In recent years, there have been frequent reports of judges being involved in bribery cases, with the bribers often being lawyers. Legal professionals in mainland China have pointed out that in the corrupt judicial environment of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), lawyers often become channels for litigants to bribe judges, acting as “white gloves” for the judges.
According to reports by mainland Chinese media, the Judicial Bureau of Xi’an recently announced an administrative penalty decision on its website, revealing that Liu Tao, the director of the Zunben Law Firm in Shanxi Province, gave 300,000 yuan to a judge’s wife. This amount was considered relatively small and did not lead to referral to the prosecutor’s office. Instead, Liu Tao received a six-month suspension of his legal practice license. The decision was later removed from the website.
In this case, in 2021, Liu Tao, acting as a legal representative of the Rongfa Real Estate Co., Ltd. in Xi’an, transferred 300,000 yuan in cash to the wife of Wang Moumou, a judge of the Supreme People’s Court and a second-level senior judge, in an attempt to influence the outcome of a case.
This administrative penalty decision sparked much discussion. An article by a legal scholar published in the Southern Metropolis Daily on June 20 pointed out not only common charges such as bribery and corruption but also a more special charge, the crime of bribing influential individuals. Even if the state official has left office, they can still be covered by this charge.
The article argued that Liu Tao’s bribery amount of 300,000 yuan far exceeded the threshold for initiating criminal proceedings. To consider this as “relatively small bribery” and not refer it to judicial authorities seems to have no legal basis.
Mr. Zhang, a legal professional from mainland China, mentioned in an interview with a reporter that he had discussed this case with a prosecutor who handles public prosecution cases. The prosecutor disclosed that in such cases, if they were sent to the court, the court would certainly be able to make a ruling. However, these cases usually fall under the purview of disciplinary and supervision committees as they involve bribery by public officials, which constitutes an occupational crime. This is why gathering evidence and cooperating with bribe givers is necessary to proceed with the case.
According to investigations, in recent years, many bribery cases involving judges have been exposed, with the bribe givers often being lawyers.
In a report by the China News Weekly in July 2022, three bribery cases involving judges at the Jinan Intermediate People’s Court were uncovered, with a total of 58 lawyers implicated (many lawyers participated in more than one bribery case), especially those holding positions in the Lawyers Association.
According to court documents, Sun Yong, the vice president of the Jinan Intermediate People’s Court, received bribes from a total of 50 individuals over 24 years, amounting to over 5.49 million yuan, with 24 of them being lawyers. Qiao Xuxiao, former deputy head of the Execution Division One of the Jinan Intermediate People’s Court, received about 1.12 million yuan in bribes, with 24 of the 37 bribe givers being lawyers. Dai Wujian, former deputy head of the Execution Division Three of the Jinan Intermediate People’s Court, received 1.374 million yuan in bribes, with 16 of the 36 bribe givers being lawyers.
Many of the named lawyers were not convicted of “bribery.” In December 2021, the Qingdao Lawyers Association chairman Zhang Jinhai was continuously reported by his colleague Yu Kai for “bribing officials.” Although the Qingdao Judicial Bureau confirmed that it was very clear that he gave 5,000 euros to an official, he was only given an internal warning for “disciplinary violation.”
Mr. Zhang believes that since Xi Jinping took office, the judiciary has significantly regressed, and the economy has deteriorated, leading to a crisis in the livelihoods of many lawyers. The judiciary is increasingly unjust, influenced not only by political considerations but also by corrupt practices such as favoritism and power-for-money exchanges in criminal and civil cases. This phenomenon is prevalent in the majority of cases.
He further noted, “In any society, even if it is terrible, not all cases are handled according to the law. But this does not mean that the legal system is fair. It is precisely those few cases related to politics, beliefs, and human rights advocacy that reveal whether the rule of law is upheld.” He added, “Lawyers engaging in corruption are results of judicial corruption and injustice, indicating a lack of rule of law.”
Lawyer Wu explained that, according to legal provisions, both bribery and corruption are criminal acts. However, in practice over the past few decades, most cases of bribery are not rigorously pursued. Particularly in anti-corruption efforts, most bribe givers are not prosecuted through judicial procedures but rather for the purpose of cracking down on the recipients of the bribes.
“By dismissing a bribery case involving 300,000 yuan without initiating legal action, the reason provided is just that the offense is considered minor, rather than explicitly stating that it aimed to combat bribery crimes and decided not to prosecute ordinary bribery offenses,” said Lawyer Wu. “Of course, when they want to target you, they still can prosecute you.”
Why do two-thirds of those who bribe a judge in an incident involve lawyers? Lawyer Wu indicated that this phenomenon is due to the inherent roles of judges and lawyers. Over time, familiarity and trust between lawyers and judges increase, leading to lawyers becoming a channel or white glove for judges to receive bribes.
The term “white glove” is used in online and political contexts to refer to the “legitimate” surface used to conceal “illegal” activities, symbolizing hidden corruption beneath a veneer of respectability.
Former vice president of the Hainan Provincial High People’s Court Zhang Jiahui was exposed as the “richest judge with assets of at least 20 billion yuan.” In the first trial of Zhang Jiahui’s case in December 2020, 18 of the 37 people listed as bribe givers were lawyers, including the deputy chairman of the Hainan Lawyers Association, with individual bribes ranging from tens of thousands to millions of yuan.
Between 2017 and 2018, in cases involving disputes over contracts and equity transfers at Hainan Sixth Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. and Evergrande Hainan Company, Zhang Jiahui’s nephew Liu received benefits payments from proxy lawyers totaling 5.95 million yuan. Zhang Jiahui then came forward to the presiding judges, requesting favoritism for one party.
Tu, the director of the Hainan Fangyuan Law Firm, repeatedly gave a total of 1.4 million yuan to Zhang Jiahui from 2013 to 2019 so that cases represented by his law firm would receive special treatment. Similar court rulings involving 18 cases were listed.
Lawyer Wu stated, “Each industry in China reflects the current state of the country. Businessmen rely on power to do business, making money through the resources of the system. Similarly, the judiciary is no different. While lawyers must have technical expertise, they tend to seek judicial authority to determine case outcomes. Both sides have desires and needs; therefore, most mainstream practicing lawyers become involved in these channels or serve as white gloves. Only a few lawyers uphold legal principles and have faith in the law.”
He added, “Ordinary government officials may have fewer channels or white gloves compared to judges, who have more numerous channels in judicial procedures that operate in secrecy.”
Due to the judiciary’s corruption in the CCP, many “red-cap lawyers” have emerged. Lawyer Wu explained that these “red-cap lawyers” are generally affiliated with the system. In the legal profession, those who dominate the main markets are usually colluding with authority and judicial power, engaging in channels and acting as white gloves.
From observations of tens of thousands of practicing lawyers in China, true “red-cap lawyers” are relatively scarce in numbers. However, they occupy key positions within the lawyers’ association and earn significant profits in the market, handling major cases.
“Most lawyers do not have the resources or power to collude, and if the case is not significant or has small stakes, they might not be willing to engage in corruption. The risks outweigh the benefits,” Wu noted.
Discussing the current state of the judiciary in China, Lawyer Wu emphasized that lawyers do not hold much value in the entire judicial system. In other countries, there is a structure where judges, prosecutors, and lawyers contest against each other, with judges serving as neutral parties. However, China is different, as judges, prosecutors, and investigative agencies are essentially under the same control. Lawyers only represent clients and hold minimal power compared to ordinary citizens.
Mr. Zhang also agreed, stating that in a good judicial environment, lawyers would not resort to bribing judges. When clients approach lawyers, questions like whether they have connections or can influence outcomes become bargaining points. In such a scenario where the rule of law is absent, judicial protections are undermined, leading to either power interventions or officials committing acts of favoritism, misconduct, and corruption.