China: A Corporate Investigations/Anti-Corruption (PRC Firms) Overview

Micro and Whole: Compliance Boundaries in Visual Forensics

Narrative boundaries seen through a lens

A scene of light and shadow unfolds gradually in court – a car window functions as a viewfinder, while a telephoto lens silently observes a dim garage, where a figure approaches the car, drives into morning light and ultimately disappears into another office building.

This set of visual records once served as a key piece of evidence in a non-compete litigation case, enabling one party to secure victory. Yet, in this monologue titled “Right of Privacy”, such records are reinterpreted as notes of privacy infringement. Visual records are no longer perceived merely as objective documentation of behaviour; blurred shadows have become symbols of disrupted peace and psychological intrusion.

Beneath the visible and submerged risks in business world, protection of trade secrets, breach of non-compete obligations and management of internal compliance frameworks have emerged as critical issues that companies must confront. Visual forensics, for its convenient operation and capacity to generate intuitive evidence, has become a “detective eye” commonly adopted by companies. When adopted appropriately, it serves as a shield for safeguarding rights and interests. However, a marginal overstep can easily trigger the alarm for infringing on personal information and privacy violations, exposing companies to infringement risks.

Consequently, the legality and legitimacy of investigation methods have become core concerns for companies. Companies need to make hair-thin levels of scrutiny with a micro-prudential attitude, conducting thorough assessments of investigation to firmly uphold the bottom line of compliance. At the same time, companies also need to maintain an “oceanwide vision”, fully considering individual rights and interests as well as general expectations of society, thereby achieving balance between legal interests and making judgements on ambiguous behavioural boundaries.

Hair-Thin Level of Scrutiny: Upholding Legal Boundaries

In judicial practice, the legal determination of investigation methods such as visual forensics has gradually led to several important review factors, including:

• whether the investigation method remains within necessary limits;
• whether the investigation’s purpose is legitimate;
• whether the location of visual forensics possesses private features; and
• whether the content touches on personal privacy.

These factors collectively form an invisible framework, demarcating the subtle boundaries of behavioural legitimacy.

When carrying out investigative actions such as taking photos for evidence and retrieving surveillance footage, companies should adhere to the principle that “a miss is as good as a mile”, exercising hair-thin levels of scrutiny. On the one hand, prior to initiating any investigation, companies need to verify legitimacy of the investigation’s purpose and rigorously assess the necessity for adopting such methods. On the other hand, where such methods are deemed essential, the investigative process (such as scope, duration, and scenarios of evidence collection) should be strictly controlled in advance. For instance, it is better to avoid scenarios involving personal information, especially those that may contain sensitive individuals or sensitive information for photographic evidence. When retrieving surveillance footage, this should be controlled only within the entire public road area, etc, ensuring that all actions remain within bounds of legal permissibility.

“Oceanwide Vision” in Mind: Assessing Ambiguous Boundaries

With the development of the times and the legal system, the connotations of such things as privacy and peace have been continuously enriched by judicial practice, with their boundaries often exhibiting dynamic and contextualised characteristics. Identical actions may receive completely divergent legal assessments across different environments, time periods or cultural backgrounds.

The protection of privacy by law aims to preserve a “peaceful and private status of personal life” consistent with general societal reasonableness and common expectations. Therefore, determining whether an investigation constitutes an infringement requires consideration of higher-level values combined with prevailing social norms. When designing investigation strategies, companies should sometimes consider going beyond the specific scenarios of individual cases to determine whether privacy has been infringed or whether the scope of privacy right protection has been touched on, engaging in broader and more comprehensive legal evaluations and even value judgement.

In practice, sometimes the initiator of an investigation may believe that, from a purely legal perspective, relevant actions do not infringe upon any privacy rights. However, if the investigated party expects to be recognised as enjoying privacy protection in that scenario, the investigative action may still be regarded as “breaching an invisible veil of peace” and “reconstructing boundaries between rights and obligations”, thereby constituting an infringement. Such situations frequently arise in semi-public spaces such as parking lots, cafeterias, internal company pathways and other areas or scenarios that are not completely private or public. In these cases, a rational judgement needs to be made from the overall pattern.

Practical Advice: Guideline for Compliance Investigation

To better manage investigative risks, based on practical experience, we suggest that companies pay attention to the following key points during investigation.

• Strictly adhere to behavioural red lines: when conducting investigations, companies should have a bottom-line mindset and not intrude into private spaces. They should eliminate illegal practices such as unauthorised eavesdropping and strictly limit the scope of evidence collection, avoiding inclusion of personal or familial information unrelated to the investigation.
• Flexibly adopt evidence collection methods: depending on the specific circumstances, companies should flexibly adopt full-process video recording, video shooting, static photography and retrieval of surveillance footage, etc, and should prioritise methods that cause the least interference to others and that have the lowest risk.
• Exercise prudence in evidence management and use: upon acquisition, the legality of evidence should be rigorously evaluated and be classified at different levels. Only when it is truly necessary should the evidence that has been evaluated and determined to be legal be used to a limited extent.
• Leverage external forces to manage risks: companies could consider leveraging external forces and hiring professional institutions such as law firms to assist in conducting investigations and assessing the legality of evidence, thereby better managing risk.

Conclusion: Steady Progress Through a Turbulent Environment

Against the backdrop of rising awareness of individual rights and an increasingly sophisticated legal environment, compliance investigation is not only a technical procedure but also a reflection of a company’s governance level and commitment to social responsibility. In this domain where visibility and opacity coexist, every action must be taken with the utmost care, akin to treading on thin ice. We suggest that, in sensitive and significant investigations, a micro-review attitude with a hair-thin level of scrutiny should be carefully combined with an overall judgement based on the “oceanwide vision” mindset. This way, compliance investigations can serve as a shield for safeguarding companies’ rights and interests rather than as a sharp blade triggering risks.

微观与整体：视图取证的合规边界

引言：镜头下的叙事边界

一幕光影在法庭上徐徐展开——车窗如取景框，长焦镜头在昏暗的车库里静默凝视。画面中，一个身影走向车辆，驶入晨光，最终没入另一座写字楼。

这组影像，曾在竞业限制纠纷中充当关键证据，助一方锁定胜局；此刻，却在另一场名为“隐私权”的独白中，被重新定义为侵权的注脚。影像不再只是行为的记录，模糊的光晕成了打破安宁与投射心理压力的符号。

在商业世界的暗流与明礁之间，商业秘密的保护、竞业限制义务的背弃与内部合规秩序的管理，成为企业必须直面的命题。视图取证因操作便捷且能够形成直观的证据，已成为企业的常用的“侦察之眼”。用之有度，它可化为维护权益的盾牌；但越界半步，则易触响侵害个人信息与隐私的警铃，使企业陷入侵权风险。

由此，调查手段的合法性与正当性已成为企业的核心关切。企业既需秉持“细如发丝”的微观审慎态度，对调查行为进行细致分析以筑牢合规底线；同时，也应具备“心怀大海”的整体性格局，充分考虑个人权益与社会普遍期待，在法益的天平上，对看似模糊、不甚清晰的行为边界进行研判。

“细如发丝”的微观审查：守住合法边界

司法实践中，针对视图取证等调查方式的合法性认定，已逐渐形成若干重要的审查维度，包括:

• 调查手段是否控制在必要限度之内;
• 调查目的是否正当;
• 视图取证涉及的场所是否具有私密属性;
• 所涉内容是否触及个人隐私等。

这些维度交织成一张看不见的网，划分出行为合法性的微妙界限。

企业在开展拍摄取证、调取监控等调查行动时，应秉持“失之毫厘，谬以千里”的审慎态度进行“细如发丝”的审查。一方面，在启动调查前，企业需确认调查目的具有正当性，并对采取类似特殊调查手段的必要性进行充分评估。另一方面，在确需采取特殊调查手段的情况下，应事先对调查过程（如取证范围、时长、场景等）审慎控制，例如，拍摄取证时尽量避免涉及个人信息、尤其是会含有敏感人群、敏感信息的场景；调取监控时仅控制在完整公共道路范围内等，以确保调查行为在合法框架内进行。

“心怀大海”的整体格局：模糊边界的研判

随着时代发展与法律体系的完善，隐私、安宁等客体的内涵在司法实践中不断丰富，其边界往往呈现动态与情境化的特点。同一行为在不同环境、不同时期、不同文化背景下可能获得截然不同的法律评价。

法律对隐私的保护，旨在维护符合社会一般理性甚至朴素的“私人生活安宁与私密状态”，因此，判断调查行为是否侵权，需结合更高的价值理念与社会共识，也即企业在设计调查思路时，有时应考虑到超越个案具体场景单一判断是否侵犯隐私、是否具有隐私保护权益的范畴，而应作更广泛和全面的法律乃至价值判断。

实践中，有时调查发起方会认为，仅从法律上分析，相关行为并不存在侵犯任何隐私权的问题，但实际上，被调查方对在该场景下仍可能被认定为可具有隐私保护的期待，则相关调查行为就会被认为“刺破无形的安宁面纱”、“重构了权利义务交织的边界”，导致侵权成立。类似情况多见于停车场、餐厅、公司内部通行路面等并非完全私密或公共的区域或场景下。此时，需要从整体格局上做出理性判断。

实务建议：合规调查的路径指南

为更好管理调查风险，结合实践经验，我们建议企业在调查过程中关注以下要点。

• 严守行为红线：企业调查时应有底线思维，不侵入私密空间，坚决杜绝窃听等非法手段，同时严格限定调查取证范围，避免调查内容涉及与调查无关的个人隐私或亲属信息。
• 灵活运用取证方式：根据实际调查情况灵活运用全程录像、片段拍摄、静态拍照、调取监控等，尽量采用对他人干扰最小、风险最低的方式。
• 审慎管理与使用证据：证据获取后，应对其合法性进行审慎评估并分级管理，仅在确有必要时有限度地使用经评估认定为合法的证据。
• 善借外力，管理风险：企业可以考虑借助外部力量，聘请律师事务所等专业机构协助调查并评估调查证据的合法性，更好地实现风险管理。

结语：在暗流中行稳致远

在公民权利意识不断提升、法治环境持续完善的时代背景下，合规调查不仅是一项技术性工作，更是企业治理水平与社会责任感的体现。在这光影交错的地带，每一步都需如履薄冰，我们建议在较敏感、重大调查中能谨将“细如发丝”的微观审查态度，并与“心怀大海”的整体格局判断相结合，就能使合规调查成为维护企业权益的盾牌，而非触发风险的利刃。