In Depth: When Is a Bribe Not a Bribe?

Zhang Tong’s career trajectory was marked by remarkable early achievement and a rapid ascent through Jiangsu’s official ranks, culminating in his role as vice mayor of Xuzhou. Graduating at 19 and advancing quickly, Zhang’s fall proved equally swift. By age 55, he was sentenced to 14 years in prison for bribery, with the court finding that he had accepted bribes worth 49.4 million yuan ($6.8 million) in the form of shares and cash. Notably, more than 80% of this total comprised bribes that had only been agreed upon rather than physically received. Zhang initially confessed during the investigation but contested the charges at trial, denying any actual receipt of bribes and appealing the verdict. His defense labeled the prosecution’s approach as “agreed bribery,” a concept referring to cases where officials promise favors in exchange for benefits—even if no tangible exchange ever occurs. This legal gray area is not specifically outlined in Chinese law, spawning debate within the judiciary and among legal scholars over whether such agreements should be treated as prosecutable bribery offenses and raising larger questions about distinguishing intent from concrete action. [para. 1][para. 2][para. 3][para. 4][para. 5][para. 6][para. 7]

Zhang’s background highlights both his academic prowess—entering university at 15—and his steady professional advancement through Jiangsu’s public finance sector. His downfall was prompted by a mid-2022 anti-corruption inspection that uncovered mismanagement of state-owned funds, particularly a problematic private equity fund, Yangzhou Yuanfang Industrial Support Fund, which managed billions in assets. Subsequent investigations revealed Zhang had abused his authority to help companies, including Tianjin Foresight Asset Management (controlled by a man surnamed Mei), secure loans and investment deals. The lion’s share of the alleged bribe consisted of 1.27 million Lucid Group Inc. shares, which Zhang was to receive as part of a profit-sharing agreement. However, the shares remained under Mei’s control and were sold by him after Zhang’s downfall, with the proceeds frozen by authorities. The court reasoned that Zhang’s tacit approval and continued support for relevant projects constituted acceptance of a bribe. [para. 8][para. 9][para. 10][para. 11][para. 12][para. 13][para. 14][para. 15][para. 16][para. 17][para. 18][para. 19][para. 20][para. 21][para. 22]

The broader legal challenge of “agreed bribery” is underscored by the similar case of Chen Hua, sentenced to 14 years for bribes that mostly were only promised. Chinese law does not explicitly define “agreed bribery,” which often involves tacit understandings and deferred exchanges rather than direct quid-pro-quo. Judicial interpretations vary, with some treating agreements for future benefits as attempted crimes deserving lighter punishment, while others believe agreements alone can constitute criminal bribery. Scholars differ on whether substantive control of illicit assets is necessary for a conviction. Recent legal commentary suggests that tangible steps towards obtaining bribes, or some element of control over them, should be decisive; otherwise, such cases risk being classified as mere attempts. [para. 23][para. 24][para. 25][para. 26][para. 27][para. 28][para. 29][para. 30][para. 31][para. 32]

Legal experts stress caution. Zang Desheng, a former judge, advocates for strict evidentiary standards, warning against convictions based solely on inconsistent verbal testimony. Recent guidelines from China’s top anti-graft body list exceptions where agreements should not count as bribery, such as unclear intent, inability to pay, or withdrawal of the offer before any transfer. Tsinghua law professor Lao Dongyan emphasizes the need for fairness, due process, and prudent handling in anti-graft enforcement to maintain public trust and legal integrity. [para. 33][para. 34][para. 35][para. 36][para. 37][para. 38][para. 39][para. 40][para. 41][para. 42][para. 43][para. 44][para. 45][para. 46][para. 47][para. 48][para. 49]