China's first case: Employee deletes AI training data and is prosecuted for "Destruction of Computer Information System Crime"

Beijing People’s Procuratorate Releases 2025 Intellectual Property White Paper, Handling 113 AI and Data Element Cases Throughout the Year, Including the First “Illegal Deletion of AI Model Training Data” Charge for Damaging Computer Information Systems, and Four Defendants Sentenced for Copyright Infringement Using AI Generative Models—Beijing Procuratorate Clearly Declares: “Artificial Intelligence Is Not Outside the Law”
(Background: University of California Study on “AI Brain Fog” Phenomenon: 14% of Office Workers Are Driven Crazy by Agents and Automation, 40% Have High Turnover Intentions)
(Additional Context: Y Combinator Startup Guide Interpretation: What Are the Future Trends of AI Agents?)

Table of Contents

Toggle

• 2025 Yearly: 1,195 Intellectual Property Cases, 113 Related to AI
• Employee Deletes Training Data, Charged with “Damaging Computer Information Systems”
• First Case: Copyright Infringement by AI Generative Model, 4 People Sentenced
• Copyright and Trademark: Full-Chain Crackdown, Accelerating IP Protection Specialization

China’s AI Judicial Protection Officially Upgraded? On April 21, Beijing Municipal People’s Procuratorate Released the “Beijing Procuratorate Intellectual Property White Paper (2025),” Revealing the Full Picture of Capital’s IP Law Enforcement Over the Past Year, Highlighting Two Landmark Cases Directly Related to AI, Sending a Clear Signal to the Industry: Whether It Is Damaging AI Training Systems or Using AI Tools for Infringement and Profiting, Criminal Prosecution Will Follow.

2025 Yearly: 1,195 Intellectual Property Cases, 113 Related to AI

The White Paper shows that in 2025, Beijing prosecutors handled a total of 1,195 IP cases, a 10.34% increase from the previous year. Among them, 744 criminal cases (234 prosecutions, involving 420 people, up 17.59%); 255 civil cases (more than double); 183 administrative cases (up 21.19%).

Among these, 113 cases involved AI industries and data element industries, focusing on three cutting-edge legal issues: How to define AI infringement crimes, the legal nature of AI model training data, and how to determine ownership of data intellectual property rights.

Employee Deletes Training Data, Charged with “Damaging Computer Information Systems”

The most attention-grabbing case comes from Dongcheng District Procuratorate. An employee deliberately deleted大量 data used for training AI models, causing structural damage to the training system, resulting in significant economic losses for the company. Dongcheng District Procuratorate filed charges of “Damaging Computer Information Systems,” becoming the city’s first such case.

The legal significance of this case lies in: It first pushes to include AI model training systems within the scope of “Computer Information Systems” protected by criminal law, establishing a judicial barrier for data security in the AI industry. In other words, AI training databases are now protected by criminal law at the same level as traditional information systems, and malicious destroyers will face criminal prosecution rather than just civil compensation.

First Case: Copyright Infringement by AI Generative Model, 4 People Sentenced

Another landmark case comes from Tongzhou District Procuratorate. The involved personnel used AI generative models to大量复制 others’ works for profit. Tongzhou District Procuratorate filed criminal charges of “Copyright Infringement,” and all four defendants were sentenced.

This is the city’s first case to criminally target “using AI generative models to infringe copyright,” with the procuratorate directly stating in the white paper: “Artificial intelligence is not outside the law.” This phrase not only characterizes the case but also serves as a warning to the entire AI application industry: AI tools cannot be used as a shield for infringement.

Copyright and Trademark: Full-Chain Crackdown, Accelerating IP Protection Specialization

In addition to AI-related cases, the white paper also presents the overall trend of copyright and trademark enforcement. There were 122 criminal copyright cases, with the creative fields of film, animation, and gaming accounting for as much as 75.41%. Cases involving infringement of “Pop Mart” and “Nezha’s Demon Child Causes Havoc in the Sea” merchandise exemplify full-chain crackdowns, involving 33 cases and 86 people.

In the modern service industry, 118 cases were handled, involving infringement methods such as imitation websites, false advertising, misusing trademarks, and platform infringement. A case in Tongzhou involved a main offender building a website with the same trademark to sell VIP packages, illegally profiting over 3 million yuan. The offender was ultimately sentenced to 4 years in prison and fined 1.6 million yuan, marking Beijing’s first criminal case involving service trademarks.