New Form of Bribery Changes Judicial System (AI Translation)

【周刊提前读】职务犯罪频现“约定受贿” 新型腐败挑战司法裁判

Summary:

The article profiles the dramatic rise and fall of Zhang Tong, former Executive Vice Mayor of Xuzhou, Jiangsu. Starting college at 15, entering government at 19, and advancing to bureau chief by 42, Zhang reached sub-provincial leadership at 50. However, in May 2025, he was sentenced to 14 years in prison for accepting bribes totaling approximately RMB 49.4 million, with about RMB 41.6 million categorized as "agreed-upon" (约定型) bribe amounts not actually received at the time of the investigation. Zhang contested the charges, maintaining his innocence and has filed an appeal, arguing that he did not personally receive any bribe money.[para. 1][para. 2][para. 3]

The main legal controversy in Zhang's case involves the concept of "agreed-upon bribery," where an official and a benefactor agree on a bribe, but the official never actually takes possession of the money or assets by the time of discovery. In Zhang’s case, his conviction heavily relied on the testimonies of business figures who allegedly offered him bribes and his earlier confessions during investigation, though he later recanted these in court. Zhang’s defense asserts that such agreements, without physical receipt of the bribes, should not constitute a criminal offense under current law, and criticizes the reliance on testimonies made while these witnesses were under detention.[para. 3][para. 4]

Zhang’s political career is reviewed in detail: after his promotion to leading positions in the Yangzhou and Xuzhou governments, he was responsible for areas like state asset management, financial oversight, and government reform. The investigation against him was triggered following audits and rectification efforts around 2022, particularly involving a government-backed industrial support fund, "Yangzhou Yuanfang." Lax oversight and risky investments were cited, notably in dealings with Tianjin Yuanfang Asset Management. Zhang helped facilitate out-of-scope investments, including a profitable stake in U.S. electric carmaker Lucid Group. It is from this transaction that the majority of Zhang’s “bribery” charge stems: a verbal agreement to split stock gains with the fund manager, which had not been executed by his arrest. Evidence included Zhang’s involvement in fund decisions, witness statements about bribe offers, and WeChat chat records.[para. 5][para. 6][para. 7][para. 8][para. 9][para. 10]

The article contextualizes Zhang's case within a broader legal debate in China about how to define when bribery occurs if the benefit remains unrealized. Chinese law does not explicitly criminalize "agreed-upon" bribery, creating a gray area. Scholars and practitioners debate whether mutual agreement alone, or some action towards transferring the illicit benefit, should trigger criminal liability. Some legal theorists argue that only actual receipt or clear steps towards receipt constitute a crime; others claim that once there is concrete agreement and initiation of actions (such as holding assets for the official), liability attaches—even if the official never literally secures the benefit. Legal practice and Supreme Court guidelines have evolved but still contain ambiguities, leading to inconsistent application and much reliance on subjective interpretation.[para. 16][para. 17][para. 18][para. 19][para. 20][para. 21][para. 22][para. 23][para. 24]

The article concludes by stressing the need for rigorous, evidence-based judicial review in such cases to avoid wrongful convictions, while also keeping up pressure on new and subtler forms of corruption. It acknowledges increased anti-corruption efforts under Xi Jinping and the need to balance aggressive prosecution with adherence to legal principles like presumption of innocence and strict requirements for evidentiary sufficiency. Zhang's case is emblematic of both China’s evolving approach to combating sophisticated forms of official corruption and the legal complexities such efforts entail.[para. 25][para. 26][para. 27][para. 28][para. 29][para. 30]