications, plus perform real-name and AML controls. Each item below is a separate authorisation; "NOT VERIFIED" marks dimensions with no public, standardised data because requirements are set case-by-case by provincial authorities and there is no published national licence schedule.

6.1 Value-Added Telecommunications Business Permit (ICP/EDI)

6.2 Blockchain Information Service Filing (CAC)

Source: Hogan Lovells — China NFT guide (CAC January 2019 Blockchain Information Service Management Provisions; registration batches; value-added telecom and network-culture permits)

6.3 Internet Culture Business Licence (网络文化经营许可证)

Source: Hogan Lovells — China NFT guide (network culture operation licence; art-dealing registration as applicable)

6.4 Real-Name Authentication and AML (cross-cutting)

6.5 Regulatory Direction

The trajectory is toward state-led consolidation of issuance and infrastructure (BSN-DDC; "China Cultural Protection Chain"; proposed state-backed exchanges) and continued suppression of speculative/secondary trading. A genuinely compliant nationwide secondary market remained absent as of June 2026 despite repeated announcements (Section 9).

Source: Leet & Tsai, "Introduction to NFT-related Legal Issues in Mainland China" (real-name; AML; record retention; secondary-trading prohibition)

7. AML/KYC/Compliance

Digital-collectibles platforms are expected to operate a robust AML/KYC regime, driven by (a) the April 2022 three-association initiative, (b) CAC blockchain-filing real-name requirements, and (c) general PBOC anti-money-laundering law.

Core expectations:

• Real-name authentication (实名认证) of every issuer, seller, and buyer — a prerequisite to participation.
• RMB-only settlement through regulated channels (bank cards, Alipay, WeChat Pay); virtual-currency settlement is prohibited, removing a major laundering vector.
• Customer identification and record retention, plus monitoring and handling of suspicious activity, aligned with the PBOC AML framework.
• No centralized/continuous trading venues, which removes the exchange-style liquidity that elsewhere enables wash-trading and self-laundering.

Because the SPP has flagged money laundering, illegal fundraising, fraud, and pyramid-selling as live criminal risks in the collectibles space (Section 3), platforms face criminal as well as administrative exposure for AML failures.

Source: SCMP, "China's NFT industry agrees to ban cryptocurrency and fight speculation" (real-name authentication; legal-tender-only settlement; AML pledge)

Source: Leet & Tsai, "Introduction to NFT-related Legal Issues in Mainland China" (real-name, identity preservation, transaction-record maintenance, AML)

8. Enforcement

8.1 Civil / Court Precedent

• Qice v. Bigverse, (2022) Zhe 0192 Minchu No. 1008 (Hangzhou Internet Court, 2022) — first NFT copyright-infringement judgment; platform held to a heightened duty of care; ordered to cease infringement and pay RMB 4,000 (Section 4.2).
• Wang v. NFT platform, (2022) — Hangzhou Internet Court (29 November 2022) — an information-network-sales-contract dispute. A buyer (surnamed Wang) sued after a 999 RMB collectible order was refunded, seeking enforcement of the trade or 99,999 RMB compensation. The court dismissed the claim (Wang's submitted personal information did not meet the platform's purchase requirements) but issued the landmark holding that NFT digital collectibles possess the property-object characteristics of value, scarcity, disposability/controllability, and tradability, and the unique attributes of network virtuality and technicality, and therefore constitute "network virtual property" protected under Chinese law. The court added that the sale contract did not violate Chinese law or the policy of preventing economic/financial risk, and that such trades are governed by China's E-Commerce Law.

Source: Global Times, "E. China's Hangzhou court accepts NFT collection as virtual assets" (29 November 2022; network virtual property; E-Commerce Law; Wang dispute facts)

Source: Leet & Tsai, "Introduction to NFT-related Legal Issues in Mainland China" (November 2022 virtual-property holding; contract compliant with law and regulatory direction)

8.2 Administrative / Platform Action

• March 2022: Tencent's WeChat shut down over a dozen public accounts promoting digital collectibles on grounds of "unlicensed business activities" and "suspected fraud".
• 2022 onward: Major platforms curtailed activity — Tencent's Huanhe ceased issuing new digital collectibles (announced it would halt future sales), widely read as a "burst" of the speculative bubble; Ant Group's platform (Jingtan/Topnod) and others tightened or suspended any transfer/secondary functionality.

Source: China Britain Business Council, "What can we expect from China's first state-backed NFT marketplace?" (Huanhe halt; Topnod/Lingxi/Huanhe platforms; collect-but-not-trade model)

8.3 Criminal Risk Guidance — Supreme People's Procuratorate (May 2023)

In May 2023, the SPP published guidance urging stronger "risk research and judgment" and accurate punishment of crimes connected to digital collectibles, identifying illegal fundraising/illegal absorption of public deposits, fraud (via airdrops, mystery boxes, artificial scarcity, fixed-return/buy-back promises), money laundering, gambling, and pyramid-selling as principal offences (Section 3). The guidance noted a sharp spike in consumer complaints — reportedly 59,700 NFT-related complaints in 2022, up dramatically from fewer than 200 the prior year (figure as reported in SPP-related coverage; see Verification Notes).

Source: CoinDesk, "China's Top Prosecution Agency Says Although Not Banned NFTs Have Crypto-Like Attributes" (SPP May 2023; offence categories; 59,700 complaints in 2022)

9. Recent Developments (2022–2026)

State-backed exchange announcements (status — caution). Beginning around January 2023, state-aligned entities (China Technology Exchange; the official cultural-exchange bodies; blockchain developer Huaban Digital Copyrights, on the "China Cultural Protection Chain") announced plans for a national digital-collectibles trading venue, framed by some commentators as a step toward sanctioned secondary trading and projecting market values such as RMB 28 billion by 2026 (a third-party projection, not official policy). As of June 2026 there is no confirmed, fully operational, nationally sanctioned compliant secondary market; these remain announcements/projections — see Verification Notes.

Source: SCMP, "China to launch exchange for trading NFT-like digital collectibles" (national exchange plan; China Technology Exchange; cultural-relics/exhibition bodies; China Cultural Protection Chain)

Source: China Britain Business Council, "What can we expect from China's first state-backed NFT marketplace?" (RMB 28 billion-by-2026 projection; secondary-market opening discussion)

Source: Charltons, "China's Regulatory Position on Virtual Currencies and RWA" (Yin Fa [2026] No. 42; 6 February 2026)

10. Assessment

Regulatory Posture: Restrictive (Controlled-Issuance / Anti-Financialization)

China runs a state-channelled, anti-speculation model unlike any other major jurisdiction: it permits primary issuance of "digital collectibles" through licensed, RMB-settled, permissioned-chain platforms while suppressing the secondary trading, fractionalization, and crypto integration that define NFT markets elsewhere. The objective is cultural/creative utility and blockchain adoption without financialization or capital-flow risk.

Strengths:

• Clear anti-financialization line via the April 2022 three-association initiative and Yin Fa [2026] No. 42 — securities/insurance/credit wrapping, fractionalization, and crypto settlement are unambiguously off-limits.
• Judicial recognition of digital collectibles as protectable "network virtual property" (Hangzhou Internet Court, Nov 2022) provides civil-law certainty for holders and contract enforceability under the E-Commerce Law.
• Robust IP duty-of-care precedent (Qice v. Bigverse) imposing prior-ownership review on platforms.
• Built-in AML controls through mandatory real-name authentication and RMB-only settlement.

Weaknesses:

• No bespoke statute — the regime rests on prohibition notices, self-discipline initiatives, and case law, leaving provincial inconsistency and case-by-case licensing (capital/cost/timeline largely NOT VERIFIED).
• Suppressed secondary market undermines liquidity and resale value; repeated state-exchange announcements have not produced a confirmed compliant nationwide secondary venue.
• Consumer-protection gap at the margins — the SPP itself warns that buyers lack civil-law "ownership" of the underlying work and face fraud risk from mystery-box/airdrop/fixed-return schemes; complaint volumes spiked sharply in 2022.
• Platform fragility — high-profile exits (Tencent Huanhe halting issuance) and account shutdowns reflect a volatile, policy-contingent market.

Comparison: China's model is materially more restrictive than its regional peers. Where

Singapore and

Hong Kong apply substance-over-form tests that leave pure collectibles unregulated and crypto-native NFTs legal, and where

South Korea regulates NFTs case-by-case under the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, China prohibits crypto-native NFTs outright and confines collectibles to a licensed, RMB-only, secondary-trading-suppressed channel. Compared to the

United States — where the March 2026 SEC/CFTC taxonomy treats most collectibles as neither securities nor commodities and a liquid secondary market thrives — China's posture is the inverse: issuance is tolerated only insofar as financialization and resale are foreclosed.

---

<!-- related-coverage:BEGIN — auto-generated by related_coverage.py; edit via --apply re-run, not by hand -->

Related coverage

China in other research domains:

• CBDC Frameworks
• Crypto Mining Regulations

<!-- related-coverage:END -->

Verification Notes

• Standard version: This file was produced under verification-standards.md Standard version: 2026-06-04.
• Primary-source posture. China publishes most NFT-relevant instruments as Chinese-language notices/initiatives and self-discipline conventions rather than as a codified statute. The original Chinese texts of the April 2022 three-association initiative (关于防范NFT相关金融风险的倡议) and the 2022/2023 self-discipline conventions were not directly fetched from an official association URL during this research; their content (six behavioural standards; prohibition of securities/insurance/credit/precious-metals underlyings; anti-fractionalization; centralized-trading ban; real-name + AML; RMB-only settlement) is corroborated across Hogan Lovells, SCMP, MIT Technology Review, and Leet & Tsai. Treated as industry self-discipline instruments, not binding law.
• PBOC Yin Fa [2021] No. 237 (24 Sep 2021) and Yin Fa [2026] No. 42 (6 Feb 2026): the [2026] No. 42 Circular (eight issuing departments; effective on issuance; CSRC RWA lead; RMB-stablecoin prohibition) was verified via Charltons and Digital Policy Alert. Digital Policy Alert's headline references "seven state departments" while Charltons and KuCoin enumerate eight; the discrepancy is over whether the PBOC is counted among or in addition to the others — the eight-department enumeration (PBOC, NDRC, MIIT, MPS, SAMR, NFRA, CSRC, SAFE) is adopted as the more specific, named-list source. Yin Fa [2026] No. 42 does not itself address digital collectibles; its relevance is the crypto/collectibles separation and RWA-tokenization gatekeeping.
• Qice v. Bigverse, (2022) Zhe 0192 Minchu No. 1008: verified against the full Taylor Wessing English translation of the judgment (case number, parties, 23 March 2022 hearing, 10%/2.5% commissions, 33 RMB gas fee, duty-of-care reasoning, "black-hole" removal) and DLA Piper. The judgment-date "20 April 2022" is widely reported in secondary coverage; the translation confirms the open-session hearing date (23 March 2022). Damages of RMB 4,000 are reported by DLA Piper and secondary coverage; the Taylor Wessing translation excerpt available covered facts/reasoning rather than the final operative damages figure — the RMB 4,000 statutory-compensation figure is therefore sourced to DLA Piper and consistent secondary reporting.
• Wang dispute (29 Nov 2022, Hangzhou Internet Court): the "network virtual property" holding, the 999 RMB / 99,999 RMB claim facts, the dismissal ground (buyer's personal information did not meet purchase requirements), and the E-Commerce Law characterisation are verified via Global Times (state media, event reporting) and Leet & Tsai. The full official judgment text was not separately fetched; the specific docket number for this second case was not located in the sources reviewed — NOT VERIFIED (docket number).
• SPP May 2023 guidance: offence categories (illegal fundraising, fraud, money laundering, gambling, pyramid-selling) and the "attributes of virtual assets" language verified via CoinDesk. The "59,700 complaints in 2022 / fewer than 200 the prior year" figure appears in CoinDesk's reporting of the SPP material; it is presented as reported data, not independently confirmed against an official complaints database — flagged accordingly.
• Taxation: there is no NFT-specific Chinese tax ruling. VAT treatment (6% general / 3% small-scale, intangible-asset characterisation) and gifting analysis are sourced to AllBright Law Offices practitioner guidance; the VAT Law enactment date (25 Dec 2024) is verified via lawinfochina.com. CIT/IIT treatment reflects general law applied by analogy — marked as practitioner analysis, not official NFT guidance.
• Licensing (Section 6): China has no single digital-collectibles licence and publishes no standardised national schedule of capital/cost/timeline for the constituent permits (value-added telecom/ICP/EDI, CAC blockchain filing, internet-culture licence). Those dimensions are explicitly marked NOT VERIFIED. The existence and authorities of the permits are verified via Hogan Lovells and Leet & Tsai. The CAC Provisions on the Administration of Blockchain Information Services effective date (15 Feb 2019) is well-established; the Hogan Lovells guide dates the regulation to "January 2019" (issuance) — both refer to the same instrument (issued Jan 2019, effective 15 Feb 2019).
• State-backed exchange / RMB 28 billion-by-2026: these are announcements and third-party projections, not enacted policy or confirmed operational facts. No confirmed, fully operational, nationally sanctioned compliant secondary market was verified as of June 2026 — presented as NOT a settled fact.
• No NFT-specific national statute, securities rule, or dedicated tax/AML regulation was identified for China through 2026-06-04; the regime continues to rest on crypto-prohibition notices, industry self-discipline, court precedent, and general sectoral law.
• Media sources (SCMP, Global Times, CoinDesk, China Briefing, MIT Technology Review) are used for event reporting and figures only, with regulatory analysis grounded in the law-firm/practitioner sources (Hogan Lovells, DLA Piper, Charltons, Leet & Tsai, AllBright) and the primary court translation (Taylor Wessing) and statute database (lawinfochina). No Wikipedia/Reddit/Quora/X/Medium sources were used.