The short answer

  • Taking someone else’s child and raising it yourself usually constitutes the crime of abducting a child (拐骗儿童罪), for which the statutory maximum penalty is five years; only where the purpose is to sell the child does the crime of trafficking in children (拐卖儿童罪) apply (Article 240 of the Criminal Law), which starts at five years and can carry the death penalty at its most serious.
  • So “only three years” is not anomalous: the ceiling for abducting a child is five years, and three years is already close to that ceiling.
  • Whether the case can still be prosecuted does not depend on how many years have passed but on two variables: the charge fixes the length of the limitation period for prosecution (ten years for abducting a child, twenty years for trafficking in children), and procedure decides whether that period has been extended.
  • Similar old cases come out in opposite ways: in a child-abduction case in Guangxi, where the offence was committed in 1988 and solved in 2020, the procuratorate refused to approve arrest on the ground that the limitation period had expired, while in this Beijing case the sentence was three years. The difference usually lies in whether a case was opened at the time, whether coercive measures were imposed, and whether the family lodged a complaint within the limitation period.
  • The legal basis is Article 88 of the Criminal Law: where a person evades investigation or trial after a case has been opened and investigation begun, the limitation period does not apply; nor does it apply where the victim lodged a complaint within the limitation period and a case that should have been opened was not opened. Offences committed before 1 October 1997 are governed by the 1979 Criminal Law, which sets a higher threshold.
  • For the family, the most effective action is not to wait: report the case and ask for a written decision to open it, keep written records of complaints and replies, and where no case is opened, apply to the procuratorate for supervision of case filing without delay.

The facts: a nanny took a ten-month-old boy, found only 35 years later

On 7 March 1990 Mr Sun’s ten-month-old son disappeared, and the nanny looking after the child, Wang, disappeared with him. Wang, then 24, could not have children of her own, so she took the baby while caring for him at her employer’s home, and thereafter raised him as his mother. When the boy grew up and asked about his origins, she said she had picked him up at the roadside. Police dragnets and searches produced no result, and the family searched for 35 years. In 2025 the public security authorities identified a man in another province through big-data comparison, and genetic testing confirmed he was the baby who had gone missing. Wang was prosecuted on suspicion of abducting a child, and the court sentenced her to three years’ fixed-term imprisonment.

“Abducting” and “trafficking”: one character apart, a very different penalty

There is only one distinguishing element: whether there was a purpose to sell the child.

  • Article 240 (trafficking in women and children): five to ten years’ fixed-term imprisonment and a fine; where the circumstances include trafficking in three or more persons or stealing infants and young children, ten years’ fixed-term imprisonment or life imprisonment; where the circumstances are especially serious, death.
  • Article 262 (abducting a child): whoever abducts a minor under the age of fourteen, separating that minor from their family or guardian, is liable to up to five years’ fixed-term imprisonment or criminal detention.

Article 1 of Supreme People’s Court interpretation Fa Shi [2016] No. 28 also provides that using deception, inducement or similar means to separate an infant or young child from their guardian or carer is treated as “stealing infants and young children” under Article 240, paragraph 1, item (6) — again on the premise that the purpose is to sell.

The case of Ge (abducting a child) in the Supreme People’s Court Case Database (人民法院案例库), database entry no. 2023-02-1-217-001, puts it more plainly: the main difference between the two offences is whether the purpose is to sell the child; where a child is abducted for the purpose of sale, it is convicted as trafficking in children whether or not the sale actually took place; where a child is abducted away from a guardian for other purposes, it is punished as abducting a child.

Wang took the child in order to raise him herself, and there is no evidence of a purpose to sell or to profit, so the case falls under Article 262: a maximum of five years. Three years sits at the heavier end of that range.

Thirty-five years on, why can the case still be prosecuted?

Article 87 of the Criminal Law divides the limitation period for prosecution into four tiers: where the statutory maximum penalty is less than five years, five years; where it is five years or more but less than ten years, ten years; where it is ten years or more, fifteen years; where it is life imprisonment or death, twenty years — and after twenty years, where prosecution is considered necessary, it must be reported to the Supreme People’s Procuratorate for approval.

Abducting a child carries a maximum of five years, which falls in the second tier, so the limitation period is ten years; trafficking in children can carry the death penalty, so the limitation period is twenty years, and going beyond it also requires approved prosecution. For a child-abduction offence committed in 1990, counting only the ten years, the period had already expired by 2000. What really decides whether the case can still be brought is the two gates in Article 88 of the Criminal Law:

  • where, after a case has been opened and investigation begun by a people’s procuratorate, a public security organ or a state security organ, or after a people’s court has accepted the case, the person evades investigation or trial, the limitation period does not apply;
  • where the victim lodges a complaint within the limitation period and a people’s court, people’s procuratorate or public security organ should have opened a case but did not, the limitation period does not apply.

For offences committed before 1 October 1997 there is the further step of applying the old law where it is more lenient. Article 12 of the Criminal Law: where the law in force at the time regarded the conduct as a crime and it is liable to prosecution under the provisions of Section 8 of Chapter IV of the General Provisions of this Law, criminal liability is pursued under the law in force at the time. Article 1 of Supreme People’s Court interpretation Fa Shi [1997] No. 5 makes clear that for offences committed before 30 September 1997 — where the person evades investigation or trial after a case is opened, or the victim complained and a case that should have been opened was not opened, and the limitation period has expired — whether to prosecute is governed by Article 77 of the pre-amendment Criminal Law. That article provides that “where, after a people’s court, a people’s procuratorate or a public security organ has imposed coercive measures, a person evades investigation or trial, the limitation period does not apply” — a higher threshold than the current Article 88’s “after a case has been opened and investigation begun”: opening a case is not enough; coercive measures must have been imposed on the suspect.

Two old cases, two opposite outcomes

  • A case publicly reported in Guangxi: in January 1988 Qin, working as a nanny, took a five-month-old baby from the Cao household the day after she arrived and raised him, and the case was solved in May 2020 through DNA comparison. The procuratorate found that she was suspected of abducting a child but that the limitation period had expired, and decided not to approve arrest; after the family appealed, the regional procuratorate upheld the decision not to approve arrest. The reason: the 1979 Criminal Law applies to this case, and the limitation period is ten years; although the family reported the case at the time and the police opened a case, after opening it the police only circulated a notice seeking assistance and did not impose coercive measures on the criminal suspect, so this was not a situation in which the limitation period does not apply.
  • The case of Chen (trafficking in women) in the Supreme People’s Court Case Database, database entry no. 2023-02-1-188-009, took the other path: the offence was committed in 1998, and the victim’s family went to the police station to complain that same year; after a preliminary investigation the police found that the conditions for opening a case were met, but no case was opened because the officer handling it was transferred and the file was archived. The court held that this was a case of “the victim lodging a complaint within the limitation period and a public security organ failing to open a case that should have been opened”, so the limitation period does not apply.

In the Beijing case, what happened to the limitation period?

Public reporting has not disclosed how the court dealt with the limitation period for prosecution, nor whether the public security authorities imposed coercive measures on Wang in 1990. On the face of the legislation there are roughly three paths that could allow a prosecution 35 years later to stand (the following is a lawyer’s synthesis, not a confirmation of the procedure in this case):

  • Coercive measures were imposed on Wang after a case was opened at the time and she then evaded investigation for a long period, or the victim’s family lodged a fully documented complaint within the limitation period — the former engages Article 77 of the 1979 Criminal Law or the current Article 88, so the limitation period does not apply; the latter falls within the “should have opened a case but did not” situation.
  • Arguing that the limitation period runs from the date on which the state of being separated from family or guardian ended. Article 89 of the Criminal Law: where criminal conduct is continuous or continuing, the period is counted from the date the criminal conduct ends. That is how the family appealed in the Guangxi case — the child’s state of having been abducted continued until he reached the age of fourteen, so the period should be counted afresh; the procuratorate’s answer was that the offence of abducting a child is complete and accomplished as soon as it is committed, and the period runs from the date of the offence. This disagreement has not been fully settled in practice.

What the family should do right now

  • Report the case and get everything in writing: obtain the Decision to Open a Case, and, where no case is opened, the Notice of Decision Not to Open a Case — these are the prerequisites for applying for reconsideration and for supervision of case filing.
  • Watch the limitation period: ten years for abducting a child and twenty years for trafficking in children, both counted from the date of the offence; delay and inaction bring no advantage.
  • Use supervision of case filing to the full. Article 113 of the Criminal Procedure Law: where a victim considers that a public security organ has failed to open a case for investigation in a matter that should be investigated, and raises this with a people’s procuratorate, the procuratorate shall require the public security organ to explain its reasons; if the reasons do not hold, it shall notify it to open a case.
  • Cooperate with the entry of identity and DNA information into the databases. What solved this case was big-data comparison and genetic testing; blood samples retained and leads recorded in the early years often decide whether a match can still be made decades later.
  • Where a case is closed on the ground that the limitation period has expired, pursue a criminal petition for review; in trafficking-in-children cases, where the maximum penalty is death, an application can also be made for the procuratorate to start the process of approving prosecution. In addition, a claim for damages in tort is independent of criminal prosecution and does not fall away together with a limitation-period objection.

Research limitations

The facts of the case come from public reporting in July 2026; the legal basis is drawn from the current Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law, the 1979 Criminal Law, Supreme People’s Court interpretations Fa Shi [1997] No. 5 and Fa Shi [2016] No. 28, and cases entered in the Supreme People’s Court Case Database. Public reporting has not disclosed how the court dealt with the limitation period for prosecution in the individual Beijing case, or whether coercive measures were taken in 1990; that part is a lawyer’s synthesis based on the legislation, not a confirmation of the procedure in the individual case, and does not constitute legal advice on any specific case. The statutory penalties and limitation periods for abducting a child and for trafficking in children differ under the law of different years, and any old case must first be checked against the law in force at the time of the conduct and the rule of applying the old law where it is more lenient. If you or a family member face a similar situation — prosecution blocked after a child was abducted or trafficked, or an old case shut out on the ground that the limitation period has expired — you are welcome to contact Wang Xin: telephone 186-0113-9509, WeChat wang223040.

Quick answers

Why is a nanny who took a baby to raise herself charged with abducting a child rather than trafficking in children?
There is only one distinguishing element: a purpose to sell. Abducting a child (拐骗儿童罪, Article 262) covers taking a minor under fourteen from their family or guardian for other purposes, and carries up to five years; trafficking in children (拐卖儿童罪, Article 240) requires a purpose of sale, starts at five years and can carry the death penalty at its most serious. Wang took the child to raise him herself and no purpose to sell or profit was proved, so the case fell under Article 262, whose ceiling is five years — three years sits at the heavier end of that range.
A child was taken 35 years ago — how is the limitation period for prosecution calculated?
Article 87 of the Criminal Law sets the period by the maximum penalty: ten years for abducting a child (statutory maximum five years) and twenty years for trafficking in children, beyond which prosecution needs approval by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. Article 88 then opens two gates that remove the limit: where the person evades investigation or trial after a case has been opened and investigation begun, and where the victim lodged a complaint within the period but a case that should have been opened was not. For offences committed before 1 October 1997 the 1979 Criminal Law also applies, and it set a higher threshold — coercive measures, not merely an opened case.
Why do similar old cases end differently — some with a conviction, some held to be time-barred?
The variables are procedural, not just the years that have passed: whether a case was opened at the time, whether coercive measures were imposed on the suspect, and whether the family lodged a documented complaint within the limitation period. In the Guangxi case the police opened a case but only circulated an assistance notice and imposed no coercive measures, so the limitation period was held to apply. In the Chen case the family complained within the period and the police failed to open a case that should have been opened, so the limitation period did not apply.

This is an English edition of Wang Xin’s original Chinese article, 保姆拐走婴儿35年，为什么只判3年？拐骗儿童罪与拐卖儿童罪的关键差别. It explains the law of the People’s Republic of China in general terms and is not legal advice for any particular case; outcomes depend on the specific facts and on how local authorities apply the rules.