非法经营 is ‘doing restricted business without the legal path’ — it is not a generic label for every unlicensed WeChat shop.
The crime of illegal business operations has been used across licensing, trading, and some financial grey zones. Elements and judicial interpretations matter; over-broad charging is a known risk. Expat founders sometimes meet it through payment, import, or platform models that looked ‘only administrative’. This wiki orients the label and pushes to counsel and sector licensing pages. Fraud and bribery are different theories. Do not self-diagnose from a blog comment.
4 questions before you choose the route.
This page identifies the right question and evidence. It does not determine the legal outcome on a reader’s facts.
What licence was supposedly required?
Sector rule.
LicenceIs the theory 非法经营 or fraud?
Charging choice.
TheoryAdministrative penalty already?
Prior file.
AdminCross-border payments involved?
FX/tax overlays.
OverlayWorking rule: Map the regulated role before marketing or launch in China.
The signal ledger.
These facts move the question beyond a label and into a product, money-flow and control analysis.
Bring a compact evidence docket—not a pitch deck.
Give a compliance team or counsel the operating facts that reveal the perimeter.
Questions people ask before they build.
Short answers for orientation. The right result can change with the service model and current rules.
Is missing an ICP a crime?
Usually administrative first; criminal exposure depends on facts and theories. Do not equate every licence gap with 非法经营.
Who should we call?
PRC criminal counsel plus the sector regulator path — not only a growth consultant.
Primary authorities
Reviewed sources support orientation, not a fact-specific assessment.