Recently, the Chinese Communist authorities have revised the judicial interpretation of job-related crimes, increasing the threshold for filing cases of “mysterious sources of huge wealth” for state employees tenfold, while significantly lowering the threshold for bribery crimes by non-state employees. Human rights lawyers have pointed out that this move essentially condones corruption among officials, continuing the logic of “governing through corruption,” while some Beijing residents describe the new regulations as “openly encouraging corruption,” sparking widespread criticism.
On May 1st, the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate of China officially implemented the provisions of the “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Corruption and Bribery (2nd Interpretation)” jointly issued last month.
According to the new rules, if the property and expenditures of state employees significantly exceed their legal income, and the difference cannot be explained, reaching over 3 million yuan, it is deemed as “a huge difference” and falls within the scope of criminal liability. Differences exceeding 10 million yuan are considered “particularly huge,” corresponding to even higher sentencing ranges.
Previously in judicial practice, the standard for state employees was set at 300,000 yuan. After the adjustment, differences in the range of 300,000 to 3 million yuan are generally no longer processed under this charge.
At the same time, the threshold for non-state employee bribery crimes has been lowered from 60,000 to 30,000 yuan. The latest interpretation indicates that as of May 1st, if a doctor accumulates kickbacks totaling 30,000 yuan, it generally constitutes a bribery crime by a non-state employee.
Many commentators believe that this practice of “easing regulations for officials while tightening them for the public” exacerbates suspicions of judicial unfairness.
Wu Shaoping, head of the Overseas Human Rights Lawyers Alliance, pointed out in an interview with Epoch Times that the most shocking adjustment this time is the tenfold increase in the threshold for the crime of “huge unidentified sources of wealth” for officials, which is a significant adjustment.
He noted that the term “unexplained sources of wealth” inherently means that the related income does not match the official’s status or position, “basically indicating that these sources belong to illegal income.”
In Wu’s view, “raising the filing standards essentially condones corruption among state employees and gives these corrupt officials ample room for corruption.”
He believes that this move by the Chinese Communist Party actually underscores the failure of its long-term “anti-corruption” efforts to truly address the issue of corruption.
Beijing resident Ma Yu (pseudonym) also expressed strong dissatisfaction. He told Epoch Times that the increase in the filing standards for officials has sparked significant backlash online, resulting in widespread condemnation.
“It’s like openly encouraging officials to engage in corruption and bribery, turning theft into robbery. I didn’t expect that after years of anti-corruption efforts, this would be the outcome, which clearly shows that the previous so-called anti-corruption measures were merely a show. Now the true nature of bandits has finally been exposed,” Ma Yu said.
Wu Shaoping further pointed out that if the original 300,000 yuan filing standard continued to be enforced, “almost no one would be free from being implicated.” He mentioned that this precisely reflects the severity of corruption in officialdom reaching a point that authorities had to raise the threshold.
He interprets this adjustment as ironclad evidence of the failure of the Chinese Communist Party’s anti-corruption efforts. He believes this indicates that Xi Jinping’s more than ten years of anti-corruption efforts have not truly solved the issue of systemic corruption.
Apart from the changes in the threshold amounts, the expansion of the scope of confiscating illegal gains under the new regulations has sparked even more controversy.
According to Article 23 of the latest judicial interpretation by the two Supreme Courts, “If the bribes or property have not been delivered to the bribe taker or have been returned to the briber, the bribes shall be recovered from the briber according to law.”
In response to this, mainland criminal defense lawyer Cai Yaqi expressed on self-media that it amounts to a situation where a private entrepreneur reaches an agreement with a public official to send one million to the official, even if it has not been sent yet, the Commission for Discipline Inspection can still recover this one million from the business. And if the public official returns the one million to the company owner, the Commission should also recover it from the company. But “how do you prove the ‘return’? Cash return depends on oral testimony, without return you can still be said to have returned.”
He presented a possible enforcement scenario: “The Commission detains a business owner saying, ‘Are you planning to give one million to the public official? If you hadn’t given it away, we will recover that one million from you.’ So, the business owner admits they were planning to give but didn’t actually do it, then they will be asked to pay the one million.”
Regarding this, lawyer Cai said, “This is too terrifying.”
“Once a person is subjected to torture during detention and forced to confess to a non-existent transaction, it may directly result in the confiscation of property.”
With a specific scenario, he explained the dangers: assuming during detention, Zhang San is subjected to torture to confess that Wang Wu promised to bribe with a property, but the property was never transferred, “the relevant department may use this as a reason to demand that Li Si hand over the house as confiscated illegal proceeds.”
Concerns arise that this mechanism may become a tool for rent-seeking. “This will lead to many innocent people being implicated,” he said, “The 23rd Article of the Chinese Communist Party judicial interpretation will cause a large number of false and erroneous cases.”
In Wu Shaoping’s view, the deeper issue lies not just in legal texts but in the entire logic of institutional operation.
He believes that the Chinese government has long adhered to a governing model of “ruling through corruption.” He stated that since the Mao Zedong era, there has been systemic privilege within the system, “Joining this system allows for benefits.”
Now, by raising the criminal threshold, Wu sees it as essentially the same logic. “It means telling these officials: you can get many benefits by being in office as long as you continue to serve this regime.” He considers that this institutional design itself encourages power rent-seeking.
He pointed out that compared to the global trend of strict anti-corruption measures, this move by the Chinese Communist Party is clearly in the opposite direction. He said that if the genuine intention is to combat corruption, it should be about “strictly restricting government employees,” not raising the criminal threshold.
When delving into deeper issues, Wu Shaoping believes that the Chinese system itself has led to comprehensive societal disorder. He said that the Chinese Communist Party has long practiced single-party rule, lacking checks and balances, “the whole society has become one of materialism and centering on power.”
In this system, officials exploit power for corruption, resource appropriation, and exploiting the people, “maximizing the realization of power.”
Wu described the current Chinese society not just as “corrupt” but as reaching “debauchery”. “Nowadays, many people describe it with one term, that is rotten to the core,” he remarked.
He believes that in recent years, the grassroots have seen frequent occurrences of vicious incidents and indiscriminate harm cases, which are also related to this social environment. “People are dissatisfied with society but cannot find the right outlet, leading to bottom-level conflicts.” He stated, “This is the evil consequence brought about by the social decadence as a whole.”