Hunan Shaoyang County police were exposed for crossing provincial borders to Shanghai to take away a technology company’s principal, demanding a payment of 100 million yuan for “buying freedom.” After the incident was brought to light, the involved Public Security Bureau chief was dismissed, but the case has yet to be ruled on. Scholars interviewed expressed that behind such instances of “long-distance fishing” lies the shadow of local financial pressure, with enforcement powers potentially being used as a tool for supplementary income. Relying solely on prohibitions may not effectively address the issue and may weaken enterprises’ sense of financial security.
On September 19, the mainland WeChat public account “Law and Emotion” published an investigative report stating that Zheng Shuai, the legal representative of Shanghai Mace Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as “Mace Company”), was taken away by the Hunan Shaoyang County police at Shanghai Hongqiao Airport on January 8, 2024.
Mace Company is mainly engaged in computer software outsourcing development. In 2019, an overseas company signed a service outsourcing contract with Mace Company, commissioning them to develop a network software with VPN capabilities. After the overseas company paid for the development costs, the software was uploaded to its website for customers to download and use for a fee.
On January 8, 2024, Zheng Shuai was taken away by the Shaoyang County police at Shanghai Hongqiao Airport and along with several company employees, was taken overnight to the Redstone Police Station in Shaoyang County. Zheng Shuai’s family members stated that there were cases of illegal detention and interrogation during this time. Furthermore, during the trial, the police even denied ever taking Zheng Shuai and others to the Redstone Police Station.
The report cited Zheng Shuai’s account that the next day, about 15 policemen, including then Deputy Director of the Shaoyang County Public Security Bureau Tang Zhanxiong and Cybersecurity Brigade Commander Zhao Xincheng, pressured Zheng Shuai at the Redstone Police Station, demanding that he admit to the alleged crimes of providing invasion, illegal control of computer information systems programs, tools, or else they would pursue more severe charges of unlawful business operations and threaten to arrest his parents.
Two days later, Zheng Shuai was taken to an unmonitored office in the case handling center. Zheng Shuai disclosed that then Deputy County Magistrate and Public Security Bureau Chief Yin Xiangfeng demanded him to pay 100 million yuan (RMB) for “assisting in the investigation” and promised to arrange for non-prosecution, followed by “designated residence surveillance” to facilitate the police in collecting money.
Zheng Shuai mentioned that Yin Xiangfeng also warned that if he did not “cooperate,” he would be immediately sent to the detention center and face severe punishment. Later, Tang Zhanxiong and the leading officers handling the case, He Dao and Zhao Xincheng, repeatedly entered the room to pressure Zheng Shuai, with the conversation always revolving around payment.
An investigative journalist, Liu Hu, publicly released surveillance videos showing that police officer He Dao once told Zheng Shuai, “Your freedom is in the hands of the chief, only by being willing to spend money to buy freedom, will there be a way out.” He also warned Zheng Shuai not to appeal and stated, “Our county’s public security is the most lawless.”
Tang Zhanxiong stated, “County Chief Yin has set 100 million for you. For you, there is not much difference between 1 and 10 billion, it’s just a number.” After paying 100 million yuan, Zheng Shuai was released on bail on April 22, 2024, and subsequently returned to Shanghai. However, the police later requested additional payments; otherwise, they would not arrange for bail for the other involved parties in the case.
On July 16, 2024, the Shaoyang County procuratorate indicted Zheng Shuai and five others on charges of providing invasion, illegal control of computer information systems programs, tools. During the trial, Zheng Shuai’s defense lawyer raised objections to the jurisdiction of the case.
The defense lawyer pointed out that the servers mentioned by the prosecution were located in Hong Kong, the primary individuals involved were all in Shanghai, and there were no specific victims in legal terms; even if there were related users within Shaoyang County, their legal status would at most be witnesses, making it difficult to establish a criminal jurisdiction for Shaoyang County.
Zheng Shuai’s mother stated that the case is still under trial, and the public security authorities have transferred at least 64.8 million yuan from the previously paid 100 million yuan to the Shaoyang County financial bureau’s non-tax revenue settlement account.
After investigative journalist Liu Hu publicized the related surveillance videos, the incident of Zheng Shuai being asked to pay 100 million yuan for “buying freedom” sparked public attention. Subsequently, the involved Public Security Bureau chief Yin Xiangfeng and Deputy Director Tang Zhanxiong were dismissed, but as of now, the case of Zheng Shuai has not been ruled on. Recently, after reports on the follow-up events by media outlets such as Sina Finance and “Ming Pao,” both domestically and internationally, the case has attracted public attention.
In fact, the Zheng Shuai case is not an isolated case; reports show that similar instances of “long-distance fishing” enforcement have impacted many listed companies.
According to a previous report by the Financial Times of the UK, in 2024, the China Securities Regulatory Commission required listed companies to disclose information about senior executives, including controlling shareholders, who were arrested. Upon checking the documents, it was found that senior executives from 82 listed companies were detained by the Chinese authorities that year, with approximately half of them involving enforcement units from different regions.
The report suggests that to address financial shortages, local governments resort to long-distance enforcement methods, freezing business funds or imposing fines under the pretext of fraud. This situation particularly occurs in less economically developed provinces and cities, where they might enforce regulations on businesses in prosperous coastal or economically advanced provinces.
Why do such cases repeatedly occur? Two interviewed scholars believe the answer may lie in local financial matters.
Regarding the ongoing issue of similar incidents despite multiple central bans on profit-seeking enforcement, Professor Sun Guoxiang from the International Affairs and Business Department of Nanhua University in Taiwan, stated in an interview with Dajiyuan, “The key lies in the fact that prohibitions only address the superficial behavior, without changing the financial incentives at the local level.”
He believes that when local governments are faced with pressures from debt, wages, stability maintenance, and public services, coupled with declining normal tax revenues and land transfer income, enforcement departments are more likely to be tolerated and may even be discreetly encouraged to seek additional income.
Sun Guoxiang expressed, “The so-called ‘long-distance fishing’ perhaps cannot simply be viewed as individual public security corruption but a distortion of enforcement powers being financialized under the pressure of local finances.”
He analyzed that with the decline of land finances and heavy local debts, some grassroots areas face pressure on salaries and daily operational expenses. As a result, some regions may utilize public security seizures, back-tax investigations, market regulation fines, and long-distance enforcement as non-tax revenue tools to fill the financial gap.
Regarding whether there is a clear assessment relationship between the number of enforcement cases, the amount of confiscated assets, and local financial deficits, Sun Guoxiang mentioned that based on public records, it may not necessarily show a clear written assessment mechanism, but it cannot be ruled out that there may be underlying benefit relationships.
Another interviewed scholar, American economist Davy J. Wong, also emphasized the financial environment. He stated, “When land finances deteriorate, local debts increase, and there is significant pressure from inflexible expenditures, some regions are transforming administrative enforcement powers into a quasi-financial tool to increase revenue.”
Wong mentioned, “The characteristics of ‘long-distance fishing’ involve cross-regional cases, freezing accounts, confiscating assets, and potentially taking property handling measures first, then demanding companies to pay to resolve the situation.”
He believes that as foreign enterprises have no direct connection to local officials, the political and social costs faced when taking action in related areas are relatively low, making foreign enterprises easier targets.
According to data from the Chinese Ministry of Finance, in the first half of 2026, national revenue from state-owned land use rights transfers was 977.8 billion yuan, a 31.5% year-on-year decrease; during the same period, the national non-tax revenue (including fines) was 2.32 trillion yuan, a 2.3% year-on-year increase.
Apart from the “long-distance fishing” style enforcement involving cross-provincial arrests and fund freezes, recent events in several locations in Henan have also exposed similar tactics using the impoundment of goods as a means, known as “siphoning enforcement.”
According to previous reports by “Front Page News,” multiple market supervision administrations in cities such as Puyang and Nanyang in Henan were revealed to be engaged in “siphoning enforcement”: colluding with truck drivers, using deceptive methods to transport frozen goods belonging to out-of-province owners to the area, where public officials await to confiscate and auction off these goods.
The incident “21 Trucks of Frozen Goods ‘off course’ to Henan Puyang” attracted widespread attention after media coverage. Following this, the Puyang County market supervision administration officially reported that the former director of the Puyang County market supervision administration, Wang Lei, and squadron leader Zhang Xing, were successively placed under investigation.
Similar events have also occurred in Nanyang, Henan. From July to August 2023, the market supervision administration in Nanyang City seized 24 refrigerated trucks, totaling 213 tons of frozen goods within a short span of 47 days. An announcement by the administration indicated that these frozen goods were auctioned under the guise of “ownerless goods,” and the proceeds of 3.5 million yuan were turned over to the national treasury.
While the tactics differ from cross-border arrests to the impoundment of trucks, scholars are concerned whether they share a common underlying financial and oversight logic.
Beyond regulatory matters, the two scholars also discussed the impact of such enforcement actions on enterprise confidence.
Sun Guoxiang expressed, “Profit-seeking enforcement like ‘long-distance fishing’ poses a more direct threat to the confidence of private economics than the real estate crisis.”
He distinguished between the impacts of the two, stating, “A real estate crisis primarily affects enterprises through demand, asset prices, local investments, and credit contraction. However, ‘long-distance fishing’ turns businesses into objects for enforcement cashing, causing uncertainties in property rights, contractual security, and operational boundaries for the enterprises.”
He added, “When enterprises are no longer worried about profitability but unsure about being repossessed, frozen, and penalized upon earning, their investment willingness rapidly declines.”
Davy J. Wong further commented that this profit-seeking enforcement is a human-made practice lacking legal basis, regularity, and economic logic, making it challenging to estimate the losses incurred. Entrepreneurs are unable to assess this risk, as it often involves controlling personal freedom, sealing off entire accounts, freezing assets, in a more aggressive manner. It often becomes a disaster for businesses, leading them to potentially refrain from further investments, asset relocation, or even leaving the area or China altogether.