China Tightens Fentanyl Criminal Sentencing Rules
China’s three central judicial and law-enforcement authorities jointly issued a formal opinion on 23 September 2026 setting out how fentanyl-related criminal cases should be handled, as Xinhua News reported. The guidance, numbered Fa Fa [2026] No. 12 (法发〔2026〕12号), was issued by the Supreme People’s Court (SPC), the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) and the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) — the coordination format known in Chinese official shorthand as the “two supremes and one ministry” (两高一部).
What the Opinion Does
The opinion consists of 18 articles and is framed as a judicial-interpretation-style instrument that operationalizes China’s existing Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law for fentanyl cases. According to China News Service, it emphasizes “strict punishment of fentanyl-related substance crimes in accordance with the law” (依法从严惩治) and is presented as a measure to safeguard public health and social stability.
Its central mechanism is a bifurcation of fentanyl-related substances into two categories — medicinal and non-medicinal — with different sentencing benchmarks for each:
- Medicinal fentanyl-related substances are judged against the quantity standards for “fentanyl” set out in the SPC’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Drug Crime Cases.
- Non-medicinal fentanyl-related substances are judged against the quantity standards for heroin under the Criminal Law — generally the harsher benchmark.
Beyond quantity thresholds, the opinion also sets out the scope of what counts as a fentanyl-related substance, basic requirements for evidence collection, rules for establishing knowledge or intent (mens rea), the recovery and confiscation of illegal gains, and jurisdiction over connected cases. It further refines the respective working responsibilities of the police, procuratorate and courts, providing what officials describe as a clear basis for enforcement and judicial work.
Separately, the SPP and MPS issued the Provisions on Standards for Filing and Prosecution of Fentanyl-Related Substance Crime Cases (《关于芬太尼类物质犯罪案件立案追诉标准的规定》), which govern when a case is formally opened for investigation and prosecution.
Context: A Years-Long Enforcement Push
The opinion did not emerge in a vacuum. China has positioned itself at the forefront of global fentanyl control since 2019, when it became the first country in the world to formally schedule the entire class of fentanyl-related substances (整类列管). Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning restated that record at a press briefing in January 2025, describing China as having “one of the strictest drug-control policies and most thorough enforcement in the world,” according to Cailian Press.
The issue has also been a persistent source of friction with the United States. On 1 February 2025, Washington announced a 10% tariff on Chinese goods citing, among other things, the fentanyl issue — a move the MPS spokesperson strongly rejected, according to Sina News. In that response, the ministry argued that “the root cause of America’s fentanyl crisis lies within the United States itself,” and noted that since China’s class-wide scheduling, it had not received notifications from the US of seizures of such substances originating from China.
Analysis: Coordination Signal and Diplomatic Subtext
The opinion’s most significant feature is not any single penalty but its function as a coordination instrument. The “two supremes and one ministry” format is standard in China for issuing normative guidance on criminal-law enforcement, and its use here signals that authorities intend nationwide uniformity in how fentanyl cases are investigated, prosecuted and sentenced.
The medicinal-versus-non-medicinal split is also legally consequential. By anchoring non-medicinal substances to heroin standards, the opinion places them in the harshest tier of China’s drug-offence regime, while medicinal substances — which have legitimate pharmaceutical uses — are handled under the existing fentanyl benchmarks. This distinction gives courts and prosecutors a clearer framework for separating trafficking from regulated medical activity, an area where prosecutorial discretion had previously been broader.
At the same time, the timing carries a diplomatic subtext. Coming more than a year after the tariff dispute and amid continued US pressure over precursor chemicals, the opinion serves as a domestic legal codification of a narrative Beijing has promoted internationally: that China’s drug-control regime is strict, cooperative and already ahead of many partners — including, as Chinese officials have pointed out, the United States, which has not permanently scheduled the entire class of fentanyl-related substances.
For foreign observers, the opinion is likely to be read less as a new restriction than as a formalization of enforcement practice, with the practical question being how consistently it is applied across provinces.
What to Watch For
The SPC, SPP and MPS pledged to jointly ensure implementation and to strengthen both “lawful punishment and comprehensive governance” of fentanyl-related crimes. Several questions remain open: whether the new uniform standards lead to a measurable rise in prosecutions, how the medicinal-versus-non-medicinal distinction is applied to precursor chemicals that sit on the boundary between the two, and whether the guidance has any effect on the tone of US-China anti-drug cooperation.
For now, the opinion stands as the clearest statement to date of how China intends to translate its broad drug-control policy into concrete criminal outcomes — and a reminder that fentanyl remains both a public-health priority and a durable point of contention in Beijing’s relationship with Washington.