The unlimited nature of information interaction in cyberspace enables cybercrime to affect any field where information is transmitted。To facilitate a comprehensive crackdown on crime，Criminal justice is relatively loose in its bet365 apuestas settings，That is, as long as there is a connection with the crime，Their public security and judicial organs can exercise bet365 apuestas over the case。This will inevitably lead to the problem of jurisdictional competition。Designated bet365 apuestas is an important means to determine the final bet365 apuestas of a case。Currently，The documents that regulate the designated bet365 apuestas of cyber crimes mainly include: "Criminal Procedure Law"、The Supreme Court's "Interpretation on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law" (hereinafter referred to as the "Criminal Procedure Interpretation")、The Supreme People’s Procuratorate’s “Criminal Procedure Rules of the People’s Procuratorate” (hereinafter referred to as the “Criminal Procedure Rules”)、Ministry of Public Security's "Procedure Regulations for Public Security Organs in Handling Criminal Cases" (hereinafter referred to as "Public Security Regulations")、The "Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law" of six ministries and commissions (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations of the Six Agencies") and the Supreme Court、Supreme Inspection、The Ministry of Public Security issued the "Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Criminal Proceedings in Handling Cybercrime Cases" (hereinafter referred to as the "Cybercrime Opinions") and the "Opinions on the Application of Criminal Procedures in Handling Telecommunications Network Fraud and Other Criminal Cases" issued in 2014 and 2016 respectively. Opinions on Several Legal Issues" (hereinafter referred to as "Opinions on Telecommunications Network Fraud, etc.")。These documents relate to subjects with designated bet365 apuestas、Object、Applicable programs and other contents，Seems adequate to address jurisdictional challenges in cybercrime，In fact it’s not the case。

1st，The applicable situation of designated bet365 apuestas is confusing。About when bet365 apuestas can be designated，In the "Criminal Procedure Law", it is "unclear trial bet365 apuestas"，The "Interpretation of Criminal Procedure" requires "disputes over bet365 apuestas"，The terms used in the "Public Security Regulations" are "unclear or controversial bet365 apuestas" or "special circumstances"，The "Rules of Criminal Procedure" lists four situations，Respectively, "bet365 apuestas is disputed", "bet365 apuestas needs to be changed", "bet365 apuestas needs to be centralized" and "Other necessary cases"，The "Internet Crime Opinion" is that the case is "controversial" or "legal、Inspection accepted but found to have no bet365 apuestas”，The "Opinions on Telecom and Network Fraud" are applicable when the case is "controversial" or "implemented overseas" or the case "forms a multi-level chain、Cross-region”。Visible，No two documents provide exactly the same provisions for the applicable situations of designated bet365 apuestas。Even though words such as "unclear bet365 apuestas" and "disputed" appear relatively frequently，its connotation、What is the extension?，It is unknown whether there is crossover。

Second，The basis for designated bet365 apuestas is unknown。The theoretical basis of the bet365 apuestas system lies in the principle of statutory judges (courts)，That is, legislation must allocate the case-accepting authority of judges (courts) in advance，To avoid temporarily assigning judges after a case occurs and causing public doubts about judicial fairness。When establishing allocation criteria，There is a saying in academic circles: “bet365 apuestas depends on considering the nature of the case、Severity、Easy and difficult、Convenience of trial、Depends on factors such as the defendant’s convenience and the court’s workload。" It is also said: "When allocating bet365 apuestas, the factor of convenience for litigation should be considered。”Although the existing regulations do not specify the basis for consideration when establishing bet365 apuestas，But judging from the content of the provisions，The spirit of the legislation is basically consistent with the understanding of the academic community。But designated bet365 apuestas is obviously an after-the-fact confirmation of authority，It is a human judge，Not a statutory judge。Then，Whether the legislative spirit guiding the establishment of bet365 apuestas still applies to designated bet365 apuestas？And what criteria should be used to designate bet365 apuestas？In addition to the "Opinions on Internet Crime" and "Opinions on Telecommunications and Internet Fraud", which require that "it is conducive to ascertaining the facts of the crime"，Principles conducive to litigation" (i.e., two principles conducive to litigation) outside designated investigative bet365 apuestas，Other normative documents such as the Criminal Procedure Law did not respond to this issue。This undoubtedly further increases the arbitrariness of designated bet365 apuestas，Increased risk of uncertainty in case assignment。

　Third，Insufficient procedural guidance on designation of bet365 apuestas。First, the legal status of designated bet365 apuestas for investigation is unclear，How to smoothly connect the designated bet365 apuestas between investigation and trial，Relevant regulations are not perfect；The second is when there are circumstances that require designated bet365 apuestas，Negotiate first and then specify，Or specify it directly，Or maybe negotiation is a necessary part of designation？The regulations in various normative documents are not uniform；The third is the flow of cases after designated bet365 apuestas、Notifications and other matters after bet365 apuestas is confirmed，Except for occasional mention in the "Public Security Regulations"，Other laws and other normative documents did not respond to subsequent procedural issues。Designated bet365 apuestas appears frequently in cyber crimes，No detailed procedural content as a carrier，Designated bet365 apuestas cannot gain lasting vitality。

From this，First，The designated jurisdictional reasons for cyber crimes should be classified and refined。The "Criminal Procedure Law" seems to be intended to regulate situations where "bet365 apuestas is unclear" and "bet365 apuestas is clear and multiple courts have bet365 apuestas"，However, the "disputed bet365 apuestas" situations mixed in the "Criminal Procedure Interpretation", "Criminal Procedure Rules" and "Public Security Regulations" blur the scope of application of designated bet365 apuestas。Deduction based on theory，Unclear bet365 apuestas can be divided into two situations: "Unclear regulations lead to unclear bet365 apuestas during application" and "Clear regulations lead to unclear bet365 apuestas during application"。The former is mainly manifested by biased understanding and unclear bet365 apuestas，Including whether the agency handling the case believes it is true or not、The agency handling the case admits that it has no actual evidence、Situations where there is doubt as to whether the crime was committed in the place involved。The latter except for unclear bet365 apuestas caused by deviations in understanding，Also includes the case-handling agency that understands correctly but has bet365 apuestas to fight for or shirk control、The bet365 apuestas of the case is uncertain due to unclear boundaries of the administrative region where the case is involved。In fact，The above situations can also be summarized as "disputed bet365 apuestas"。“Unclear bet365 apuestas” and “disputed bet365 apuestas” actually cause and effect each other。From the representative countries of the civil law system、法、日、Looking at Korea’s legislation，No country juxtaposes “unclear” and “disputed” bet365 apuestas。And in view of the fact that "unclear bet365 apuestas" can easily lead to the misconception that "if bet365 apuestas is clear, there is no need to specify bet365 apuestas"，It is recommended to abolish the term “unclear bet365 apuestas”，Use the more inclusive expression "bet365 apuestas is disputed"。At the same time，The second echelon of reasons for designating bet365 apuestas is "other special reasons that require designation of bet365 apuestas"，Based on legislative policy and other considerations, the special reasons are listed in detail as "inability to govern due to legal or factual reasons、No bet365 apuestas found after acceptance、Combined case bet365 apuestas due to case handling needs、These aspects involving bet365 apuestas，Overcome the arbitrariness of the application of designated bet365 apuestas。

Next，Clearly specify the reference standard for bet365 apuestas。Binary designated bet365 apuestas standards can be established，When specifying a situation that cannot be governed due to legal or factual reasons，With strong case handling ability (if the case handling unit has sufficient personnel、Many honors and awards)、Have experience in handling similar cases、Closeness to areas beyond bet365 apuestas is used as a screening criterion；When specifying other situations，Designated based on the location of the main evidence relied upon for conviction。The latter operation plan is，Analyzing the evidence chain of cybercrime in practice，Use big data technology to display the presentation form and evidence distribution of the main evidence used to finalize the case，Then determine the place of bet365 apuestas based on evidence。This makes the principle of "conducive to ascertaining the facts of the case" more gripping。Of course，This is the standard for designated bet365 apuestas based on trial。At the beginning of the investigation，The evidence is still being unearthed，All case-handling agencies should proceed together，When the case becomes clear and needs to be specified, the above standards will be followed。

Finally，Perfect program structure for designated bet365 apuestas。Fill in the program content of the specified bet365 apuestas，Cannot avoid resolving the aforementioned questions。The issue of the connection of designated bet365 apuestas between investigation and trial，Essentially, it is a question of which stage of designated bet365 apuestas is the centerpiece。Overview of criminal prosecution legislation in many countries，Except Russia’s special “investigative bet365 apuestas” provision in pre-trial proceedings，The representative countries of the two major legal systems both set up designated jurisdictions centered on trial。It is recommended that our country should not change the current bet365 apuestas model based on trial，Leverage the supervisory role of the procuratorial organs in assigning bet365 apuestas over the investigation，And retain the court’s authority to review whether the designated bet365 apuestas for investigation is appropriate，Maintain its final say on bet365 apuestas。At the same time，Distinguish the reasons for the application of designated bet365 apuestas，Situations where it is clear that direct designation of bet365 apuestas is required，If the entire court cannot have bet365 apuestas due to recusal，The rest adopt the method of negotiation first and then specifying。Use "designated bet365 apuestas" as a discussion mechanism，From start to finish, focus on the participating subjects、Deliberation mechanism、Procedural reconstruction of case file circulation, etc.，And specify the effectiveness of procedures and evidence before designating bet365 apuestas，Provisions on matters such as serving the designated bet365 apuestas decision with explanations and instructions for the transfer of case file materials to relevant agencies and parties。

　(This article is the result of the Shandong Province Social Science Planning Trial Research Special Topic (18CSPJ17))

(Author’s unit: Ocean University of China Law School)