PDA

View Full Version : 10,000 corrupt government officials have fled China with $100 billion.



J-10
11-01-2008, 07:10 PM
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1031/p01s01-wogn.html
China acts to stem the tide of officials fleeing with cash
As many as 10,000 corrupt government officials have fled China with $100 billion.
By Peter Ford | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the October 31, 2008 edition

Beijing - When Yang Xianghong, a middle-ranking Chinese Communist Party official, slipped away from a government delegation trip to Paris three weeks ago, he said he was visiting his daughter.

When he didn't come back, though, his disappearance sparked much speculation on state-run media that Mr. Yang was the latest escapee in a growing exodus of officials fleeing corruption probes.

If true, he joins as many as 10,000 corrupt Chinese officials who have fled the country over the past decade, taking as much as $100 billion of public funds with them, according to an estimate by Li Chengyan, head of Peking University's Anticorruption Research Institute.

More unexpected, however, was the heavy press coverage that Yang's walkabout attracted in a country where the government is generally reluctant to wash its dirty linens in public.

That suggests that "the government is sending a signal" that it regards "the number of officials fleeing as a very important problem which needs to be solved," says Mao Zhaohui, director of anticorruption studies at Beijing's Renmin University.

Corruption is pervasive at almost every level of the government, and it is a major factor eroding faith in the ruling Communist Party. Earlier this year, after thousands of schoolchildren died in the Sichuan earthquake, the Internet was ablaze with accusations that local officials had taken bribes to approve substandard materials for school construction.

Chinese President Hu Jintao has repeatedly declared that the fight against fraud is a top government priority and courts have handed down heavy sentences against prominent offenders.

Last year, the former head of the Chinese Food and Drug Administration, Zheng Xiaoyu, was executed after being found guilty of taking bribes to approve thousands of new drugs.

Stiff punishments, however, do not appear to have curbed the phenomenon. Just this week, the deputy president of the Supreme Court and the head of parliament's budget committee were fired for corruption in an indication of how far the rot has spread even among the highest levels of government.

The exact nature of the accusations leveled against Yang, party secretary of a district in Wenzhou, a boomtown on China's east coast, remains unclear. State media reported that he was questioned by a team from the region's party disciplinary committee three days before his trip.

The Wenzhou municipal government sent two officials to Paris to persuade Yang to return, local newspapers reported, along with a doctor to treat a bad back that he said prevented him from traveling home. But they had no success.

The Wenzhou authorities subsequently confiscated all local officials' passports, according to Oriental Outlook, a magazine owned by the government's news agency, Xinhua, in a bid to stop others from following Yang's example.

"Passport management is the way to handle this ... but that is very complicated," says Dr. Li, since many government employees have both official and personal passports.

The problem is compounded by the fact that China has signed extradition treaties with only 31 countries. They do not include the US, Canada, or Australia – three popular destinations for Chinese officials on the lam. Only four western European nations have such agreements with Beijing.

Those who escape China with money tend to seek refuge in North America or Europe, say corruption experts here. Smaller fish head for Southeast Asia or South America.

"The top destinations are the countries with independent judicial systems," says Liao Ran, senior program coordinator of the Asia and Pacific department at Transparency International, a Berlin-based international corruption watchdog.

"If you get help from a lawyer ... your appeals process can last for 10 years" in most Western countries, says Mr. Liao.

Lai Changxing, for example, is alleged to have headed a major smuggling ring and is often called China's most wanted man. He arrived in Canada in 1999 and has been fighting a legal battle to avoid deportation ever since.

"The more money the criminals have, the harder it is to repatriate them," says Li. "The economic costs are very high for China."

Mr. Lai has also benefited from a Canadian judge's ruling that he might be subjected to torture if he were returned to China. Other Chinese officials elsewhere have argued they should not be sent home for fear of political persecution.

China's paltry number of bilateral extradition treaties, says Liao, is also explained by the fact that Beijing still imposes the death penalty on people found guilty of serious corruption. "The law in many Western countries [where the death penalty has been abolished] says a person cannot be deported if he risks the death penalty," he says.

The Chinese government is moving towards abolishing capital punishment for economic crimes, says Liao, "which might make extradition easier in the future."

China has not been totally unsuccessful apprehending corruption suspects. In 2004, the US deported Yu Zhendong, accused of defrauding the Bank of China of $485 million. He was sentenced to 12 years in jail.

Chinese officials also convinced the Canadian authorities last August to return Deng Xinzhi, alleged to be a swindler, who had sought refuge in Toronto. His case has not yet come to trial here.

In the absence of extradition treaties with most countries where Chinese officials seek safe havens, Beijing can generally only await the outcome of immigration cases brought against the suspects. Beijing is hoping to forge closer international ties with some of these key nations following its accession to the United Nations convention against corruption, which has more than 150 signatories.

"This widens the basis for international cooperation and allows China to work more closely with foreign countries," says Chen Lei, a corruption expert at Beijing Normal University.

The government is also stepping up its long-running domestic efforts to combat fraud. The Chinese parliament is studying proposals obliging all government employees to report their property holdings, widening the scope of corruption probes to officials' relatives and increasing the penalties for corruption.

"Though the new laws look very good," says Liao. "The problem is whether or not they can be enforced. Still, the central government's political commitment to fight corruption is in place."

Despite these efforts, many corruption experts say that as the government tightens the screws on fraud, the exodus will likely grow larger.

"A lot of corrupt officials do not dare stay in China now," says Mao. "There will be more and more officials heading abroad, and they will be taking more and more money with them."

khalifah
11-02-2008, 12:19 AM
wow....:|....

INAT
11-02-2008, 12:21 AM
They should come to the US they will live like kings.:)

Andreas
11-02-2008, 12:22 AM
Hmmm. Nice pension plan they have going..

plato
11-02-2008, 12:24 AM
They should come to the US they will live like kings.:)
They already do come to the US. Also, many sons and daughters of Chinese officals are in US.

peterli
11-02-2008, 12:27 AM
At least that is a sign that the govenment is tightening the punishment and inspection for fraud,

robertico420
11-02-2008, 12:43 AM
What I don't get is why they try to use legal means to deal with these corrupt individuals.

They should deal with them the old fashioned way. Make em an offer they cant refuse.

Return the money and you'll face minimum jail time, refuse and you and you're family can enjoy the money six feet under...where ever you are.

plato
11-02-2008, 12:57 AM
What I don't get is why they try to use legal means to deal with these corrupt individuals.

They should deal with them the old fashioned way. Make em an offer they cant refuse.

Return the money and you'll face minimum jail time, refuse and you and you're family can enjoy the money six feet under...where ever you are.the problem is that "they" is the same people as "them". So, you expect "they" to lock up "them"? corruption is part of the Chinese system, not a crime.

RECON DOC
11-02-2008, 12:57 AM
If only that would happen here in the States. We'd be sitting pretty.:|

Supe
11-02-2008, 01:08 AM
Big number. It's criminal for the West to protect these thieves and worse. Third ways must be found - so that these people do not not escape retribution. The guy who approved thousands of drugs may have lead to deaths and illness. How could a Western judge reconcile this by allowing someone like this to stay and prosper at the expense of those he has harmed? Perhaps enquiries could be held in the West with these people made to attend on penalty on imprisonment for not doing so - with Chinese govt putting forward its case and Western court allowing the accused to defend themselves. If guilt is established then they could do time in Western prison, subsidised in part by the Chinese state. Why should West bear some of the burden? That would be the price of not willing to repatriate these types to China. China gets its pound of flesh and the West stays within in the bounds of its laws.

I don't think China should be letting these people get off by escaping. It sends a bad message. That all a corrupt official has to do is set aside some money and a refuge elsewhere. The West should work closely with Chinese Govt to identify people of interest (probably some sort of framework for co-operation would need to be set up here) - and if they set off an alert at immigration/customs - they are detained for futher information. Detainment does not mean automatic handover of course. (just in case person of interest is not a corrupt official but a political dissident).

313230
11-02-2008, 01:17 AM
10.000.000$ per capita,
wow, what about the remaining corrupt officials that dont fled China? They'd stolen alot of money

peterli
11-02-2008, 01:23 AM
the problem is that "they" is the same people as "them". So, you expect "they" to lock up "them"? corruption is part of the Chinese system, not a crime.
where there is govenment, there is corruption,corruption is crime,

plato
11-02-2008, 01:29 AM
where there is govenment, there is corruption,corruption is crime,
What we call "corruption" here in US is different than in China. In China, corruption is part of the system. It is only a crime when this "corruption" hurts the CCP.

robertico420
11-02-2008, 01:44 AM
Are you implying that the US government is somehow more transparent than the CCP?

The US is in no position to be giving lessons on corruption, if you think otherwize you should look up who vice president chaney used to work for and what that company role is in illegally occupied Iraq.

plato
11-02-2008, 01:57 AM
Are you implying that the US government is somehow more transparent than the CCP?

The US is in no position to be giving lessons on corruption, if you think otherwize you should look up who vice president chaney used to work for and what that company role is in illegally occupied Iraq.


The US may not be in position to give lessons on corruption, but her government is more transparent than the CCP.

"illegally"? Last time I checked the UN voted three times to legalize the "occupation". Yes, even our friends China and Russia voted yes.

robertico420
11-02-2008, 01:04 AM
The US may not be in position to give lessons on corruption, but her government is more transparent than the CCP.

"illegally"? Last time I checked the UN voted three times to legalize the "occupation". Yes, even our friends China and Russia voted yes.

If you really think the occupation is legal, than maybe you should look into why that country was invaded in the first place.:roll:

Calanen
11-02-2008, 01:35 AM
What we call "corruption" here in US is different than in China. In China, corruption is part of the system. It is only a crime when this "corruption" hurts the CCP.

No, its only a crime when it hurts specific people within the Central Government, then the whip comes out. Otherwise, business as usual.

Corruption there on a scale that would make your head spin. The PLA Generals are some of the biggest businessmen in China, and control business operations like a multinational corporation.

plato
11-02-2008, 01:50 AM
If you really think the occupation is legal, than maybe you should look into why that country was invaded in the first place.:roll:
The "occupation" is legal. It is not what I think, and no one really cares what I think. Go ask the UN why it is legal, don't ask me. While you're at it, go ask China and Russia, too.

robertico420
11-02-2008, 01:56 AM
The "occupation" is legal. It is not what I think, and no one really cares what I think. Go ask the UN why it is legal, don't ask me. While you're at it, go ask China and Russia, too.

If the invasion was illegal, than logic dictates that so is the occupation. regardless of what the UN, China or Russia think.

plato
11-02-2008, 02:00 AM
If the invasion was illegal, than logic dictates that so is the occupation. regardless of what the UN, China or Russia think.
So, what is your definition of "legal", then? You used that word, not me. I am only responding to what you said. So, it is "illegal" because you say so? Regardless of what the UN "think"? hahaha. lol

robertico420
11-02-2008, 02:13 AM
So, what is your definition of "legal", then? You used that word, not me. I am only responding to what you said. So, it is "illegal" because you say so? Regardless of what the UN "think"? hahaha. lol

My definition of legal in this case is: If you're gonna invade somebody you better have a goo fu*king reason to do so.

It is well known that the pretext used for invading Iraq was pure BS. Therefore the invasion/occupation is illegal because the facts say so, not because I say so.

plato
11-02-2008, 02:25 AM
My definition of legal in this case is: If you're gonna invade somebody you better have a goo fu*king reason to do so.

It is well known that the pretext used for invading Iraq was pure BS. Therefore the invasion/occupation is illegal because the facts say so, not because I say so.

Again, what is the definition of "legal"? Find the definition, first. What "facts" say the war was "illegal"? Can you tell us what wars in the past 50 years were "illegal"? Which ones were "legal"? You said the "occupation" is "illegal", right? And I told you the UN said it is "legal".

robertico420
11-02-2008, 02:57 AM
Again, what is the definition of "legal"? Find the definition, first. What "facts" say the war was "illegal"? Can you tell us what wars in the past 50 years were "illegal"? Which ones were "legal"? You said the "occupation" is "illegal", right? And I told you the UN said it is "legal".

Fact 1: Iraq had no WMD's

Fact 2: there were no links between al-quaeda and the Iraqi govenment

Therefore Iraq posed no military threat. Therefore the invasion/occupation is illegal.

16 September 2004 Kofi Annan Secretary-General of the United Nations speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Could you provide a link to where it said that Russia and China voted three times to legalize the occupation.

plato
11-02-2008, 03:08 AM
Fact 1: Iraq had no WMD's

Fact 2: there were no links between al-quaeda and the Iraqi govenment

Therefore Iraq posed no military threat. Therefore the invasion/occupation is illegal.

16 September 2004 Kofi Annan Secretary-General of the United Nations speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Could you provide a link to where it said that Russia and China voted three times to legalize the occupation.


Who is "our" in "our point of view"? So, your "point of view" makes it "illegal"?. Never mind my "point of view"? What about my views? They don't count. Do you see what I mean? Just because you call it "illegal" doesn't mean it is "illegal", or is "legal" because I say so.

links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1483

robertico420
11-02-2008, 04:22 AM
Who is "our" in "our point of view"? So, your "point of view" makes it "illegal"?. Never mind my "point of view"? What about my views? They don't count. Do you see what I mean? Just because you call it "illegal" doesn't mean it is "illegal", or is "legal" because I say so.

links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1483

By "our point of view" Kofi Annan means the United Nations Secretariat and pretty much every other country that wasn't in the "coalition of the willing".

You are correct in that neither my nor you're opinion makes the Iraq invasion legal or illegal. In legal maters facts determine legality.

The facts are in my previous post.

plato
11-02-2008, 05:08 AM
By "our point of view" Kofi Annan means the United Nations Secretariat and pretty much every other country that wasn't in the "coalition of the willing".

You are correct in that neither my nor you're opinion makes the Iraq invasion legal or illegal. In legal maters facts determine legality.

The facts are in my previous post.
And who determines the legality?

Calanen
11-02-2008, 05:10 AM
My definition of legal in this case is: If you're gonna invade somebody you better have a goo fu*king reason to do so.

And who decides whether a reason is good enough? You?

robertico420
11-02-2008, 05:24 AM
And who determines the legality?

In legal maters facts determine legality.

robertico420
11-02-2008, 05:29 AM
And who decides whether a reason is good enough? You?

I am not a leader of any country.

As I said before, in legal maters facts determine legality.

Who do you think decided it was right to invade Iraq?

Halliburton?

KBR?

khalifah
11-02-2008, 01:09 PM
Gentlemen, continue your bickering in the PM's, and stop derailing this thread.:bash:

.....................................

10 millon huh, I know very little of how the Chicom government is runned, but I can only guess this curruption is only the tip of the iceburg.

(puts on tinfoil hat)
I bet neighboring countries (Ex. Japan, S.Korea, etc.) must have very inviting deals for these running officials

LaoSexMachine
11-02-2008, 01:24 PM
I am not a leader of any country.

As I said before, in legal maters facts determine legality.

Who do you think decided it was right to invade Iraq?

Halliburton?

KBR?


2003 called.............................

SimaGine
11-05-2008, 01:14 PM
the problem is that "they" is the same people as "them". So, you expect "they" to lock up "them"? corruption is part of the Chinese system, not a crime.

u got the point man:)