Overseas firms are barred from exit-entry intermediary work in China

State Council Order No. 841 took effect on 15 September 2026. Seven articles in the middle of it put the institutions that arrange other people’s departures under a filing regime, set out conditions those institutions must meet, and bar overseas enterprises and institutions from providing exit-entry intermediary services within the territory of China.

The sentence at the end of Article 8

Article 8 lists what an institution must have before it provides exit-entry intermediary services. After that list, and after a further condition for outbound work, it ends with one line of its own:

境外企业、机构不得在中国境内提供出境入境中介服务。

Overseas enterprises and institutions may not provide exit-entry intermediary services within the territory of China.

It carries no qualification and no exception in the text read. It addresses the provision of exit-entry intermediary services inside China. Nothing in it speaks to what an overseas enterprise may do elsewhere, or to any other activity it may carry on in China.

A filing regime, and deliberately not a licence

Article 7 puts institutions and individuals who take instructions from people crossing the border — policy advice, handling documents on their behalf, processing applications — under 备案管理, management by filing.

An institution files with the migration administration authority where it sits within 15 days of establishment. Individuals do not file for themselves; the institution they work for files for them. Anyone who was already doing the work before the Regulation took effect has 90 days from the date it took effect, which was 15 September 2026, to complete the filing. That window is an obligation on those already in the work, not an exception to the line at the end of Article 8.

The Regulation does not say how those ninety days are counted, so the last day is not fixed by the text.

The detailed filing rules are to be made by the National Immigration Administration with the State Council’s market regulation department and others. They had not been issued when this was written, so what filing will require is not established.

An expert commentary published on the Administration’s website, not the Regulation itself, says the Regulation deliberately does not use the prior ex-ante administrative licensing approach, and builds a filing system with strengthened supervision of conduct. A commentary on the same site by the chairman of the Beijing Immigration and Exit-Entry Service Industry Association records that licensing of private exit-entry intermediary institutions began in 2001 and was abolished in 2018, and records a scale figure: according to incomplete statistics, its own hedge, more than 160,000 entities had “private exit-entry intermediary services” within their registered business scope as at June 2026 — a count of registered scope, not of institutions actually trading.

What a firm has to have

Article 8’s conditions are five, plus one for institutions providing outbound intermediary services.

• Lawfully established.
• A legal representative or person in charge with no criminal punishment for an intentional offence.
• Staff with professional knowledge of exit-entry law, regulation and policy, together with funds and premises commensurate with the work.
• Staff dealing directly with clients who have no criminal punishment for intentional offences endangering national security or public security, or obstructing national border administration.
• Sound internal systems covering personnel, training, record retention, data security and compliance.

The extra condition applies to outbound work: the institution must already have a cooperative relationship with a relevant overseas service institution, or a signed and valid letter of intent to cooperate.

Article 9 puts the migration authorities alongside foreign affairs, education, justice administration, human resources and social security, commerce, culture and tourism, and market regulation, and requires breaches and adverse records to be published according to law.

What a firm may not do

Article 10 lists six prohibitions: publishing false information or soliciting clients through exaggerated or misleading promotion; supplying or helping supply false materials, or helping someone irregularly obtain a visa, a stay or residence document, a passport or another exit-entry document or procedure; leaking, selling or unlawfully providing commercial secrets, privacy or personal information learned in the work; providing services beyond the scope filed; organising or assisting others in cross-border unlawful or criminal activity; and other acts endangering national security or interests, or disrupting exit-entry administration order.

A separate paragraph closes the article: where public officials or military personnel and the like instruct an institution to obtain foreign nationality, overseas permanent residence status, an overseas residence document or another exit-entry document irregularly, the institution must not do it and must report it promptly to the supervisory organs — a duty to report, not merely to decline.

The amounts

Article 12 covers breaches of the filing and conditions articles. An institution is first ordered to correct within a time limit. Failure to correct brings a fine of 5,000 to 10,000 yuan and a referral to the competent departments to suspend the business or suspend operations for rectification. Where circumstances are serious the fine is 10,000 to 50,000 yuan and the referral is to revoke the business permit or the business licence. An individual doing the work in breach is ordered to stop, has any unlawful gains confiscated, and in serious circumstances may be fined up to 5,000 yuan.

Article 13 covers breaches of the prohibitions where they disrupt exit-entry administration order. The institution is ordered to correct and its unlawful gains are confiscated. Where they reach 20,000 yuan or more, the fine is one to five times the gain. Where there are none, or they fall short of 20,000 yuan, the fine is 20,000 to 50,000 yuan. Failure to correct, or serious circumstances, brings suspension, rectification or revocation of the permit or licence, and the directly responsible managers are fined 10,000 to 50,000 yuan.

For false paperwork, Article 11 provides that an individual who issues a false invitation letter or false application materials for someone else faces 5,000 to 10,000 yuan and confiscation of any unlawful gains; an entity faces 10,000 to 50,000 yuan and the same confiscation, with the directly responsible people fined 5,000 to 10,000 yuan. Articles 11 and 13 each end by giving way to any other law that provides otherwise.

What this article does not say

It does not say whether advising on citizenship or residence by investment falls inside “exit-entry intermediary services”. Article 7 names policy consultation, handling documents on a client’s behalf and processing procedures, without separately listing citizenship- or residence-by-investment advice.

No enforcement case was read, and the Regulation has been in force only since 15 September 2026. The Legation Times covered the exit-ban grounds of the same Order separately.