China hopes the new international anticorruption convention will help it nab corrupt officials who have fled abroad
　　
　　The end of 2005 saw the birth of the UN Anticorruption Convention. Because many Chinese officials who have fled overseas with state funds are still at large, China hopes that the first UN legal document to provide guidelines for international campaigns against corruption will help to bring these fugitives back for punishment. But past experiences tell that the path is often a long and convoluted one, and that one country cannot act alone.
　　The “wanted” list is long. The number of fleeing corrupt Chinese officials has increased sharply since 2000. That year saw Hu Changqing, former vice governor of Jiangxi Province, sentenced to death for corruption.
　　Hu’s case ostensibly was meant as a deterrent to corruption. However, instead of acknowledging their wrongdoing, some of Hu’s peers chose to flee the country to avoid punishment.
　　Chen Manxiong and his wife Chen Qiuyuan could tell their version of the “Bonnie and Clyde” story, perhaps an even more dramatic one. The Chens first lost a large amount of public money by gambling in casinos in Macao. To repay their heavy debts, through their connections with two bank clerks, the couple took 420 million yuan ($51.79 million) in bank deposits from the Zhongshan Branch of the Bank of China in Guangdong Province between 1993 and 1995.
　　Sensing some “nervousness in the air,” and before Interpol China issued a warrant for their arrest, the couple fled abroad. After settling in Thailand, both changed their names and had plastic surgery. With altered noses and bleached skin, they started a new life dotted with Mercedes-Benzes and luxury houses. They were even welcomed into the “upper class” for their generosity. But they failed to live happily ever after there.
　　Five years later, in 2000, Thai authorities arrested the couple and repatriated them to China in 2002. Chen Manxiong was sentenced to life imprisonment and his wife to 14 years in jail. But the Chinese court failed to recover 310 million yuan ($34.44 million) of the misappropriated funds. The case was the second biggest bank fraud case since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, according to the Xinhua News Agency.
　　The Chens’ fall is a long story. It also showcases the cooperation China has been seeking with other countries in its effort to repatriate fleeing officials.
　　In recent years, China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have enhanced their direct cooperation in specific judicial fields, and have made progress in combating cross-border crimes, said Zhang Geng, Vice Procurator General of the Chinese Supreme People’s Procuratorate.
　　
　　Basis for cooperation
　　
　　China and most ASEAN countries have signed the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, which was approved in 2000. This offers a good basis for establishing a China-ASEAN cooperative mechanism in the fight against cross-border crimes, including the repatriation of corrupt officials.
　　Mutual judicial aid and extradition agreements are necessary for a country to efficiently handle transnational crimes, said Thailand’s Attorney General Rawat Chamchalerm, calling for the establishment of a regional legal framework. Thailand is the first country to sign a bilateral extradition agreement with China, under which the Chens were repatriated.
　　The Chens are now serving time in prison. During the seemingly endless days and nights behind bars, perhaps they sometimes resent their bad luck. After all, many of their peers still enjoy their freedom, and some even live a decent life in developed countries.
　　Tong Yanbai, former general manager and board chairman of the Highway Development Co. Ltd. in Henan Province, fled the country on New Year’s Day in 2004, taking with him a large sum of money. Tong reportedly had changed his name and probably received a green card in the United States to enjoy a permanent resident status. He is said to be one of the approximately 200 officials from the province in central China who have fled abroad for fear of being charged with corruption.
　　According to Liu Wujun, an associate researcher at the Chinese Ministry of Justice, by the end of 2004, more than 500 economic criminals had absconded from the country, carrying away more than 70 billion yuan ($8.63 billion) in total. Unofficial statistics claim that approximately 4,000 fugitives are at large overseas.
　　These fugitives have worked out a model of fleeing. They first selected an ideal destination during an overseas “inspection tour,” then sent relatives there and transferred an immense sum of money to overseas banks before fleeing themselves.
　　Tong followed the routine exactly. According to Chinese media reports, he got a private passport as early as 1998 and a pass to visit Hong Kong and Macao in 2000. He arranged for his daughter to study in Australia, accompanied by his wife. He then bolted from Shenzhen to Hong Kong, after one of his trusted followers was arrested for graft.
　　Yang Xiuzhu, the fugitive former deputy director of Zhejiang Provincial Construction Bureau, is believed to have taken bribes of 253 million yuan ($31.96 million). After her departure, she could not protect her associates. According to Wenzhou Discipline Inspection Commission, a total of 19 related officials were punished, with 42.4 million yuan ($5.23 million) recovered and over 70 million yuan ($8.4 million) worth of property and funds frozen.
　　Yang did not flee by herself. Along with money, she took her daughter, son-in-law and grandson abroad on April 20, 2004, when the local government began to deal with the case. She was caught by Interpol in Amsterdam in mid-2005, and is wanted by Beijing.
　　
　　Collaboration is needed
　　
　　But one country cannot accomplish this alone. China has joined many international agreements, including China-U.S. Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, which, together with China’s Extradition Law, help to catch corrupt officials overseas. Statistics from the Ministry of Public Security show that between 1993 and January 2005, more than 230 suspects were returned from more than 30 countries, with the collaboration of Interpol.
　　When the draft of the UN Anticorruption Convention was first approved on October 1, 2003, within 24 hours a total of 51 corrupt officials were arrested while attempting to flee China. In the following week, another 115 were seized before they stepped outside of the country.
　　China joined the UN Anticorruption Convention on December 10, 2003. Jia Chunwang, Procurator General of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, said China brought back 596 fugitive corrupt officials from abroad in 2003. With the UN Anticorruption Convention formally taking effect on December 14, 2005, the country can expect more success.
　　Nevertheless, the convention cannot remove all obstacles in the campaign against fugitive corrupt officials. Huang Feng, inspector in the Department of Judicial Assistance and Foreign Affairs of the Ministry of Justice, explained that since many Western countries, including the United States, Canada and Britain, have not ratified the convention and extradition of officials demands cooperation from the countries in which they are hiding, “the agreement is sort of a failure in this respect.”
　　Li Juqian, associate professor at the Institute of International Law under the China University of Political Science and Law, said that when there is no extradition agreement between two countries, none has the duty to extradite suspects or criminals. “Then, only diplomatic means can be counted on. If ties between the two countries are not close enough, the procedure can drag out,” said Li.
　　China has gotten off to a late start in terms of extradition. Only when many corrupt officials took advantage of economic loopholes and fled the country beginning in the early 1990s, was attention focused on the issue. China launched the Extradition Law in late 2000 and signed its first extradition agreement with Thailand in 1993.
　　Bilateral extradition agreements are usually signed on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, based on relations between the two countries. Almost every extradition agreement is achieved only after rounds of negotiations are held and a consensus is finally reached.
　　
　　A difficult path
　　
　　For a long time, in the area of international extradition there have been differences in legal concepts. Extradition can hardly proceed when the situation is complicated, such as when a suspect is charged with crimes in more than one country or when that person might face the death penalty, discrimination or lack of a fair trial after being extradited.
　　Besides, most Chinese officials flee to Western countries, not vice versa. When two countries hash out an agreement, one country is always more willing to sign than the other is. That may partly explain why China has signed few extradition agreements with Western countries.
　　So far, only 19 countries have established extradition relationships with China. Canada, where a star fugitive is hiding, is not among them. Corrupt officials know where it is safe when they choose their destination.
　　Lai Changxing used to travel through Xiamen in south China’s Fujian Province, in a bulletproof Mercedes-Benz. With his family, he left the city for Vancouver in August 1999.
　　Suspected of smuggling and bribery, Lai has been trying to stay away from China. After he and his family lost a lawsuit in the case of their application for the status of “refugees” in 2002, there was the view that the loss gave a warning to those criminals who fled their homelands to other countries, such as America, Canada and Australia.
　　
　　The Canadian court rejected Lai’s appeal in 2004, ruling that there was no evidence he would suffer persecution if sent back to China, so he and his family were not entitled to refugee status.
　　To ensure that his wife Zeng Mingna and children could stay in Canada, and to transfer his property and money, Lai divorced in mid-2005. Five months later, his appeal for refugee status was rejected by the Supreme Court in Canada, which means the end of the road for legal protection in the country.
　　As for Lai’s future, Vincent Cheng Yang, a scholar of comparative criminal law with over 20 years of experience in teaching and working in China, Canada, Britain and United Nations institutions, said in an interview with China Youth Daily that Lai’s most likely fate is to be returned to China.
　　Yang said Lai could hardly flee to another country since he is under house arrest, and no other country would take a man wanted by Interpol.
　　Due to the lack of an extradition agreement between China and Canada, there are some technical problems in arranging a formal extradition of Lai. The two countries’ judicial organs need further negotiations and coordination to solve the problem caused by the principle of “no extradition of criminals to countries that use the death penalty,” as well as problems related to the recovery and confiscation of Lai’s property.
　　There are also more positive examples of the growing association between Chinese law enforcement officials and their counterparts in Western countries, such as the extradition from Las Vegas to Beijing of Yu Zhendong, former branch manager of Bank of China in Guangdong Province.
　　According to Xinhua News Agency, Yu’s case was investigated by local public prosecutors after he fled to the United States in 2001. China had asked for U.S. assistance, and close cooperation between the law enforcement staff of the two countries was carried out. In September 2003, all the illicit money confiscated by U.S. law enforcement officials was returned to China. Yu was sent back for punishment in April 2004. Although it was a long and convoluted path, he was finally returned.
　　Chinese officials hope that other cases will be easier amid increasing international cooperation in the area, such as the new UN Anticorruption Convention.
　　Where the Fugitives Flee
　　Three types of countries are viewed as particularly suitable
　　Thailand, Myanmar, Mongolia, Malaysia and Russia
　　These countries are seen as the most ideal choices for those whose positions are not senior and who have not taken huge sums of money. However, fugitives find these countries dangerous to some extent because of their close cooperation with China on extradition matters. For example, Mongolia has signed a bilateral agreement to extradite suspects to China. Thus, corrupt officials often take these places as the springboard before they find safer places.
　　Countries in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe
　　These are mainly small countries lacking a mature legal system. Some corrupt officials who cannot directly get visas to Western countries huddle there and live a settled life, while others wait for an opportunity to upgrade their circumstances.
　　The United States, Canada, Australia and the Netherlands
　　These rich countries are the final destination for high-level corrupt officials. Those who once had illustrious positions at home tend to despise the first two groups. Meanwhile, as immigrant countries, the United States, Canada, Australia and other first-tier countries worldwide tend to be easier for immigration. For instance, in Canada, if either member of a couple obtains Canadian nationality, the other one can get it conveniently.

相關(guān)熱詞搜索：Fugitive Justice Ｆｕｇｉｔｉｖｅ　Ｊｕｓｔｉｃｅ fugitive的反義詞 the fugitive