Extradition in China: Legal Risks and Defence Analysis

China has concluded bilateral extradition treaties with approximately 60 countries, but not with the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, or most EU member states. China’s Extradition Law, combined with its nationality law, prohibits the extradition of Chinese nationals — meaning that even where a bilateral treaty exists, Chinese nationals cannot be formally surrendered. For Western states seeking individuals in China, formal extradition through standard legal channels is not available. For individuals in Western countries subject to Chinese-requested Interpol notices, the enforcement risk operates through INTERPOL’s mechanism rather than bilateral extradition channels.

China’s “Operation Fox Hunt” and related programmes represent the most extensively documented case of state-directed transnational repression by a major power. These programmes, operated by the Ministry of Public Security, target individuals abroad who have been accused of corruption or financial crimes and seek their return to China outside formal extradition channels. Documented methods include: sending Ministry of Public Security agents to foreign countries to conduct surveillance and pressure campaigns; recruiting third-party intermediaries to contact the target; threatening or coercing family members remaining in China; and applying pressure through business connections and financial leverage.

In the United States, the UK, the Netherlands, Canada, and other countries, law enforcement agencies have investigated and in some cases prosecuted Chinese agents operating illegally on their territory as part of these programmes. The US Department of Justice has secured convictions of individuals conducting operations for the Chinese Ministry of Public Security on US soil. Individuals who are aware of being targeted by Operation Fox Hunt or similar Chinese government pressure campaigns should engage both legal counsel and the relevant domestic national security or police authorities.

China is an active user of INTERPOL’s notice system and has been documented as using it for purposes that violate INTERPOL’s Constitution in some cases. The pattern includes: issuing Red Notices in commercial disputes that have been recharacterised as criminal matters; targeting political dissidents, activists, and ethnic minorities (particularly Uyghurs) under anti-terrorism or separatism statutes; and pursuing individuals whose underlying conduct does not constitute a criminal offence in most INTERPOL member states.

The CCF has deleted Chinese-requested Red Notices in cases where the political motivation was credible, where dual criminality failed (particularly for conduct criminalised only under China’s broad political offence statutes), or where the information in the notice was inaccurate. As with Russian-requested notices, the evidence package for a CCF challenge against a Chinese notice should include: human rights organisation reporting on China’s use of criminal process against the relevant category of person; expert evidence on the Chinese legal system; documentary evidence of the commercial or political context; and any relevant decisions from other jurisdictions addressing similar allegations.

For individuals in Western countries subject to Chinese-requested Interpol notices, the immediate enforcement mechanism is the Red Notice or Diffusion — which creates provisional arrest risk in all INTERPOL member states, including those in the Asia-Pacific region with active extradition relationships with China. Travel to Southeast Asian states, some African countries, and other jurisdictions with China extradition treaties carries meaningful arrest risk.

In the countries where most individuals subject to Chinese notices reside — the US, UK, EU — formal extradition to China is not available. However, immigration status vulnerabilities, civil asset proceedings, and informal pressure through business and family connections remain active risks. A comprehensive legal strategy must address the Interpol notice, any civil asset proceedings, and the transnational pressure campaign simultaneously.

China has active mutual legal assistance agreements with numerous countries and uses them to pursue financial evidence and asset recovery in parallel with criminal proceedings. An individual subject to Chinese-requested criminal proceedings may receive formal MLA requests directed at their banks, accountants, or legal representatives in Western countries — requiring the disclosure of financial information or the restraint of assets. These MLA requests require separate legal responses in the jurisdiction receiving them and must be addressed alongside the CCF challenge to the Interpol notice.

Contact our team for advice on China-connected cases. See our guidance on CCF challenges, Red Notice removal, and non-extradition countries for travel risk context.