实现非公有制经济的刑法平等保护，是经济、社会、法治层面一致的现实需求，其政策依据在于党中央、国务院和最高司法机关的政策导向，其法理依据在于法益保护目的、刑法平等原则、罪刑均衡原则的实现，其规范依据在于刑法与宪法、其他部门法律法规的兼顾协同。就平等保护的内涵而言，既需要将其复合化地诠释为以依法保护为前提、平等保护为本体、精准保护为进路、全面保护为诉求的有机统一，也应当将其层次化地解读为“产权的形式平等保护”与“身份属性的实质平等保护”的有机结合。
我国刑法对非公有制经济的保护，在1949年至82年《宪法》颁行前仅有零星保护。自82年《宪法》至97刑法颁行前，刑法虽然开启了对非公有制经济的保护，但更为突出的是对公有制经济的特殊保护，而且在“严打”的影响下更加侧重对非公有制经济的规制。97年刑法修订至今，我国刑法逐步开启了对非公有制经济的立体化保护。特别是党的十八大以来，刑法通过更加多元、全面的立体化保护，将对非公有制经济的平等保护进一步落到实处。非公有制经济刑法保护的历史演变表明，其保护状况受国家和社会对非公有制经济性质和地位的认识、相关法律法规对非公有制经济的制度建设状况、刑法在社会治理中的角色和定位等因素的影响。与此同时，“平等”因素在非公有制经济刑法保护中的成分虽然呈现出“从无到有，由少到多”的态势，但在观念、立法和司法层面所反映出的一些问题也表明，推进刑法对非公有制经济的平等保护仍然任重而道远。
我国刑法对非公有制经济的不平等保护，在观念层面源于“僵化”看待和“机械”理解两类经济形式、受我国古代“公”“农”优先观念的深刻影响及受“稳定滞后”“秩序优先”刑法特性的制约。在刑法立法层面，主要表现为：其一，刑法总则缺乏明确规定作为平等保护总体支撑；其二，对单位犯罪刑事责任的追究缺乏针对性的内容；其三，“公民私人所有财产”的界定难以支撑平等保护；其四，宽泛界定“国家工作人员”彰显公有制的优先；其五，保护公私两类主体经济利益存在明显区别对待；其六，公私涉腐犯罪的差异化对待面临不均衡的诟病；其七，个别罪名对非公有制经济形成过度打击亟待调整。在刑事司法层面，主要表现为：其一，立法的差别保护对刑事司法的歧视性“投射”；其二，对涉非公有制经济犯罪的不当处分和过度干预；其三，侧重形式入罪而忽视实质出罪；其四，对“民刑”“行刑”界限的突破；其五，程序性适用的不规范；其六，多元保护机制的缺失。
在刑法立法层面提升对非公有制经济的平等保护，需要坚持及时性、一致性和审慎性原则以加强与政策和其他法律的协同，在“刑法任务”和“犯罪概念”中明确对非公有制经济的保护，对刑法第92条“公民私人所有财产”的界定作出调整，将认罪认罚和企业合规确立为法定从宽情节，并增设单位缓刑制度作为配套措施。以“另加一条”替代《刑法修正案（十二）（草案）》“另加一款”的立法设计方式，在未来全面修订刑法的情况下重新调整公私主体涉腐犯罪的章节安排和犯罪构成；同时，调整公司设立、资金融通和企业经营等方面的有关罪名，以改善刑法对非公有制经济活动的过度干预。
在刑事司法层面提升对非公有制经济的平等保护，需要树立以平等保护原则为中心、以合目的性原则为补充、以罪刑法定原则为限制的核心保护理念。在具体保护路径上，实体法层面需要将基本理念转化为具体的刑事政策原则，在法秩序统一性视野下推进“民行刑”的合理衔接，以及对自然人犯罪与单位犯罪进行分类处理；程序法层面则需要在刑事诉讼全过程贯彻对非公有制经济的平等保护。同时，针对民营企业容易涉罪的贷款类犯罪、集资类犯罪、贿赂类犯罪、经营类犯罪等，还应当通过类型化的合理规制平衡非公有制经济企业过度的、不平等的刑事风险。此外，还应当进一步延伸司法职能，丰富司法保护模式中的“沟通机制”“保障机制”和“联动机制”。

The realization of equal protection under criminal law for the non-publicly owned economy has a realistic demand at the economic, social and rule of law levels. As far as the specific support basis is concerned, its policy basis lies in the policy orientation of the CPC Central Committee, the State Council and the highest judicial organs, its legal basis lies in the realization of the purpose of legal protection, the principle of equality in criminal law and the principle of balanced crime and punishment, and its normative basis lies in the synergies between the criminal law and the Constitution, as well as the laws and regulations of other sectors.
As far as the connotation of equal protection is concerned, it is necessary to interpret it as the organic unity of protection according to law as the premise, equal protection as the ontology, precise protection as the way forward, and comprehensive protection as the demand, and it should also be interpreted as the organic combination of "formal equal protection of property rights" and "substantive equal protection of identity attributes". It should also be interpreted hierarchically as an organic combination of "formal equal protection of property rights" and "substantive equal protection of identity attributes".
China's criminal law protection of non-publicly owned economy, since 1949 to 1982 before the promulgation of the Constitution only sporadic protection. From 1982 until the revision of the Criminal Law in 1997, although the protection of the non-publicly owned economy was reopened, the special protection of the state-owned economy was more prominent in the Criminal Law, and the Criminal Law was influenced by the policy of "cracking down" and focused more on punishing the non-publicly owned economy. After the revision of the Criminal Law in 1997, China's criminal law started to protect the non-publicly owned economy in a diverse way after a slow start. Since the 18th CPC National Congress, China's criminal law has begun to show diverse protection of non-publicly owned economy, and the protection of non-publicly owned economy has been further put into practice.
The historical evolution of the criminal law protection of non-publicly owned economy shows that the status of the criminal law protection of non-publicly owned economy is influenced by the state and society's understanding of the nature and status of non-publicly owned economy, the status of the institutional construction of non-publicly owned economy in relevant laws and regulations, and the role and positioning of criminal law in social governance. Although the element of "equality" in the criminal law protection of non-publicly owned economy has shown a trend of "from none to some, and from few to many", some problems reflected in concepts, legislation and judiciary show that it is still a long way to go to promote the equal protection of non-publicly owned economy in criminal law.
The unequal protection of the non-public economy in China's criminal law stems, at the conceptual level, from a stereotypical and mechanical understanding of the two types of economic forms, the influence of China's ancient concepts of "prioritizing the public interest" and "prioritizing agriculture", and the constraints imposed by the characteristics of criminal law, which are "stabilizing and lagging" and "focused on maintaining order". 
At the level of criminal law legislation, unequal protection is manifested in the following ways: firstly, the General Principles of the Criminal Law lack explicit provisions to support the concept of equal protection; secondly, there is a lack of targeted content for the pursuit of criminal liability for unit crimes; thirdly, it is difficult to support equal protection in the definition of "privately owned property of citizens"; fourthly, the broad definition of "state officials" demonstrates the priority of public ownership; fifthly, the criminal law protects the economic interests of two types of subjects with obvious differences in treatment; sixthly, the differentiated treatment of public and private corruption-related crimes is facing the criticism of imbalance; and seventhly, the individual crimes constitute an excessive blow to the non-publicly owned economy. 
At the criminal justice level, the main manifestations are: firstly, differential protection in criminal law legislation has evolved into discriminatory treatment at the criminal justice level; secondly, inappropriate disposition and excessive intervention in crimes involving the non-publicly owned economy; thirdly, focusing on formal criminalization while neglecting substantive criminalization; fourthly, breaching the boundaries between "civil law and criminal law" and "administrative law and criminal law"; fifthly, irregularities in procedural application; and sixthly, the absence of a pluralistic protection mechanism.
To enhance the equal protection of the non-publicly owned economy at the level of criminal law legislation, it is necessary to adhere to the principles of timeliness, consistency and prudence in order to strengthen synergies with policies and other laws, and to clarify the protection of the non-publicly owned economy in the "tasks of criminal law" and the "concepts of crime". Adjustments were made to the definition of "privately owned property of citizens" in article 92 of the Criminal Law, establishing guilty pleas and corporate compliance as statutory mitigating circumstances, and adding a unit probation system as a complementary measure. Replacing the legislative design of "adding another paragraph" in Amendment (XII) to the Criminal Law with "adding another article", and re-adjusting the chapter arrangement and criminal composition of corruption-related crimes committed by public and private subjects in the event of a comprehensive revision of the Criminal Law in the future; at the same time, adjusting the relevant provisions on the establishment of companies, capital financing and business operation. The relevant crimes in the areas of company establishment, capital financing and business operation should be adjusted, so as to improve the excessive interference of the criminal law in non-public economic activities.
To enhance the equal protection of the non-publicly owned economy at the criminal justice level, it is necessary to establish a core protection concept centered on the principle of equal protection, supplemented by the principle of proportionality, and limited by the principle of legality of crimes and penalties. In terms of specific protection paths, the substantive law level needs to transform the basic concept into specific criminal policy principles, promote the reasonable convergence of "civil execution and criminal punishment" under the vision of the unity of the legal order, as well as classify the treatment of crimes committed by natural persons and crimes committed by units, while the procedural law level needs to implement the equal protection of non-publicly owned economy in the whole process of criminal proceedings. At the procedural law level, it is necessary to implement equal protection for the non-publicly owned economy throughout the criminal procedure. At the same time, for the private enterprises easily involved in criminal loans, capital-raising crimes, bribery crimes, business crimes, etc., should also be typified through the reasonable regulation to balance the excessive and unequal criminal risk of non-publicly owned economy enterprises. In addition, the judicial function should be further extended to enrich the judicial protection model of "communication mechanism", "guarantee mechanism" and "joint mechanism".