Editor's Note: After the implementation of the judicial interpretation on tax-related crimes issued by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate (the "Two Supreme Courts"), the exculpatory provisions for the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices have narrowed its scope of crackdown. In contrast, the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices has shown a significant trend of expanded application. Both judicial data and typical cases have confirmed this tendency, which has also sparked controversies over the application of the crime. This article conducts an argument from two aspects: legislative background and sentencing rules. It traces the historical origin of this crime, which was split off from the crime of speculation and profiteering. Combining with early typical cases and authoritative interpretations, it clarifies that the original legislative intent was to combat the reselling of blank invoices and the infringement of the state monopoly on invoice issuance. In addition, by sorting out the evolution of conviction and sentencing rules from "face value" to "face tax amount", it emphasizes that these concepts are all judicially constructed amounts rather than the actual amount of falsely invoiced tax, further confirming that the object of this crime is limited to blank invoices. In response to the application deviations in judicial practice, the scope of application of this crime urgently needs to be narrowed. On the basis of adhering to the principles of legality of crimes and punishments and adaptation of crime, responsibility, and punishment, reasonable diversion should be achieved through such crimes as the crime of falsely issuing invoices and the crime of tax evasion, so as to maintain the internal coordination of the criminal law system.

01 The Application Trend of the Crime of Illegally Selling Special VAT Invoices Has Risen Significantly

Since the implementation of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Cases Endangering the Administration of Tax Collection" (Fa Shi [2024] No. 4) on March 20, 2024, controversies over the distinction between innocence and guilt, and between this crime and that crime in the field of tax-related crimes have continued to heat up. Among them, the identification of the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices has aroused much attention and discussion in judicial practice. Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the judicial interpretation on tax-related crimes issued by the Two Supreme Courts has set up exculpatory provisions for the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices, which has essentially narrowed the scope of crackdown on false invoicing crimes. Against this background, the prosecution logic of judicial organs seems to have quietly changed. A notable trend is that the application of the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices has shown a gradual expansion tendency.

Judicial data has intuitively confirmed this change. According to the main data on judicial trial work released by the Supreme People's Court in the first half of 2024, the number of first-instance cases accepted for the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices increased by 190% year-on-year. Based on the data of public judicial judgments, a search using the cause of action "crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices" shows that there was only 1 publicly judged case in total in 2022 and 2023, with 0 cases in 2023. In contrast, the number of such publicly judged cases from 2024 to 2025 soared to about 25. Although the number of public cases is limited and cannot reflect the whole picture, the frequency and growth rate of this crime in judicial practice have indeed increased significantly in comparison. This indicates that after the application of the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices was narrowed, there is a judicial tendency in practice to "cover" or "replace" it with the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices. In addition, on November 24, 2025, the Supreme People's Court released eight typical cases of lawfully punishing crimes endangering the administration of tax collection. Among them, Case 5, the "Case of Shen Moumou Illegally Selling Special VAT Invoices", explicitly identified the act of falsely issuing special invoices to others after collecting invoice issuance fees as constituting the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices. The release of typical cases is intended to guide judicial practice and unify the standards of judgment. Therefore, the trend of expanded application of the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices may further expand in the future under the combined influence of guiding cases.

However, the subsequent question is whether such a judicial decision-making approach of identifying false invoicing acts as the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices is accurate. Can the act of issuing invoices inconsistent with actual business operations for others solely for the purpose of collecting invoice issuance fees be evaluated as "selling" invoices? In other words, is the regulatory object of the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices limited to the act of reselling blank invoices, or can it be extended to the act of falsely issuing invoices for profit? This relates to the adherence to the principle of legality of crimes and punishments and the accurate understanding of criminal law provisions. This article will conduct an analysis from two dimensions: the evolution of the legislative background of this crime and the evolution of sentencing rules, to demonstrate that its object of crime should be limited to blank invoices.

02 From the Perspective of Legislative Background and Evolution, the Object of the Crime of Illegally Selling Special VAT Invoices Should Be Limited to Blank Invoices

To accurately grasp the constitutive elements of the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices, it is necessary to trace its historical origin and understand its original legislative intent. At the initial stage of the establishment of China's VAT system, special VAT invoices emerged as key documents for tax deduction. At that time, invoices were usually sold in sets by tax authorities to general taxpayers at cost, who then filled them out manually. Under this management model, chaos such as counterfeiting, reselling, and theft of blank special VAT invoices once ran rampant. To severely crack down on such crimes, in 1994, four central ministries and commissions jointly issued the "Notice on Launching a Special Campaign to Crack Down on the Counterfeiting, Reselling, and Theft of Invoices". The Two Supreme Courts also issued corresponding judicial interpretations, stipulating that such acts should be convicted and punished as the crime of speculation and profiteering.

During this period, several typical cases announced by the State Administration of Taxation, including the Nanjing case (Guo Shui Fa [1995] No. 74), the Hohhot case (Guo Shui Fa [1995] No. 182), and the Shanghai case (Guo Shui Fa [1995] No. 205), clearly revealed the basic mode of criminal acts at that time.

For example, in the Nanjing case, a special manager of a tax sub-bureau colluded with social personnel to fraudulently obtain a large number of blank special VAT invoices by forging signatures and using the name of a company without authorization, which were then falsely issued and resold by others. The Hohhot case exposed regulatory loopholes in the invoice purchase link, where a ticket seller colluded with external personnel to fraudulently obtain and steal blank invoices by impersonation. Similarly, in the Shanghai case, tax officials took advantage of their official positions to obtain blank invoices through fraudulent purchase and theft and then sold them for profit. Looking at these early typical cases, their behavioral chains are highly consistent: the perpetrators were mostly internal personnel of tax authorities or external personnel colluding with them; the criminal means focused on illegally obtaining blank, cost-priced sets of special VAT invoices through fraud and malpractices; the direct purpose and objective act were to resell these blank invoices as commodities for profit. After obtaining these illegal invoices, the buyers separately committed false invoicing acts to defraud tax. At that time, such acts that seriously endangered the order of invoice management were all punished as the "pocket crime" of speculation and profiteering.

With the advancement of the legal system construction of the market economy, to more accurately and effectively combat invoice-related crimes, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress issued the "Decision on Punishing Crimes of Falsely Issuing, Counterfeiting, and Illegally Selling Special VAT Invoices" in 1995. This separate criminal law split the original general crime of speculation and profiteering into four types of invoice-related crimes according to the nature of the act and the protected legal interests: the crime of false issuance, the crime of counterfeiting, the crime of selling, and the crime of purchasing. Among them, the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices was established to target the rampant act of reselling blank special VAT invoices revealed in the aforementioned typical cases. The legislators' intention was very clear: to focus on combating the criminal act of illegally obtaining blank invoices from tax authorities or their staff and then reselling them for profit through this crime, and the object of the crime was the blank invoices themselves. In contrast, the "crime of false issuance" protects the legal interest of state tax revenue, and the "crime of counterfeiting" protects the legal interest of the state's monopoly on invoice printing.

This original legislative intent has been repeatedly confirmed in authoritative interpretations at that time. For example, Tang Weiping from the Legal Work Committee of the National People's Congress pointed out in the article "Introduction to the Decision on Punishing Crimes of Falsely Issuing, Counterfeiting, and Illegally Selling Special VAT Invoices" that "Article 3 of the Decision stipulates the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices, which mainly refers to the act of staff of tax authorities illegally selling special VAT invoices and general taxpayers illegally selling the special VAT invoices legally owned by themselves"; Luo Qingdong, deputy director of the First Procuratorial Department of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, also emphasized in the article "A Powerful Weapon to Curb Crimes of Special VAT Invoices - Studying the Decision on Punishing Crimes of Falsely Issuing, Counterfeiting, and Illegally Selling Special VAT Invoices" that "the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices. According to regulations, only tax authorities have the right to sell special VAT invoices, and no other unit or individual has the right to sell them; otherwise, it may constitute this crime"; the "Explanation of the Provisions of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, Legislative Rationale and Relevant Provisions" by the Criminal Law Office of the Legal Work Committee of the National People's Congress clearly states the legislative rationale for the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices: "Special VAT invoices are sold by state tax authorities in accordance with regulations and are limited to purchase and use by general VAT taxpayers. In addition, no individual or unit may sell them, and special VAT invoices must be managed very strictly". The above arguments all point to the fact that the legal interest protected by this crime is the state's monopoly on invoice issuance, and "issuance" refers to issuance and sales, not just sales. The infringement of the legal interest of the monopoly on issuance by this crime also corresponds to the fact that the object of the crime is blank invoices.

Therefore, from the specific historical background of the birth of this crime, the typical case model under the crime of speculation and profiteering it replaced, and the interpretations of legislators and authoritative organs, the regulatory focus of the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices has always been on the act of illegally reselling blank invoices. Including the "selling" of invoices with content already issued into this crime essentially deviates from its original legislative intent.

03 From the Evolution of Sentencing Rules, It Further Confirms That the Object of the Crime Is Limited to Blank Invoices

In addition to the aforementioned legislative background, the historical investigation of the sentencing rules for the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices also provides key clues for us to understand its object of crime. As Professor Li Yonghong from Zhejiang University of Technology pointed out in the article "The Object of the Crime of Illegally Buying and Selling Special Invoices Is Limited to Blank Invoices", the conviction and sentencing standards for this crime are not based on the "amount of falsely invoiced tax", but on the "number of invoices" and "face tax amount" of the purchased and sold invoices, which implies that the object regulated by this crime is blank invoices that have not been filled out. The following will further demonstrate this view through a specific analysis of the evolution process of the sentencing rules.

(I) 1996 Judicial Interpretation: The Constructive Logic of "Face Value" Clearly Points to Blank Invoices

When the separate criminal law established this crime in 1995, it only stipulated the act of "illegal sale" and the sentencing grades based on "quantity". Article 3 stipulates: "Whoever illegally sells special VAT invoices shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention and shall also be fined not less than 20,000 yuan but not more than 200,000 yuan; if the quantity is relatively large, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years and shall also be fined not less than 50,000 yuan but not more than 500,000 yuan; if the quantity is huge, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years or life imprisonment and shall also be sentenced to confiscation of property."

The supporting judicial interpretation Fa Fa [1996] No. 30 issued by the Supreme People's Court in 1996 first clarified the specific quantitative standards for conviction and sentencing. The interpretation stipulates that the quantitative standards for conviction and sentencing of cases of illegally selling special VAT invoices shall be implemented in accordance with the standards for the crime of counterfeiting or selling counterfeit special VAT invoices: "Whoever counterfeits or sells counterfeit special VAT invoices of more than 25 copies or with a cumulative face value (for 100-yuan version, each copy is calculated as 100 yuan; for 1,000-yuan version, each copy is calculated as 1,000 yuan; for 10,000-yuan version, each copy is calculated as 10,000 yuan, and so on; the same below) of more than 100,000 yuan shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the law." In addition, the interpretation also stipulates that the standard for "relatively large quantity" is "more than 100 invoices or a cumulative face value of more than 500,000 yuan", and the standard for "huge quantity" is "more than 500 invoices or a cumulative face value of more than 2.5 million yuan".

The "face value" here is a key concept. The interpretation specifically explains: "For 100-yuan version, each copy is calculated as 100 yuan; for 1,000-yuan version, each copy is calculated as 1,000 yuan; for 10,000-yuan version, each copy is calculated as 10,000 yuan, and so on." This is a typical judicial construction. The fundamental reason for adopting the constructive amount instead of the actual issued amount of the invoices involved in the act is that the legislators and judicial authorities presupposed that the object of the crime was blank invoices. Blank invoices have no actual sales amount and tax, so it is impossible to directly measure the possible tax loss they may cause.

Then, why is the 100-yuan version invoice constructed as 100 yuan? This comes from the conversion of the maximum invoicing limit of the invoice. For example, the maximum invoicing limit of a 100-yuan version invoice is 999.99 yuan. Instead of simply taking the maximum value, the judicial authorities took about one-tenth of it (100 yuan) as the "face value" to measure social harm. This constructive design means that the judicial evaluation focuses on the abstract danger contained in the act of illegally selling blank invoices itself, rather than the specific actual harm caused by their subsequent false issuance. The same logic applies to 1,000-yuan version and 10,000-yuan version invoices. If the object of the crime were invoices with filled-in amounts, the "sales amount" or "tax amount" recorded on them could be directly used for conviction and sentencing, and this unique constructive calculation rule would be unnecessary. Therefore, the "face value" standard established by the 1996 interpretation strongly confirms that the object of this crime is blank invoices from the original intention of the rule design.

(II) From the Absorption into the 1997 Criminal Law to 2022: Long-term Continuation of the "Face Value" Standard

When the Criminal Law was revised in 1997, all invoice-related charges in the 1995 separate criminal law were absorbed into the new Criminal Law. The crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices was listed as Article 207 of the Criminal Law, obtaining the basis of the Criminal Code. Article 207 of the 1997 Criminal Law stipulates: "Whoever illegally sells special VAT invoices shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or public surveillance and shall also be fined not less than 20,000 yuan but not more than 200,000 yuan; if the quantity is relatively large, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years and shall also be fined not less than 50,000 yuan but not more than 500,000 yuan; if the quantity is huge, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years or life imprisonment and shall also be fined not less than 50,000 yuan but not more than 500,000 yuan or confiscated of property." Here, the statement of the criminal elements of the crime remains unchanged, but certain adjustments have been made to the sentencing: first, public surveillance has been added to the sentencing range of "fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years"; second, a fine has been added to the sentencing range of "fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years or life imprisonment". Since then, China's Criminal Law has undergone several revisions, but the content of Article 207 on the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices has not changed.

In the more than 20 years since then, several provisions on the standards for filing cases for prosecution of economic criminal cases jointly issued by the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security, such as Gong Fa [2001] No. 11 and Gong Tong Zi [2010] No. 23, have all continued to use the expression "illegally selling more than 25 special VAT invoices or with a cumulative face value of more than 100,000 yuan". In Gong Tong Zi [2011] No. 47, the identification of the crime of holding counterfeit special VAT invoices also continued to use the expression "face value". This continuous continuation has important normative significance. It shows that after the implementation of the 1997 Criminal Law, the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the investigation organs still recognized and inherited the standard system centered on "face value" established by the 1996 judicial interpretation at the operational level. Although the subsequent provisions on the standards for filing cases for prosecution did not restate the specific constructive method of "face value", under the principle of logical consistency in legal interpretation, the understanding of "face value" should continue the constructive connotation established by the 1996 interpretation without new express provisions to change or clarify it. This long-term and stable continuation essentially continuously confirms the judicial logic of this crime regulating blank invoices in the form of normative documents.

(III) From 2022 to the Present: Continuation and Remaining Issues of the Expression "Face Tax Amount"

In 2022, the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security revised the standards for filing cases for prosecution, changing the "face value" in the conviction standards to "face tax amount". Article 59 of Gong Tong Zi [2022] No. 12 stipulates: "Whoever illegally sells special VAT invoices shall be filed for prosecution if one of the following circumstances is suspected: (1) the cumulative face tax amount is more than 100,000 yuan; (2) illegally selling more than 10 special VAT invoices with a face tax amount of more than 60,000 yuan; (3) the illegal profit is more than 10,000 yuan."

The 2024 judicial interpretation on tax-related crimes issued by the Two Supreme Courts also adopted the expression "face tax amount". Its Article 15 stipulates: "Whoever illegally sells special VAT invoices shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the conviction and sentencing standards in Article 14 of this Interpretation." Article 14, Paragraph 1 of this Interpretation further stipulates: "Whoever counterfeits or sells counterfeit special VAT invoices shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of Article 206 of the Criminal Law if one of the following circumstances is met: (1) the face tax amount is more than 100,000 yuan; (2) counterfeiting or selling more than 10 counterfeit special VAT invoices with a face tax amount of more than 60,000 yuan; (3) the illegal gains are more than 10,000 yuan."

The change in wording from "face value" to "face tax amount" reflects an adjustment in normative expression techniques, that is, directly pointing to the tax that can be deducted by the invoice, which objectively raised the threshold for conviction. However, this change did not alter its essence as a "constructive standard". First, if the object of the crime were already falsely issued invoices, the ready-made and accurate standard of "amount of falsely invoiced tax" could be directly adopted without creating the concept of "face tax amount" separately. Second, in the absence of a new definition of "face tax amount" in the 2024 interpretation, from the perspective of the coherence of the legal system, "face tax amount" should be understood as a constructive tax amount derived by multiplying the original "face value" by the corresponding applicable tax rate. The starting point and basis for its calculation are still the denomination version of the invoice (e.g., 100-yuan version, 1,000-yuan version), and what it assesses is still the abstract risk brought about by the illegal circulation of the blank invoices themselves. Therefore, the object of the crime has not changed in essence and should still be blank invoices.

The current judicial dilemma lies in that while using the expression "face tax amount", the 2024 judicial interpretation did not clearly define its calculation method nor reaffirm its constructive nature. This ambiguity in definition inevitably leads to divergences in understanding in practice, making some judicial organs possibly simply equate "face tax amount" with the "actual deducted tax amount" recorded on the issued invoices in individual cases. This misunderstanding that deviates from the original intent is likely to trigger deviations in the application of law, possibly resulting in acts that are essentially false invoicing or invoicing acts that no longer constitute the crime of false invoicing according to the new judicial interpretation being mistakenly convicted and punished as the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices. This not only violates the consistent original legislative intent and judicial logic in the design of the sentencing rules for this crime, which is to set a special and constructive scale of conviction and sentencing for the specific harmful act of illegally reselling blank invoices, but also blurs the boundaries between different invoice-related crimes.

04 The Crime of Illegally Selling Special VAT Invoices Should Be Applied in a Narrowed Scope Under the Current Background

Through sorting out the historical evolution and sentencing rules mentioned above, it can be clearly seen that the core of regulation for the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices lies in blank invoices, and its original legislative intent is to combat the act of reselling blank invoices and infringing upon the state monopoly on invoice issuance. If the scope of application of this crime is expanded to all false invoicing acts that make profits through issuing invoices, it will essentially blur the boundaries between this crime and that crime and deviate from the original legislative intent. In current judicial practice, especially after the Two Supreme Courts' judicial interpretation narrowed the criminal circle of false invoicing, there has been a tendency of expanded application to identify some acts of issuing invoices and collecting invoice issuance fees as the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices. Although Typical Case 5 released by the Supreme People's Court convicted the act in the case as the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices, judicial organs in various regions must exercise prudence when referring to it, avoiding simple application and excessive expansion of this identification model.

In fact, the Supreme People's Court has consciously narrowed the application of the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices through the "Unified Textbook for National Judge Training" compiled by it, attempting to limit the application of this crime from the perspective of the intent of joint crime. In the "Criminal Trial Practice" volume of the unified textbook, the Supreme People's Court pointed out that "where the invoice recipient constitutes the crime of falsely issuing special invoices and there is evidence to prove the existence of a joint criminal intent between the two parties, the invoice issuer shall be deemed to have falsely issued invoices for others, and both parties shall constitute a joint crime of the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices. In the absence of evidence to prove the existence of a joint criminal intent between the two parties, regardless of whether the invoice recipient constitutes a crime or what crime it constitutes, the invoice issuer may be convicted and punished in accordance with the crime of illegally selling special VAT invoices. For an entity enterprise that occasionally issues false invoices at the request of customers and collects consideration, it should not be convicted of this crime." This interpretation attempts to restrict the application of this crime through the identification of joint intent, which is of positive significance, but it has not yet formed a systematic solution path.

To completely correct the application deviations in practice, it is still necessary to return to the original legislative intent and clarify it. First, at the judicial level, it should be reaffirmed that the object of this crime is limited to blank invoices, adhering to its original normative positioning. Second, the recognition criteria for "face tax amount" in the sentencing rules should be clarified, that is, it refers to the presumed constructive tax amount based on the denomination version of the invoice, not the actually issued tax amount. Without explicit authorization from the legislative organ, the act of issuing filled-out invoices should not be included in the scope of regulation of this crime. For acts that do not constitute the crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices, priority should be given to evaluating them using other crimes with more appropriate statutory penalties, such as the crime of falsely issuing invoices and the crime of tax evasion, according to specific circumstances, or even not treating them as crimes in accordance with the law, so as to avoid the imbalance of criminal evaluation and the chaos in the order of legal application.