Jiang Rushan: US Should Help China 'Strike Down the Tigers'
From the perspective of China's current anti-corruption situation, the fall of Jiang Jiemin and his even deeper investigation will involve at least a few hundred corrupt officials of all levels. Those affected will reach from Beijing to provincial cities, both provincial level departments and higher. These "tiger" officials fear that this is not an "individual case." This case indicates that the new governing body will investigate matters of corruption until it reaches a final resolution, no matter who gets involved. However, in the context of growing globalization, the international spread of China's anti-corruption interests, especially the transfer of assets and evidence by corrupt officials to the United States, not only produces great difficulties for the anti-corruption movement but also increases anti-corruption costs.
According to reports, some overseas organizations have determined through analysis that since we have entered the 21st century, there are at least 10,000 corrupt officials of all levels hiding in the United States; moreover, in the past two years, a growing number of corrupt officials have been building escape routes in the United States. According to reports, in recent years, corrupt Chinese officials move more than $10 billion into the United States every year. The relocated family interests of individual high-level corrupt officials may reach up to $1 billion. More serious is that the interests illegally transferred to the United States are, after many twist and turns, turned into legitimate investments. These are then returned back to China and, through the aid of power and influence, used to unfairly participate in commercial competition, more specifically to participate in government policy-driven investment projects.
Since the May 1998 establishment of the U.S.-China Joint Liaison Group on Law Enforcement Cooperation, China and the U.S. have cooperated in fighting corruption, money laundering, illegal immigration, illicit drugs and terrorism. However, because China and the U.S. have not yet signed an extradition treaty, not only is the level of depth and control of judicial cooperation between the two countries still very much limited, but the operational processes and efficiency between the two also remain restricted. Because of this, when it comes to the issue of corruption, the practical operation of China-U.S. cooperation is still quite limited. Under these circumstances, the Chinese government should boldly and assuredly initiate open communication with the U.S. government about the major issues facing judicial cooperation on anti-corruption and anti-money laundering cases and independently establish a judicial and administrative level mechanism of cooperation with the United States. The primary reasons for this are as follows:
- In accordance with relevant U.S. laws and the Sino-U.S. judicial cooperation “agreement,” the U.S should apply legal sanctions on any corrupt activity or corrupted assets linked to China that occur or exist in the United States.
As early as October 1997, the China-U.S. Joint Statement issued by the leaders of China and the United States proposed a judicial cooperation "agreement." In this spirit, the U.S.-China Joint Liaison Group on Law Enforcement Cooperation was established in May 1998. This organization's scope of work includes fighting economic crimes, money laundering, illegal immigration, drugs, terrorism and cults, in addition to many other areas of cooperation. In 2000, China and the U.S signed the U.S.-China Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. After this agreement went into effect, the greatest cooperation undertaken by the U.S. and China on anti-corruption was the "two Xu's" financial corruption case, originating from a local branch of Bank of China in Kaiping, Guangdong Province — in this case, two men surnamed Xu embezzled nearly $5 trillion. Although there existed lingering differences and lack of coordination between the U.S. and China on the matters of case exclusivity and criminal extradition, the two countries coordinated well overall, especially in the area of evidence sharing.
In short, if American companies or individuals engage in bribery or corruption in China, the U.S. government can initiate investigation and punishment; similarly, if the corrupt acts of a Chinese company or individual extend to the United States, China has the same duties and powers for investigation and punishment. In this respect, China and the U.S. have mutual demands and ought to collaborate. This measure is neither contradictory to international regulations nor to the current national laws of each country. We only need to further standardize and strengthen operational confidence levels, processes and regulations.
- U.S.-China anti-corruption judicial cooperation is in accordance with international law and, in keeping with the trend of globalization, also conforms with the interests of the both the people and governments of China and the United States.
Since the Bush administration, the United States has clearly increased its international anti-corruption cooperation efforts. While attending the 34-country Special Summit of the Americas in January 2004, former U.S. President George W. Bush issued a decree prohibiting public officials convicted of corruption offenses abroad from entering the United States. It went into effect immediately thereafter. Following this, in August 2006, the U.S. formally came forward to develop serious initiatives for international cooperation in thorough investigations of corrupt foreign officials. Take, for example, measures such as the accurate identification, tracking, freezing and seizure of corrupt officials' illegal income. Aside from this, a variety of sanctions and crackdowns have been established, in addition to initiatives such as repatriation, physical restriction and property disposal. Many of these measures have gained approval and commendation around the world and have caused a number of corrupt officials all over the world to feel frightened of the United States.
Behind this series of strong initiatives, there is the support of two major elements. The first is an international factor. Since the issuance and enactment of the United Nations Convention against Corruption and the United Nations conventions against transnational organized crime, the United States has acted as a sort of ringleader, taking the lead in facilitating the creation of collaboration to fight corruption and transnational organized crime within the international community. The second factor is that the behavior of corrupt officials is out of line with the social system and values of the United States. Moreover, the black money of corrupt officials will create a great deal of negative effects for U.S. economic and social development.
- For the benefit of economic security in China and the United States, a lasting mechanism for anti-corruption judicial cooperation should be established.
Globalization has already caused China-U.S. trade relations to become increasingly close. The scale of annual currency exchange between the two countries is already extremely large. To a great extent, the economic security of the two countries is directly related. If the fleeing corrupt officials and criminal offenders from every country were to pour into the United States, their large sums of transferred stolen money and property would inevitably create potential negative effects for U.S. national security, political stability and economic prosperity. In recent years, after illicit money from China enters the United States, it is primarily U.S. companies and private citizens that help to "respond," providing a number of services to the owner. This behavior is essentially aiding in money laundering and clearly violates U.S. law.
When this author visited cities like New York and Los Angeles last year for study and research, he came into contact with a number of cases revealing that intermediary agencies both large and small, providing property, immigration and legal services, engage in this kind of business. It is because of various reasons that the actual people involved in the case can use "having no knowledge" as an excuse to offer the money laundering service. According to reports, in the corruption case of Jiang Jiemin, as much as $10 billion entered the United States. Moreover, it has already encroached upon several regions, and it has the typical criminal characteristics of a cross-border partnership. The United States ought to initiate a judicial investigation into anti-corruption, anti-bribery and anti-money laundering in accordance with the law.
Of course, in the view of some "left-wing" Chinese and American politicians, the opposing frameworks of the two countries' political standpoints are temporarily difficult to reconcile because of basic differences in political systems and cultural values. In particular, some Americans suspect that China's anti-corruption activity is in itself unjust, existing only to help eliminate political dissidents. Therefore, on the subject of corrupt Chinese nationals hiding in the U.S., these people maintain an attitude of keeping one eye open, one eye closed. Furthermore, a few Americans even believe that the money of corrupt officials is just money; there is nothing bad about it entering into the United States, and at the very least, it could offset inflation. It is because of this aspect that many corrupt individuals have been able to maintain an exit route in the U.S. by fluke and continue to make plans for their family assets. In actuality, this lack of mutual understanding should not influence or hinder the progress of normal diplomatic collaboration.
According to reports, some overseas organizations have determined through analysis that since we have entered the 21st century, there are at least 10,000 corrupt officials of all levels hiding in the United States; moreover, in the past two years, a growing number of corrupt officials have been building escape routes in the United States. According to reports, in recent years, corrupt Chinese officials move more than $10 billion into the United States every year. The relocated family interests of individual high-level corrupt officials may reach up to $1 billion. More serious is that the interests illegally transferred to the United States are, after many twist and turns, turned into legitimate investments. These are then returned back to China and, through the aid of power and influence, used to unfairly participate in commercial competition, more specifically to participate in government policy-driven investment projects.
Since the May 1998 establishment of the U.S.-China Joint Liaison Group on Law Enforcement Cooperation, China and the U.S. have cooperated in fighting corruption, money laundering, illegal immigration, illicit drugs and terrorism. However, because China and the U.S. have not yet signed an extradition treaty, not only is the level of depth and control of judicial cooperation between the two countries still very much limited, but the operational processes and efficiency between the two also remain restricted. Because of this, when it comes to the issue of corruption, the practical operation of China-U.S. cooperation is still quite limited. Under these circumstances, the Chinese government should boldly and assuredly initiate open communication with the U.S. government about the major issues facing judicial cooperation on anti-corruption and anti-money laundering cases and independently establish a judicial and administrative level mechanism of cooperation with the United States. The primary reasons for this are as follows:
- In accordance with relevant U.S. laws and the Sino-U.S. judicial cooperation “agreement,” the U.S should apply legal sanctions on any corrupt activity or corrupted assets linked to China that occur or exist in the United States.
As early as October 1997, the China-U.S. Joint Statement issued by the leaders of China and the United States proposed a judicial cooperation "agreement." In this spirit, the U.S.-China Joint Liaison Group on Law Enforcement Cooperation was established in May 1998. This organization's scope of work includes fighting economic crimes, money laundering, illegal immigration, drugs, terrorism and cults, in addition to many other areas of cooperation. In 2000, China and the U.S signed the U.S.-China Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. After this agreement went into effect, the greatest cooperation undertaken by the U.S. and China on anti-corruption was the "two Xu's" financial corruption case, originating from a local branch of Bank of China in Kaiping, Guangdong Province — in this case, two men surnamed Xu embezzled nearly $5 trillion. Although there existed lingering differences and lack of coordination between the U.S. and China on the matters of case exclusivity and criminal extradition, the two countries coordinated well overall, especially in the area of evidence sharing.
In short, if American companies or individuals engage in bribery or corruption in China, the U.S. government can initiate investigation and punishment; similarly, if the corrupt acts of a Chinese company or individual extend to the United States, China has the same duties and powers for investigation and punishment. In this respect, China and the U.S. have mutual demands and ought to collaborate. This measure is neither contradictory to international regulations nor to the current national laws of each country. We only need to further standardize and strengthen operational confidence levels, processes and regulations.
- U.S.-China anti-corruption judicial cooperation is in accordance with international law and, in keeping with the trend of globalization, also conforms with the interests of the both the people and governments of China and the United States.
Since the Bush administration, the United States has clearly increased its international anti-corruption cooperation efforts. While attending the 34-country Special Summit of the Americas in January 2004, former U.S. President George W. Bush issued a decree prohibiting public officials convicted of corruption offenses abroad from entering the United States. It went into effect immediately thereafter. Following this, in August 2006, the U.S. formally came forward to develop serious initiatives for international cooperation in thorough investigations of corrupt foreign officials. Take, for example, measures such as the accurate identification, tracking, freezing and seizure of corrupt officials' illegal income. Aside from this, a variety of sanctions and crackdowns have been established, in addition to initiatives such as repatriation, physical restriction and property disposal. Many of these measures have gained approval and commendation around the world and have caused a number of corrupt officials all over the world to feel frightened of the United States.
Behind this series of strong initiatives, there is the support of two major elements. The first is an international factor. Since the issuance and enactment of the United Nations Convention against Corruption and the United Nations conventions against transnational organized crime, the United States has acted as a sort of ringleader, taking the lead in facilitating the creation of collaboration to fight corruption and transnational organized crime within the international community. The second factor is that the behavior of corrupt officials is out of line with the social system and values of the United States. Moreover, the black money of corrupt officials will create a great deal of negative effects for U.S. economic and social development.
- For the benefit of economic security in China and the United States, a lasting mechanism for anti-corruption judicial cooperation should be established.
Globalization has already caused China-U.S. trade relations to become increasingly close. The scale of annual currency exchange between the two countries is already extremely large. To a great extent, the economic security of the two countries is directly related. If the fleeing corrupt officials and criminal offenders from every country were to pour into the United States, their large sums of transferred stolen money and property would inevitably create potential negative effects for U.S. national security, political stability and economic prosperity. In recent years, after illicit money from China enters the United States, it is primarily U.S. companies and private citizens that help to "respond," providing a number of services to the owner. This behavior is essentially aiding in money laundering and clearly violates U.S. law.
When this author visited cities like New York and Los Angeles last year for study and research, he came into contact with a number of cases revealing that intermediary agencies both large and small, providing property, immigration and legal services, engage in this kind of business. It is because of various reasons that the actual people involved in the case can use "having no knowledge" as an excuse to offer the money laundering service. According to reports, in the corruption case of Jiang Jiemin, as much as $10 billion entered the United States. Moreover, it has already encroached upon several regions, and it has the typical criminal characteristics of a cross-border partnership. The United States ought to initiate a judicial investigation into anti-corruption, anti-bribery and anti-money laundering in accordance with the law.
Of course, in the view of some "left-wing" Chinese and American politicians, the opposing frameworks of the two countries' political standpoints are temporarily difficult to reconcile because of basic differences in political systems and cultural values. In particular, some Americans suspect that China's anti-corruption activity is in itself unjust, existing only to help eliminate political dissidents. Therefore, on the subject of corrupt Chinese nationals hiding in the U.S., these people maintain an attitude of keeping one eye open, one eye closed. Furthermore, a few Americans even believe that the money of corrupt officials is just money; there is nothing bad about it entering into the United States, and at the very least, it could offset inflation. It is because of this aspect that many corrupt individuals have been able to maintain an exit route in the U.S. by fluke and continue to make plans for their family assets. In actuality, this lack of mutual understanding should not influence or hinder the progress of normal diplomatic collaboration.