In modern society, mind control and emotional blackmail occur frequently, leading to negative impacts upon the community. Due to the lack of clarity concerning the compensation for mental damage caused by mind control or emotional blackmail in China, the interests of victims cannot be adequately protected. This paper aims to prove that, provided some requirements are met, claimants of compensation for mental damage caused by mind control or emotional blackmail are entitled to compensation in China. The subjects of claims of compensation for mental damage caused by mind control or emotional blackmail fall into two categories. When the act infringes on the victim's rights to health, the subject is the victim, who is entitled to claim for compensation according to Article 6 and Article 22 of Chinese Tort Law; however, when the victim dies, the subject is the close relative of the victim, who is entitled to claim for compensation according to Article 6 and Article 18 of the Chinese Tort Law and Article 7 of the Judicial Interpretation on Compensation for Mental Damage. In both situations, in order to claim for compensation, the subject must prove that the tortfeasor commits a tort upon the victim, the focus of which lies in the judgment of ″causation in the establishment of liability″ and ″fault″. The ″adequate causation theory″ is the standard of judging causation, which consists of ″cause in fact″ and ″adequacy″. With regard to the former, if the victim has not been injured or killed, and as long as mind control or emotional blackmail does not exist, then the wrongful act is the cause in fact; if the victim has been injured or killed, even if mind control or emotional blackmail does not exist, then the wrongful act is not the cause in fact. Concerning the latter, if the mind control or emotional blackmail may generally cause the damage, then the ″adequacy″ requirement is satisfied; if not, the ″adequacy″ requirement is not satisfied. To judge whether the wrongful act may generally cause the damage, the court should consider the general situation of Chinese society and the specific circumstances concerning both parties. Fault includes intention and negligence. On the one hand, the tortfeasor intentionally commits a tort if he/she intends a particular consequence of his/her act (direct intent), or if he/she can foresee a virtually certain consequence of his/her action (oblique intent.) On the other hand, the tortfeasor negligently commits a tort if he/she fails to exercise appropriate care to prevent a consequence of his/her action. The court should adopt a subjective standard to affirm the intention and adopt an objective standard to assert the negligence. When ascertaining the scope of compensation for mental damage, the court should firstly confirm the existence of causation in the extent of liability. In this regard, the adequate causation theory is also the standard of judging causation. Secondly, the court should determine the amount of compensation for mental damage according to the factors listed in Article 10 and Article 11 of the Judicial Interpretation on Compensation for Mental Damage. The factors include but are not limited to: the outcome of the wrongful act, the victim’s fault, and tortfeasors economic gain. The innovation of this paper lies in two aspects. The first is the research object. This paper aims to study the claim of compensation for mental damage caused by mind control or emotional blackmail, to which the academics and legal practitioners in China do not pay enough attention.The second aspect is the research conclusion. This paper divides the subjects of the claim of compensation for mental damage caused by mind control or emotional blackmail into two categories, that is, the victim and the close relatives of the victim. Moreover, according to this paper, if a subject could prove that the tortfeasor commits a tort upon the victim, and there exists causation in the extent of liability, he/she is entitled to claim for compensation in China.