If your program still relies on supplier visits, in-country questionnaires, audits, or local investigators inside China, the risk profile of that work has changed. Decree 834 puts supply-chain inquiries in China under national security rules. Decree 835 authorizes retaliation over foreign sanctions enforcement and similar measures, reaching both governments and private companies. This session walks through what the two decrees do in practice, and how teams can keep diligence defensible without adding on-the-ground risk.
What Was Covered
- What Decrees 834 and 835 Do in Plain English The distinction between them, and why it matters for private companies working across compliance, legal, and supply chain functions.
- Which Diligence Activities Are Getting Riskier Where the immediate risk sits for private companies, and which approaches still hold up.
- How to Identify State-Linked Exposure in Your Supply Chain Practical methods for mapping state-owned and state-linked entity exposure.
- Why Registry-Based Visibility Matters More Now How ownership data, customs records, and court filings sourced outside China support defensible diligence.
Who Should Watch
This session was built for the teams carrying China risk day to day:
- Compliance and sanctions teams managing China-connected counterparties
- Legal and general counsel teams weighing in-country diligence risk
- Supply chain and third-party risk teams mapping supplier ownership
- Government and national security analysts tracing state-linked exposure
Need to see China-connected ownership without in-country risk?
See how Sayari surfaces ownership structures, sanctions exposure, and third-party risk across 250+ jurisdictions, including the registries where state-owned and state-linked entities sit.