Overcriminalization in Cybercrime Governance: Judicial Restraint in Regulating Assistance to Online Crimes in China

Abstract

Overcriminalization has become a central concern in contemporary cybercrime governance. In China, the Crime of Assisting Information Network Criminal Activities (CAINCA), introduced in 2015, criminalizes assistance that creates abstract risks within cybercrime networks. In judicial practice, however, the offense has gradually expanded through permissive presumptions of knowledge and mechanical reliance on quantitative thresholds, particularly after the 2020 “Duanka” campaign. Drawing on doctrinal analysis and three representative cases from the People’s Court Case Database, this article demonstrates how courts have blurred the boundary between neutral technical services and culpable facilitation. To address these risks, it proposes a framework of judicial restraint: restricting mens rea to actual knowledge, applying objective imputation to neutral assistance, prioritizing accomplice liability where upstream crimes can be identified, and strengthening individualized sentencing. These reforms aim to reconcile effective cybercrime governance with the principles of culpability and proportionality in criminal law.