China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

China Issues Regulations for Systemically Important Banks

Sat, 20 Nov 2021
Categories: China Legal Trends

On 15 Oct. 2021, the People’s Bank of China (PBC) and China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission (CBIRC jointly) published the “Regulations on Additional Supervision of Systemically Important Banks (For Trial Implementation)” (hereinafter “the Regulations”,系统重要性银行附加监管规定(试行)), which shall come into effect on 1 Dec. 2021.

The Regulations aims to complete the last piece of the puzzle of the systemically important banks regulatory system, so as to maintain the stability of the financial system.

Systemically important banks refer to the financial institutions featuring large size, high structural and operational complexity, and strong linkages with other financial institutions, which provide such critical services in the financial system that they become almost irreplaceable. Their failure to survive a substantial risk would cause significant disruption to the financial system and the real economy.

On the same day, the PBOC and CRIBC unveiled a list of 19 banks deemed to be systemically important banks, which were divided into five groups by the descending order of importance.

Specifically:

The First Group (8): Ping An Bank, China Everbright Bank, Hua Xia Bank, China Guangfa Bank, Bank of Ningbo, Bank of Shanghai, Bank of Jiangsu, Bank of Beijing;

The Second Group (4): Shanghai Pudong Development Bank, China Citic Bank, China Minsheng Banking Corp, Postal Savings Bank of China;

The Third Group (3): Bank of Communications, China Merchants Bank, Industrial Bank;

The Fourth Group (4): Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Bank of China, China Construction Bank, Agricultural Bank of China;

The Fifth Group is empty at this point.

 

 

Cover Photo by Ralf Leineweber on Unsplash

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

You might also like

PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal, Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments

Recent Australian case law clarifies that the “double interest” mechanism in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) monetary judgments functions as a compensatory post-judgment interest framework rather than an unenforceable penalty. This consolidates Australia’s position as a highly attractive and creditor-friendly forum for enforcing Chinese judgments. See Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58 (6 February 2024), Fu v Pang [2025] VSC 597 (16 September 2025)

IOMed Settles First Case, Resolving China-Singapore Maritime Dispute

The newly established International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) has successfully resolved its inaugural case—a maritime charter dispute between Chinese and Singaporean parties—marking a major milestone for the world’s first government-backed global mediation body.