The latest judicial interpretation by the Chinese Communist authorities has raised the threshold for the crime of unclear property sources from 300,000 yuan to 3 million yuan. Simultaneously, employees of private companies committing crimes in their duties are now subject to the same penalties as public officials, with a threshold of only 30,000 yuan for prosecution. This change has sparked public criticism for relaxing punishment on officials while cracking down harshly on civilians. The judicial interpretation has stirred controversies on various fronts.
On April 10, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Procuratorate of the Chinese Communist Party issued the “Interpretation II on the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Corruption and Bribery,” which will come into effect on May 1.
The new regulations indicate that if the property and expenditures of national staff significantly exceed their legal income and the difference cannot be explained, exceeding 3 million yuan is deemed as “a huge difference” and falls into the scope of criminal accountability. Differences exceeding 10 million yuan are considered “particularly huge,” leading to higher sentencing ranges. Previously, the standards in judicial practice started at 300,000 yuan. Following the adjustment, differences in the range of 300,000 to 3 million yuan are generally no longer processed under the same charge.
Chinese affairs expert Wang He told Epoch Times that raising the threshold for prosecution is a form of protection for officials and is akin to amnesty. The authorities aim to incentivize more people to seek official positions for personal gain, drawing them into the Communist Party’s embrace. With a corruption space of 3 million, every official is essentially in a state of pending charges, turning the judiciary into a tool for internal power struggles.
Former prosecutor Shen Liangqing from Anhui told Radio Free Asia that corruption in China is systemic and escalates under market conditions, with rents seeking only intensifying and corruption amounts reaching hundreds of millions. In this context, if the standards for prosecuting and sentencing corruption do not increase along with the growing corrupt amounts, do they expect to arrest and sentence all officials, even sentencing many to death?
Shen Liangqing stated that this adjustment represents the ruling group pardoning itself, as otherwise, they would end up capturing all their own people.
Moreover, for non-national staff bribery, the previous threshold for considering it as “large amount” was 60,000 yuan, while for national staff bribery, it was 30,000 yuan. Under the new judicial interpretation, the conviction and sentencing standards for non-national staff bribery, bribery of non-national staff, embezzlement, and misappropriation of funds are referenced to the standards for bribery, unit bribery, corruption, and misappropriation of public funds.
Following the unified standards of prosecution, the threshold for non-national staff to be prosecuted has significantly lowered, with bribery over 30,000 yuan considered as “large amount” (sentencing up to three years), over 200,000 yuan as “huge amount” (sentencing three to ten years), and over 3 million yuan as “particularly huge amount” (sentencing over ten years).
Wang He told Epoch Times that the current disparity in prosecution thresholds for officials and civilians, with private company employees facing prosecution at 30,000 yuan compared to 3 million yuan for government officials, demonstrates that the focus of the Communist Party’s anti-corruption efforts has shifted from state power to the private sector.
Overseas commentator Li Chengpeng expressed on X that currently, the Chinese Communist Party “has relaxed punishments for officials and toughened them for ordinary people.”
Li wrote: “You think privilege is only about having exclusive rooms, special food, children attending top schools and securing jobs. No, privilege also encompasses self-forgiveness when facing legal penalties. By raising the conviction amounts for national staff, they set double standards for the people, effectively representing the ruling group’s institutional self-pardon. People have long ceased to hope for ‘princes and commoners being equal in law,’ now it’s ‘commoners committing crimes face harsher treatment.’ This is no longer a show.”
Report by China News Weekly said that before the new judicial interpretation was issued, there existed a “double standard” for duty crimes between non-national staff and national staff, with the latter facing stricter standards. Several Chinese scholars emphasized the benefits of “unified prosecution standards,” claiming it would “create a fair legal environment for all operating entities.”
Wang He commented that this is a big lie by the Chinese Communist Party. “The primary characteristic of China’s bribery crime is the erosion of public power and its abuse. However, by this judicial interpretation, the government has shifted people’s attention from corruption in state powers to corruption in private enterprises. By focusing on combating corruption in private enterprises, it uses it as a cover to hide the corruption of public powers, similar to tactics used in the 1950s by Mao Zedong in the Three Anti and Five Anti campaigns targeting private businesses.”
Wang He stated that the legislative direction of the Communist Party has become authoritarian, with the motive behind this judicial interpretation possibly linked to their current financial pressures. “Whether it’s deep-sea fishing or cracking down on bribery now, from Bo Xilai’s so-called ‘sing red and strike black’ campaign to today, the Communist Party has had a latent strategy of using the crackdown on private enterprises to relieve their financial pressures. Now, it has openly reached this point.”
Some mainland media interpretations suggest that doctors now committing kickbacks exceeding 30,000 yuan can constitute a crime, including cumulative rewards such as shopping cards, sponsorships, gifts, travel, and other concealed benefits. Those with amounts below 30,000 but with multiple instances of soliciting kickbacks may also face criminal charges. Previously, in cases of medical kickbacks, penalties mostly involved warnings, fines, dismissal, or revocation of procurement qualifications. Starting May 1 this year, penalties have escalated to imprisonment.
Professor Zhu Guobin from the City University of Hong Kong Law School jokingly remarked on social media, “They are tough on doctors and lenient on cadres. Doctor friends, be careful treating official patients from now on.”
Many netizens also commented on X:
“Such heavy sentencing! Selling organs may only get less than 5 years!”
“I vaguely remember that the great leader Xi Jinping started a vigorous anti-corruption campaign in the medical field in 2023. As a result, those doctors performing surgeries were afraid to work. The old cadres could no longer get treated, and in the end, this medical anti-corruption campaign ended in failure.”
“A doctor: I took a 30,000 kickback. Prosecutor: You are arrested. Official: I have 2.99 million from an unknown source. Prosecutor: Take care of yourself.”
“There is no other way, illegal organ selling by mainland doctors is too serious. Some emergency patients, who could have been saved through treatment to preserving life have been left to die. Once a patient falls into a coma and is declared brain dead, they coax families into donating or selling organs without proper consent, forming a complete illegal industry chain. There are even cases of unconsented experimental drugs, like the case of Meng Meng who died in Zhejiang!”
According to the latest judicial interpretation Article 23, “if the embezzled money or items have not been delivered to the bribe recipient or have been returned to the bribe giver, the procuratorial organs shall recover them from the bribe giver according to law.”
On April 15, mainland criminal defense lawyer Cai Yaqi interpreted the new judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Procuratorate, stating that it has “very vast information, even frightening.”
Cai Yaqi pointed out that this is like an agreement between a private enterprise owner and a public official, where the owner promises to give one million to the official; even if not yet delivered, the discipline inspection commission can recover this one million from the enterprise. If the official returns the one million to the enterprise owner, the discipline inspection commission should also recover it from the enterprise. However, “How can you prove the ‘return’? It depends on oral statements; if there is no actual return, they would say you returned it.”