Prosecutions For Spreading Infectious Diseases In Prc Law
Prosecutions for Spreading Infectious Diseases in PRC Law
1. Legal Framework
In the People’s Republic of China (PRC), spreading infectious diseases can be prosecuted under multiple legal provisions:
A. Criminal Law of PRC
Article 330 (Criminal Law, 2020 Amendment) – Endangering Public Safety by Infectious Diseases:
Whoever knowingly spreads dangerous infectious diseases that threaten public health can be sentenced to imprisonment or even life in severe cases.
Article 115 & 114 – Medical Negligence and Malpractice Leading to Infectious Disease Spread:
Healthcare workers who fail to report or quarantine infectious diseases can be held criminally liable.
Article 277 – Intentionally Causing Harm:
Applied if the spread of disease is intentional and leads to injury or death.
B. Law on the Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Diseases (PRC, 2004, amended 2013)
Obligates citizens and institutions to report, quarantine, and treat infectious diseases.
Noncompliance can lead to administrative penalties or escalate to criminal liability under the Criminal Law.
C. Emergency Public Health Regulations
Include rules for isolation, quarantine, and epidemic control.
Violations during major epidemics (e.g., SARS 2003, COVID-19 2020) can be prosecuted under both administrative and criminal law.
2. Elements of Liability for Spreading Infectious Diseases
Knowledge: The offender must know or suspect they are infected.
Transmission: Actions lead to disease transmission or risk thereof.
Intent or Negligence: Cases may involve intentional harm (Article 330) or gross negligence (e.g., failing quarantine).
Public Impact: Severity of punishment often depends on the number of people affected or deaths caused.
Major Case Laws
Here are five detailed cases in PRC law:
⭐ 1. Beijing COVID-19 Concealment Case (2020)
Facts:
A man tested positive for COVID-19 but refused to report it and continued attending social gatherings. As a result, 12 people in his community were infected.
Legal Issue:
Violation of Article 330 and the Law on Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Diseases.
Ruling/Outcome:
He was sentenced to three years in prison for endangering public safety.
The court cited intentional concealment and the high risk of contagion as aggravating factors.
Relevance:
Reinforces that failure to report infectious diseases can constitute criminal liability.
Emphasizes the legal obligation of citizens during epidemics.
⭐ 2. SARS Concealment Case – Guangdong Province (2003)
Facts:
During the SARS outbreak, a hospital doctor deliberately failed to report a confirmed SARS patient, allowing the patient to move freely in the city. Several others were infected.
Legal Issue:
Breach of the Law on the Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Diseases and Article 330 of Criminal Law.
Ruling/Outcome:
The doctor was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
The court stressed medical personnel have a heightened duty to prevent disease spread.
Relevance:
Established precedent for criminal liability of healthcare workers who fail to report.
Demonstrates the intersection of administrative law and criminal liability in epidemic control.
⭐ 3. Wuhan COVID-19 Early Concealment Case (2020)
Facts:
An individual, aware of COVID-19 infection, continued working at a crowded market without reporting.
Several colleagues and customers were infected, leading to a cluster outbreak.
Legal Issue:
Intentional or negligent spreading of an infectious disease under Article 330.
Ruling/Outcome:
Court sentenced the individual to 4 years imprisonment.
Emphasis was placed on public harm and the number of people infected.
Relevance:
Highlighted strict enforcement during pandemics.
Courts consider public impact and contagion risk in sentencing.
⭐ 4. Intentional HIV Transmission Case – Hunan Province (2015)
Facts:
A man knowingly infected with HIV engaged in unprotected sexual relations without informing partners. Two partners contracted HIV.
Legal Issue:
Intentional transmission of infectious disease (Article 330) and intentional harm (Article 234).
Ruling/Outcome:
Sentenced to 7 years imprisonment, reflecting intentional harm.
Court emphasized the severity of infecting others with a life-threatening disease.
Relevance:
Confirms that STIs like HIV fall under the legal scope of infectious disease transmission.
Distinguishes between intentional vs. negligent transmission in sentencing.
⭐ 5. Fake Quarantine Violation – Shanghai (2020)
Facts:
A resident violated mandatory COVID-19 quarantine after traveling abroad, attending multiple events, infecting 5 people.
Legal Issue:
Violation of quarantine orders and endangerment of public safety (Article 330).
Ruling/Outcome:
Sentenced to 2.5 years imprisonment.
Mitigating factor: no intent to harm, but negligence caused public exposure.
Relevance:
Demonstrates that gross negligence leading to disease spread is punishable.
Highlights the importance of compliance with epidemic regulations.
⭐ 6. Intentional Hepatitis B Transmission Case – Jiangsu (2018)
Facts:
A man with hepatitis B intentionally contaminated a restaurant food supply, infecting multiple customers.
Legal Issue:
Intentional spread of infectious disease under Article 330.
Ruling/Outcome:
Sentenced to 8 years imprisonment due to intentionality and public harm.
Relevance:
Shows that criminal liability extends beyond direct person-to-person contact to acts like contaminating food or water.
Reinforces public safety as a key consideration in sentencing.
7. Key Takeaways from PRC Cases
Intentional Concealment or Spread: Harsher penalties (up to 10+ years or life).
Negligent or Non-Intentional Transmission: Moderate penalties (2–5 years).
Medical and Institutional Responsibility: Healthcare workers and administrators have heightened duty to report.
Pandemic-Specific Enforcement: COVID-19 and SARS cases show strict enforcement during public health emergencies.
Variety of Infectious Diseases Covered: COVID-19, SARS, HIV, hepatitis B, and other dangerous diseases.
RELATED Blog
comments