Recently, the judicial interpretation by the Chinese Communist Party’s “two high courts” regarding corruption and bribery cases has sparked widespread controversy. Some mainland Chinese lawyers believe that certain provisions have “enormous and even terrifying information,” such as the ability to reclaim “agreed bribery payments” that were not actually delivered, raising concerns about the scope of law enforcement and practical implementation.
The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the CCP website stated that the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate jointly issued the “Interpretation II on the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Corruption and Bribery” on April 10, which will come into effect on May 1, 2026.
The “two high courts” stated in the judicial interpretation that the new interpretation improved the rules for identifying acts of collusion bribery, bribery introduction, and embezzlement of public funds, enhanced the rules for verifying the authenticity and pricing of specific assets, specified the calculation rules for the amount of anticipated benefits in bribery, and increased the punishment for new forms of hidden corruption.
The new judicial interpretation by the “two high courts” immediately caught the attention of the legal community.
Chinese criminal defense lawyer Cai Yaqi introduced his analysis of the judicial interpretation on his personal social media account on April 14. He then thoroughly read the full text during a lecture and found certain provisions to be “profound.” He commented, “Upon careful reading, one will find that the amount of information therein is very large, even frightening.”
He specifically pointed out Article 23, Clause 3, which stipulates that if the proceeds of crime have not been delivered to the bribe receiver or have been returned to the briber, they can be retrieved from the briber according to law.
For example, he explained, “If a business owner reaches an agreement with a public official, even if it’s an implied agreement, to give the official one million yuan but hasn’t had the chance to deliver it, as long as it can be proven that such an agreement exists, the one million yuan should be reclaimed from the business owner.”
In Cai’s view, this means there is “too much room for manipulation” as he raised concerns by saying, “If I promise to give you one million yuan, or imply that I will give you one million yuan, even if I haven’t delivered it yet, you will have to take one million yuan from me.”
He presented a possible scenario of law enforcement: “The disciplinary commission detains a business owner and asks if they intended to give the public official one million yuan. Even if the owner has not given it, but admits the intention, they would be asked to pay one million yuan.”
Cai expressed, “This is too frightening.”
In the same provision, there is also mention of situations where the funds have been “returned.” Cai Yaqi believes that this wording also poses challenges in practical verification.
He said, “If a business owner gives one million yuan to a public official, and the official returns the one million, the one million should still be reclaimed from the business owner.” However, the key issue lies in how to verify this “return.”
He pointed out that in cash transactions, “Based on testimonies, even if there was no actual return, it can be said that you returned the money. Once it’s determined that you returned it, one million yuan should be retrieved from you.”
“This provision is too terrifying, and I don’t know what kind of implications this operation holds,” he remarked.
Furthermore, besides Cai’s interpretation of the new rules by the “two high courts,” the judicial interpretation of “same crime, different penalties” between officials and civilians has also sparked widespread discussion in the legal community and among the public.
According to the “Interpretation II on the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Corruption and Bribery,” the starting point for the offense of acceptance of bribes or embezzlement by non-state personnel is set uniformly at 30,000 yuan. At the same time, the standard for the crime of “huge unexplained assets” among state personnel has been increased from 300,000 yuan to 3 million yuan.
Commentator Qin Mian pointed out in the People’s Daily that the difference in the threshold for criminal charges between officials and civilians being 100 times apart is blatant class and status discrimination, extending the lineage theories into the field of criminal penalties. Isn’t it said that everyone is equal before the law? Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign that protects officials and sacrifices ordinary people is essentially paving the way for party officials while showing sharp teeth to the general public.
The article highlighted that the CCP has directly legalized any looting of private enterprises, a blatant robbery under the guise of legality, disregarding appearances. In the past, actions against private entrepreneurs could still cause local protection and legal disputes, but now, if you even have the thought of bribery, the money will be taken directly. Before the Musk brain-machine interface is put into use, the “two high courts” of the CCP have already enacted thought crimes, which is highly ironic.