In a recent report from October 4, 2025, it was revealed that Cai Qi, the fifth-ranking official within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), was previously involved in a spy case in the UK, where he was accused of receiving information from two British researchers. The case was dropped by prosecutors last month, sparking public outrage. However, some British scholars claim that these researchers would not have had direct contact with Cai Qi. Observers have suggested that as the Vice Chairman of the National Security Commission and the top intelligence official in the CCP, intelligence would have been passed up to him from lower-level personnel. The dropping of the case has raised suspicions of CCP pressure.
The UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced on September 15 that they had dropped charges against the two British researchers, Christopher Berry and Christopher Cash, for lack of evidence in their alleged involvement in espionage activities for the Chinese Communist Party.
According to a report in The Guardian on October 2, the case involved Cai Qi, the fifth-ranking CCP official in the UK.
The CPS had previously stated in April 2024 that a member of the CCP’s Political Bureau had received “politically sensitive information” from two British researchers accused of engaging in espionage activities for China. This individual was identified as Cai Qi, a close confidant of Xi Jinping and ranked fifth among the seven members of the Standing Committee. He also serves as the Director of the CCP Central Office, effectively making him Xi Jinping’s right-hand man.
The CPS had accused a “Chinese intelligence officer” of commissioning Berry, who resided in China, to write at least 34 reports between December 2021 and February 2023. These reports contained information provided by Berry’s friend Cash, who was working for the “China Research Group” in the UK Parliament, comprising Conservative Party members skeptical of Beijing.
The CPS believed this information was passed on to Cai Qi. However, Cash and Berry continue to maintain their innocence.
In a letter to Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp, CPS Director Stephen Parkinson stated that the relevant evidence “no longer meets the evidentiary standard required for conviction” – a standard that necessitates a realistic possibility of conviction. Parkinson acknowledged that the evidence was robust when the prosecution decision was initially made. The CPS also denied any political pressure influencing their decision.
The Guardian reported that the role Cai Qi played in the case was at the heart of the controversy. Some UK MPs believe this incident exposed the risk of CCP intelligence infiltration in the UK Parliament.
The final decision by the CPS to drop the charges against Berry and Cash has left both Labour and Conservative MPs dismayed and disappointed. House of Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the decision and is considering pursuing private litigation against Cash and Berry.
The Chairmen of the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee jointly wrote to Parkinson on Monday, requesting further clarification on the reasons behind dropping the charges, as the current explanations fell short of the detailed required for such a significant case.
A CPS spokesperson stated, “The evidence in this case has been under continuous review and it has been determined that the evidential standard required for the alleged offenses is no longer met.”
Some voices supporting the withdrawal of charges have raised doubts. Professor Kerry Brown, Director of the Lau China Institute at King’s College London, stated that it is highly improbable for someone of Cai Qi’s seniority to establish contact with foreigners, even in the context of intelligence gathering. These high-ranking officials are “extremely hard to reach,” especially under Xi Jinping’s leadership, where they have no freedom to engage in innovative actions.
Professor Steve Tsang, Director of the SOAS China Institute at the University of London, argued that members of the CCP Political Bureau have more important matters to tend to than listening to reports from the China Research Group. Contact between CCP Politburo members and intelligence personnel is not a common occurrence.
Previously accused of espionage on behalf of the CCP, Berry’s lawyer John Armstrong stated that Berry denies ever meeting with individuals of such high rank as implied by the prosecution, and there is no evidence to suggest that Berry had contact with “significant figures within the CCP.” Berry simply wrote reports for a commercial client in China that did not involve sensitive information.
The Chinese Embassy in the UK has dismissed the allegations as “completely fabricated and malicious slander.”
Commentator Li Linyi remarked that this incident highlights the insufficient understanding of the CCP’s nature in Western countries. As a key figure in national security, Cai Qi, as the Vice Chairman of the National Security Commission, is the real operator, not Li Qiang and Zhao Leji, who are also Vice Chairmen. Cai Qi is the true intelligence chief of the CCP, so it is not surprising that he receives intelligence, and the CPS admitted that the evidence was substantial when the decision to prosecute was initially made.
Li Linyi believes that the acknowledgment of Cai Qi receiving information from British researchers does not imply direct contact but rather a chain of transmission through lower-level individuals. The reason given by CPS Director for overturning the case, citing lack of evidence, is not convincing, and the statements of the interviewed experts amount to absolving the CCP. He suspects that official CCP intervention likely led to the current situation.
Li Linyi emphasized that Western understanding of the CCP’s rogue nature needs to be improved to effectively counter the CCP’s threats.