By staff reporters Duan Hongqing and Wang Heyan 

Wang Zhenchuan stepped into his office and got straight to the point with ’s reporter. “You may ask me anything.” 

Wang is at the forefront of China’s anti-corruption campaign. He is deputy procurator general of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and a member of the Standing Committee of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection. Unlike many high-level state officials, Wang spoke candidly about the latest concept “Two High Views,” which is behind the new anti-corruption measures, covering many topics including the issues of mistresses and borrowed cars. 

Our discussion with Wang comes at a time when the issue of anti-corruption has again become a focus of social concern. This is especially due to the July 10 execution of the former head of the State Drug Administration, Zheng Xiaoyu, which signalled a drastic toughening of measures against corrupt officials. 

found that more than 20 high officials at provincial levels have fallen from grace due to corruption in the past three years. More than half the cases have already been tried, and the amounts they pocketed from bribes have been made public.  

The drug czar Zheng reaped 649 million yuan. In addition, the former deputy secretary of the Communist Party of China’s (CPC) Anhui Provincial Committee, Wang Zhaoyao, received from unidentified sources more than 704 million yuan in bribes and a colossal amount of property worth nearly 6.5 million yuan. The Jinan Intermediate Court in Shandong Province sentenced Wang to death with reprieve January 12. 

Heilongjiang Province’s former chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and deputy secretary of the Provincial Party Committee, Han Guizhi, was sentenced to death with reprieve by the Beijing Number One Intermediate Court on December 16, 2005, after he took bribes totalling more than 702 million yuan. 

Against this backdrop, Zheng’s execution was exceptionally significant because it broke the tradition of “no death penalties for corrupt officials.” 

On May 30, after Zheng received his death penalty, the party’s Central Discipline Inspection Commission issued its “Strict Prohibitions on the Use of State Official Positions to Gain Improper Benefits” (also known as “Eight Prohibitions”). The prohibitions introduced the concept of “individuals with special relationships” and specifically defined them as “individuals who share close familial relations, mistress/lover relations, or other relations of common interests with state officials.” It was the concept’s first introduction into various Chinese laws and regulations against corruption. 

With the introduction of the “Eight Prohibitions,” the discipline commission explicitly stated that leniency would be given to party officials who volunteered to liberally discuss questionable activities by the end of June. Afterward, nabbed violators would be severely punished. 

The “Eight Prohibitions” didn’t stand alone. On July 8, 10 days after the deadline for volunteers passed, the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate jointly issued “Opinions Regarding Handling of Bribery Case Laws with Various Applicability” (also called “Two High Views”). This judicial interpretation echoed the party’s “Eight Prohibitions.” 

Not only are the “Eight Prohibitions” and “Two High Views” consistent in content, but their word choice and expressions are almost identical. The only difference lies in that “Two High Views” added a provision emphasizing that criminal disposition policies should be set according to current conditions. The combination effectively raised the “Eight Prohibitions” from party policy to state law, further strengthening efforts in punishing corruption. 

It seems the central powers are intensifying efforts to prosecute corruption cases while furthering the construction and fine-tuning of an anti-corruption system. 

The interview with Wang Zhenchuan follows. 

“Seamless” Convergence of Party Policy and State Law 

“Since the 16th Party Congress, the more subtle, less easily identifiable, non-traditional forms of bribery that we in the anti-corruption campaign have encountered have been mainly incorporated into the “Two High Views.” 

: The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection’s “Eight Prohibitions” appeared first, and 40 days later “Two High Views” was introduced, making a complete convergence of party policy and state law. Have there been similar situations in the past? 

Wang: This appears to be a first since I have been in charge of anti-corruption. 

This time, party policy and state law really merged quite well. In fact, the two powers in making the “view” were led by the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection. Non-traditional corruption now appears in many forms. Some are more covert, such as when state officials do not accept bribes directly, but rather through the hands of others. Many of these other individuals are not even close relatives of the officials themselves. These new forms of crime are not clearly defined under the criminal code, enabling many corrupt criminals to escape the punishment they deserve. 

Therefore, being led by the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, the “Two Highs Powers” (the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate) organized their staff to examine this issue. We researched for nearly a year, during which time we organized discussions by experts and sought opinions from the National People’s Congress and judicial practice departments, made repeated discussions and finally formed these “views.” While forming the “Two High Views,” the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection proposed that it would be first made as a policy announcement within the party, in order to increase its effectiveness in implementation. So, at the end of May, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection issued “Eight Prohibitions” and specified a 30-day limit. If the activity is a breach of the prohibition and the party member initiates a frank admission of such behavior, punishment may be reduced. To do so actually provides fair warning and protection for a party official, so that certain individuals will not enter a path of crime, while also reminding others not to commit similar violations in the future. 

After an initial practice within the party, the “Two High Views” was formally introduced. Therefore, this was a very successful and complete convergence of party policy and state law. 

It can be said that since the 16th CPC National Congress, the more subtle, less easily identifiable and non-traditional forms of bribery that we have encountered in the anti-corruption regime are mostly included under the “Two High Views.” Of course, not every form can be covered, but the main issues often encountered in practice are indeed included. 

This “view” has enabled our laws in the battle against corruption to be more comprehensive and applicable, with greater intensity. 

: The party has adopted a large number of anti-corruption measures, such as the “integrity criteria (trial implementation) of Chinese Communist Party members in leading cadre positions,” which says “party cadres are forbidden to take advantage of weddings and funerals as an opportunity to extort money.” But in reality, there are indeed many officials using such opportunities to extort money. Why is this clause not included in the current “Two High Views?”  

Wang: In the past, we have mainly treated the behavior of using weddings and funerals for personal enrichment as unethical practices. Of course, we have cases where it leads to criminal behavior, but the number of those cases was relatively small. The current “Two High Views” is mainly present to regulate forms of bribery that are more subtle in nature. Weddings and funerals are not considered very subtle. On one hand, it is relatively easy for the general public to spot and report, but on the other, the boundaries for “enrichment” are relatively clear. To accept small amounts of money is customary on such occasions, but if large sums are involved, where a bribe is accepted, when favors are sought and public interests are at stake, then that is considered bribery and the person must be held accountable. 

Generally speaking, it is not possible for the “Two High Views” to incorporate all forms of bribery. But anything not included does not indicate that it will not go unpunished. The key is to see whether it conforms to the elements of bribery as defined under criminal law. If it does conform, then it must be fought, no matter what form it is in. 

Developing the “Two High Views” was mainly to resolve the issue of unifying justice standards. There may have been differences in its understanding in the past, and certain circumstances may have been dealt with in certain locations but went untreated in others.   For example, the issue of long-term use of housing and vehicles by party officials without ownership, if property law is followed, the lack of ownership indicates that property rights were not transferred and certain judicial officers believe this cannot constitute bribery. But the “Two High Views” adds it to the realm of bribery, so long as the state official took advantage of his position to facilitate the exchange of the benefit, accepting gifts including housing and vehicles from a person seeking a favor. The fact that property rights were not transferred, or other individuals’ names were used, in the transfer of property rights does not affect the confirmation of bribery behavior. 

We believe bribery in criminal law and property rights in civil code are not one and the same; it turns on whether there was any intentional, physical possession. 

: We have noticed that the “Two High Views” included a clause in addition to those in the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection’s “Eight Prohibitions” that emphasizes the implementation according to current conditions. What considerations were involved in this? 

Wang: After the introduction of the “Eight Prohibitions” and the “Two High Views,” the law against the crime of bribery got tighter. But we also paid close attention to another issue, which is that the target area cannot be overly broad. 

We have already noticed this issue during formation of the “views.” The “Two High Views” requires the judiciary at all levels to pay close attention to the actual implementation in carrying out criminal justice policies. Within various forms of bribery, it is necessary to take account of the particular circumstances of each individual case. Taking gambling as an example, circumstances include the number of occurrences and whether there was the premeditated and deliberate intention to offer the money. Using loans as another example, is the title of a loan being used to accept a bribe? Or is it really to borrow? Is there any intention of repayment? Or conditions for repayment? These need to be specifically analyzed. 

“Individuals with Special Relations” Behind Corrupt Officials  

“We focused on ‘stakeholders’ in our previous fight against bribery, referring to close relatives. However, the relations between close relatives and corrupt officials are often not as intimate as those with their mistresses.” 

:  From the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection’s “Eight Prohibitions” to the “Two High Views,” we see an interesting phenomenon: Past legal provisions that targeted “stakeholders” have now been broadened to include “individuals with special relations.” The expansion has included the concept of “mistress/paramour.” How would the judiciary ascertain the “mistress” or “lover” concept in practice? 

Wang: The term “mistress” is a collective title. This concept indeed has no standards and, strictly speaking, neither is it a legal concept. 

What is a mistress? A woman in a love affair? With a sexual relationship? It is actually not very clear. We have discussed it during the formation of the “Two High Views” -- whether to impose a legal definition to “mistress/lover,” but there were difficulties no matter how we tried to define it. 

However, the “mistress” phenomenon is widespread in our work in the judiciary, with many corrupt officials doomed by this issue. In the end, we still decided to include the mistress concept, which is meaningful in actual implementation. On one hand, certain criminal cases can be dealt with accordingly. On the other hand, it is also effective as a preventative measure in warning officials not to be repeat offenders. 

Mistresses are classified as “individuals with special relations,” with these “special relations” being beneficial relationships. In our previous fight against bribery, we focused on “stakeholders.” Concerning close relatives, however, the relations between close relatives and corrupt officials are often not as intimate as those with their mistresses. Although the relationship between a mistress and corrupt official is not one of a legal marital relationship, he nevertheless schemes for her benefit and also seeks special interests from her. 

In our investigations of corruption cases, mistresses are even more critical than close relatives. Some corrupt officials collected significant benefits for their mistresses, sometimes in the millions.  The issue of mistresses is widespread and severe. 

:  Is there a need to include “sexual bribery” into the laws? This is also a topical issue in society today. What are your views on this issue? 

Wang: There has been much debate regarding this issue within legal academia as well as the judiciary. From an international perspective, some countries have included it within the scope of law. 

But I personally believe that to legally include it under the current conditions in China would be premature. This issue is very complex and there is much debate on how it should be defined and handled. After all, we are still in the primary stage. Corruption is still rampant and much of it is in forms more obvious than this and with more serious offenders. At our current stage, those problems should be treated first. Currently, this should not be treated as a criminal activity. Of course, with the future progression of rule of law, the possibility of including this type of bribery, as well as other, more subtle forms of bribery, into the criminal code cannot be eliminated.  However, this would probably be achieved through legislative measures rather than becoming an interpretive task through the judiciary. 

Difficulty in the Realization of Property Reporting 

“Income reporting and property reporting is different. Normal income reporting cannot detect or punish corrupt officials.” 

: We have noticed that many corrupt officials were exposed only after incidents in which total assets passed the millions or tens of millions marks. As early as 1995, the CPC Central Committee General Office and the Office of the State Council jointly issued the “Income Reporting Guidelines for Party Officials in Provincial Ranks and Above,” which is still in force today, requiring officials to report their income bi-annually. Why, then, can corrupt officials not be detected in a timely fashion with this reporting procedure in place? 

Wang: The key issue is that our country requires income reporting rather than property reporting. Abroad, all public officials are required to report property. This is not one and the same as reporting income. Ordinary income reporting procedures naturally cannot be used to detect or punish corruption, but the problem lies in that we cannot realistically achieve full property disclosure.  

In fact, our reporting systems are numerous. For example, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and the Central Organization Department jointly issued the “Guidelines Regarding Reporting of Major Matters for Officials in Leading Roles.” Major matters include “marriage with foreign nationals for individuals and offspring and associated permanent residencies abroad; going abroad for personal purposes and activities abroad; employment as management in three kinds of foreign-invested enterprises; or representing foreign enterprises in China, Hong Kong or Macao. 

But to truly detect corruption and bribery from these is actually quite difficult. However, the measures have positive effects in anti-corruption movement.  

: Why is full disclosure of property still currently not able to be realized? 

Wang: The key is that social development has not yet reached that stage and conditions are not ripe. For example, the real-name system abroad, which is a necessity in preventing and treating corruption, is difficult to implement in China. We’ve made efforts on that, but they are yet to be fully implemented. Other associated systems, such as a complicated financial system, are still in the development stage.  

Anti-corruption is like system engineering. To simply rely upon the anti-corruption departments, and the discipline and inspection departments, is to address it only after the fact. Judging from the current situation, our inspection department’s annual investigation of corruption and bribery matters reached beyond 40,000 cases, which is quite significant. But mere punishment is not enough; the key lies in prevention. 

Six Key Characteristics in Corruption Cases 

“At present, according to our statistics, fewer than 200 corrupt Chinese officials have fled the country.” 

: What are the special characteristics of current corruption cases? 

Wang: I believe the current conditions in corruption cases fall into six categories. 

First, the overall volume of corruption and bribery is declining, indicating that anti-corruption measures are effective. But the problem is that major cases and incident amounts are rising, especially in severe cases involving high- and middle-rank officials, and the monetary amounts can be huge. According to statistics, since the 16th CPC National Congress, there have been 30 provincial-level corruption cases investigated by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate or by designated provincial procuratorates. Since 2003, as many as 5,929 corruption cases involving more than 1 million yuan apiece were opened by inspection agencies. 

Second, cases of bribery in corruption have clearly increased in percentage. Cases involving state officials, particularly those in high and middle ranks, are predominately bribery cases. 

Third, corruption and bribery behavior in certain industries is becoming increasingly evident. Certain power-concentrated, capital-intensive, lucrative and highly competitive sectors are often ridden with corruption. Certain key positions have become corruption disaster areas. As in recent years, many directors and deputy directors of local transportation departments have been under investigation for bribery. Many officials in urban planning and construction areas are found guilty of bribery, too, including those heading local, state land and planning departments.  

Fourth, multiple cases and chain cases are widespread. Many cases, once discovered, will involve numerous officials and facilitators of bribes. Hunan Province’s Chenzhou case is a case in point, with investigations of many city officials, and involving a number of county-level officials and entrepreneurs. 

The fifth characteristic is the interrelationship of corruption and bribery, and the negligent disregard of official duties. In the case of the former State Drug Administration’s Zheng Xiaoyu, the crimes of taking bribes and negligence of duty were present. 

The sixth characteristic is the increased concealment and complexity of criminal behavior. Most cases of corruption and bribery are well hidden, with offenders constantly taking new means to achieve the crime and circumvent the law, where crime proceeds are transferred after the crime.  Fleeing the country is also a phenomenon on the rise. 

: How can we resolve the problem of corrupt officials fleeing the country? 

Wang: The United Nations’ Convention Against Corruption has provided clear guidelines regarding the issue of pursuing fugitives.  Some media state that China’s fugitives who have fled abroad are in the thousands, with billions in funds, but this is inaccurate. In the anti-corruption sense, the pursuit of fugitives refers to corrupt officials rather than ordinary fugitives; and the pursuit of corrupt officials refers mainly to those who fled abroad. At present, the corrupt officials who have fled abroad should be less than 200, according to our statistics. 

Of course, we are not loose in prosecuting those who have either fled abroad or who are hiding domestically. To treat corruption, to hold offenders liable under the law, to recover lost assets, we must examine these issues each year, and we have had some results. But this is a complicated matter that needs to be managed comprehensively. On one hand, we need to make the laws more comprehensive, while on the other hand we have to strengthen international cooperation. 

On the issue of international cooperation, there needs to be increased communication and understanding, since each country’s legal system is different and domestic conditions vary greatly.  This year, we extradited a fugitive from Japan, which is a success story especially in light that no extradition agreement was in place.  We have also had successful extradition stories with the United States in the past. As such, with cooperation and understanding from both countries, success is achievable even without formal extradition treaties. Foreign countries also don’t tolerate corruption. Thus, anti-corruption is a common international goal with much potential to be tapped. 

From a domestic perspective, ways to improve justice administration, discipline and various policies are instrumental in preventing the phenomenon of fleeing abroad. We have already made many provisions.We are currently analyzing this issue, and hope to bring out more effective, preventive measures. 

:  The general public presently feels that the punishment is not severe enough for people who provide bribes. What are your views? 

Wang: There is indeed such an opinion voiced in society, requesting investigations of individuals taking bribes as well as investigations of individuals giving bribes, with the belief that the briber corrupts individuals taking bribes and should have significant liabilities. There is some logic to this. Indeed, on this issue, the supreme court and supreme procuratorate published in 2000 the “Notice Concerning the Investigation of Major Bribers in the Investigation in Major Bribery Cases,” which indicates that we are paying much attention to the efforts in combating bribers. 

However, some real problems will emerge during actual implementation. The criminal code defines the crime of bribery as “efforts to obtain an unjust gain.” But in reality, it is difficult to ascertain the boundary between “just” and “unjust.” Additionally, during investigations it is often necessary to expose criminal activity through the bribers, and as such, the disciplinary and procedural inspection agencies will often agree to exchange full disclosure for a lesser punishment or to waive the punishment altogether. This is called “tainted witnesses” abroad, with the same reasoning. 

: There is another type of situation: Corrupt officials’ bribery sums are often huge when investigated by the discipline inspection department, also called the “double-designation” stage (being present at the designated time and venue to render explanations to the matter being investigated by the judiciary), but in the procuratorate stage the amount will shrink significantly. For example, in Heilongjiang Province’s city of Suihua, the municipal secretariat Ma De had a high amount announced by the discipline committee of the communications department, reaching more than 10 million yuan, but it shrank to more than 6 million yuan when a case was filed against him in Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court.  How should this be viewed? 

Wang: The discipline inspection department investigates the offense from the viewpoint of the violation of regulations, and some violations are not necessarily criminal. So when the matter reaches the judiciary, it must be decided based on the evidence of the offense. Non-criminal violations can only be penalized as a violation of regulations. Thus, of course, the two cannot be treated completely equally.  

Furthermore, these scenarios are not absolute; there are also cases where the reverse is true -- the amount has actually increased when it reached the judiciary level. For instance, take the case of Liu Jinbao (former vice chairman of the Bank of China and Bank of China “Hong Kong” Ltd.). The amount did not yet reach 1.4 million yuan when it was handled by the discipline inspection department, but once it reached the procuratorate department, new criminal details were discovered after more in-depth investigations and the final amount turned out to be much higher. 

Tightly Woven Net of Law, With Lenient Punishment 

“Foreign laws are very comprehensive while the punishment is often not lengthy. Our legal system is not yet comprehensive enough, so the punishment needs to be more severe. This is a way of balance.” 

: Our criminal code stipulates that sentences are imposed for bribes amounting to 5,000 yuan and bribes above 100,000 yuan may even evoke the death penalty. However, these amounts are difficult to implement for the judiciary. As we understand, it is possible that bribes in the several millions will not be filed as a case in many places. At the same time, it is also difficult to impose the death penalty in cases where corrupt officials take bribes in excess of 1 million yuan. Will this be changed in the future? Is it possible that the amount of bribes will be taken out from the regulations, similar to practices abroad? 

Wang: This is indeed a very prominent issue -- one which troubles us.  As the current criminal code stipulates, cases of bribery above 5,000 yuan need to be filed. This standard has, in fact, been changed several times. The criminal code in 1979 did not specify a monetary amount but was changed to 2,000 yuan in 1982 by the procuratorate, and again changed to 5,000 yuan in the new criminal code of 1997. 

Why change? After some analysis, we find that this standard is relatively comparable to our per capita gross national product and the wealth of the people. One thousand yuan was a significant amount in 1982 when our GDP was approximately 2 trillion yuan. When the 2,000 yuan standard was imposed in 1988, the GDP had climbed to 7 trillion yuan. Now it is 23 trillion yuan, and therefore the standard amount required to file a case should be increased as well. 

The problem lies in that China is too big, with different levels of development. Some of the poorer areas have requested that this standard be lowered. What should be done? We reported this issue to the central government so that they can appreciate the situation. It may be said that the judiciary has no alternative but to acknowledge differences in different areas on one hand, but on the other hand it might also request different areas to adhere to this standard, to be as close to 5,000 yuan as possible without creating too much difference, especially in the same location. 

It is difficult to grasp whether this standard can be eliminated completely. More study is needed to determine whether to amend the threshold or eliminate the numerical amount. 

To completely rely upon a numerical amount to determine the severity of a crime is actually not quite scientific. For example, it is difficult for the general public to understand why Zheng Xiaoyu was sentenced to death with bribes totalling 6 million, but others with greater sums were only sentenced to death with reprieve.  After all, the specific circumstances are not the same. Some took in bribes with little monetary value, but committed extremely detrimental acts that had an enormous impact, whereas others may have taken in massive bribes, but did so with less impact and fewer consequences. 

In the long run, our criminal code should be amended to become increasingly comprehensive, where the laws are wide and all-encompassing. We have already become signatories of the United Nations’ Convention Against Corruption, which provides very comprehensive stipulations. Take the crime of bribery, for instance. Our criminal code stipulates that it must include the entrusting of a facilitator to seek a benefit in exchange for monetary gains. The UN’s convention is not the same; it stipulates bribery as the acceptance of all unjust benefits, not necessarily chattel. All acceptances and promises are classified as bribes, without the necessity of actual possession or realization of an actual favor. 

Also, regarding the bribed parties, it includes all business enterprises and institutions. With regard to these provisions, our laws are still lagging. But we are a signatory of the UN’s Convention Against Corruption, so these need to be implemented sooner or later, which is a guiding ideology for us in future developments. 

On the other hand, according to the foreign situation, the laws are comprehensive but the sentences are often not lengthy. The key is to deprive corrupt individuals’ ability for personal gain, normally with the highest sentence being seven or eight years. Our sentences are very severe, where bribes above 100,000 yuan can amount to sentences above 10 years, or even the death penalty. At present, we are unable to fully replicate the foreign approach, because our laws are not tight enough. The penalty must be more severe to serve as a penalty as well as a warning, and to produce certain preventative effects. This is a way of balance. 

1 yuan = 13 U.S. cents