China Justice Observer


EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

Online Verification Streamlines Overseas Power of Attorney in China

Sun, 25 Apr 2021
Categories: Insights



No more notarization and authentication of a power of attorney; online verification is what those living overseas and wishing to appoint a Chinese lawyer need.

Related posts:

Cross-border Online Case Filing: Latest Facilitation Measures for Foreign Parties 

How to Sue in Chinese Court Online While Living Abroad? 

Filing Lawsuits While Living Abroad: China's New Policy 


Under the new policy, for those planning to appoint a Chinese lawyer while living abroad, the power of attorney is no longer required to be notarized or authenticated, but only needs to be signed in the online video, being verified by the judge.

Pursuant to Article 264 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law, where a foreign party entrusts a Chinese lawyer as an agent while living abroad, the power of attorney signed outside of China shall be notarized by a notary office in the country where the party is domiciled and authenticated by the embassy or consulate of the People's Republic of China in the said country before being submitted to the Chinese court.

Practically speaking, for Chinese court, even when a Chinese person entrusts a Chinese lawyer to act as his/her agent in a lawsuit outside of China, the power of attorney also needs to go through the same procedure.

On 3 Feb 2021, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) promulgated the Several Provisions on Providing Online Case Filing Services for Parties in Cross-border Litigation (thereinafter “the Provisions”, 关于为跨境诉讼当事人提供网上立案服务的若干规定), Article 6 of which stipulates that where the party in cross-border litigation who has been verified his/her identity entrusts a mainland Chinese lawyer to act as his/her agent, he/she may apply to the court registering the case for online video verification.

See an earlier post, for a detailed discussion on how the Provisions has paved the way for foreign parties to register a case in a Chinese court.

Haidian Primary People’s Court of Beijing Municipality has recently published a post in its account on WeChat, a mobile social networking platform, discussing the first case concerned with the online video verification of power of attorney in China as the Provisions went into effect.

On the morning of 4 Feb. 2021, Ms. Jin, who was in New Zealand, entrusted a Chinese lawyer to represent her in a lawsuit at the Haidian District People’s Court in Beijing through video conferencing.

Ms. Jin, formerly living in Beijing, entered into a contract to purchase a property in 2019 and agreed to complete the registration formalities of the property ownership transfer by Feb. 2020.

Since then, she went to New Zealand to visit her relatives, but the COVID-19 outbreak in early 2020 made it impossible for her to return to China, nor for completing the above-mentioned registration formalities. As a result, the seller asked to rescind the property purchase contract, and brought a case before the court.

Ms. Jin was unable to return home, and she was afraid that she would not be able to have the power of attorney notarized and authenticated in New Zealand for fear of contracting COVID-19, which prevented the case from proceeding in a timely manner.

After the court had informed Ms. King of the incoming of the Provisions on Online Cross-border Litigation, Ms. Jin opted for online verification of the power of attorney.

On 4 Feb. 2021, as witnessed by the judge via video, Ms. Jin and her lawyer directly signed the documents relating to the entrustment, which made it unnecessary to go through the regular procedures, such as notarization, authentication, and mailing. Afterwards, the lawyer will represent Ms. Jin in the following litigation proceedings.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Ms. Jin’s problem represents the typical difficulties faced by parties in cross-border litigation to some extent.

The Provisions removes the last hurdle for litigants living overseas to participate in Chinese court trials online. It is no longer necessary to handle the notarization, authentication, and mailing of the power of attorney. Instead, it is only required to verify the signing of the power of attorney online.

In this way, litigants living overseas can participate in Chinese court proceedings online from beginning to end, because many Chinese courts have been able to make the whole process of litigation online.

See an earlier CJO post, for a step-by-step guide to accessing China's virtual court proceedings through the app ‘China Mobile Micro Court’.


Contributors: Guodong Du 杜国栋 , Meng Yu 余萌

Save as PDF

You might also like

Decoding the Turning Point: A Closer Look at China’s Recognition of Japanese Bankruptcy

This follow-up article focuses on the Chinese Court's detailed review of the Shanghai International Corporation case in 2023, highlighting the significance of reciprocity in cross-border bankruptcy proceedings and underscoring China's evolving approach to recognizing foreign judgments (See In re Shanghai International Corporation (2021) Hu 03 Xie Wai Ren No.1).

SPC Interprets International Treaties & Practices in Chinese Courts

In December 2023, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) reaffirmed the supremacy of international treaties over domestic laws in foreign-related civil and commercial cases with its “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of International Treaties and International Practices”(关于审理涉外民商事案件适用国际条约和国际惯例若干问题的解释).

China’s Wenzhou Court Recognizes a Singapore Monetary Judgment

In 2022, a local Chinese court in Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, ruled to recognize and enforce a monetary judgment made by the Singapore State Courts, as highlighted in one of the typical cases related to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) recently released by China’s Supreme People’s Court (Shuang Lin Construction Pte. Ltd. v. Pan (2022) Zhe 03 Xie Wai Ren No.4).

Legal Crossroads: Canadian Court Denies Summary Judgment for Chinese Judgment Recognition When Faced with Parallel Proceedings

In 2022, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Canada refused to grant summary judgment to enforce a Chinese monetary judgment in the context of two parallel proceedings in Canada, indicating that the two proceedings should proceed together as there was factual and legal overlap, and triable issues involved defenses of natural justice and public policy (Qingdao Top Steel Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Fasteners & Fittings Inc. 2022 ONSC 279).

Chinese Civil Settlement Statements: Enforceable in Singapore?

In 2016, the Singapore High Court refused to grant summary judgment to enforce a Chinese civil settlement statement, citing uncertainty about the nature of such settlement statements, also known as ‘(civil) mediation judgments’ (Shi Wen Yue v Shi Minjiu & Anor [2016] SGHC 137).

What’s New for China’s Rules on International Civil Jurisdiction? (B) - Pocket Guide to 2023 China’s Civil Procedure Law (3)

The Fifth Amendment (2023) to the PRC Civil Procedure Law has opened a new chapter on international civil jurisdiction rules in China, covering four types of jurisdictional grounds, parallel proceedings, lis alibi pendens, and forum non conveniens. This post focuses on how conflicts of jurisdiction are resolved through mechanisms such as lis alibi pendens, and forum non conveniens.