China Eases Scrutiny of Officials’ Wealth While Tightening Bribery Rules for Others

New rules take effect May 1, prompting criticism over unequal enforcement in the country’s anti-corruption system.

Barricades are set up outside the No. 1 Intermediate court in Beijing on Jan. 22, 2014. Goh Chai Hin/AFP via Getty Images

China has sharply raised the bar for prosecuting officials accused of unexplained wealth, while lowering the threshold for bribery charges against private-sector workers—a shift that critics say exposes a widening double standard in the country’s anti-corruption system.

The new rules, issued April 10 by China’s Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate, took effect on May 1.

The changes come as China continues a years-long anti-corruption campaign that has punished large numbers of officials but drawn persistent criticism over transparency and consistency in enforcement.

Major Shift in Corruption Enforcement

The changes clarified how bribery and corruption cases should be handled.

The revised rules raised the threshold for prosecuting officials for “property of unclear origin” from 300,000 yuan (about $44,000) to 3 million yuan ($440,000)—a tenfold increase.

This means that discrepancies between 300,000 and 3 million yuan—once routinely prosecuted—may now fall outside the scope of criminal charges.

At the same time, the threshold for bribery involving non-governmental personnel has been cut in half, from 60,000 yuan ($8,800) to 30,000 yuan ($4,400). According to Chinese online news platform Sohu, doctors who receive kickbacks totaling 30,000 yuan could now face criminal liability.

The contrasting adjustments—loosening standards for officials while tightening them for others—have fueled accusations of unequal enforcement.

Chinese human rights lawyer Wu Shaoping, now based in the United States, told The Epoch Times that the increase in the unexplained wealth threshold is the most striking part of the revision.

“The very concept of ‘unexplained wealth’ implies income that does not match an official’s position,” he said. “Raising the threshold is, in effect, giving corrupt officials more room to operate.”

Wu said that the move reflects deeper problems in China’s long-running anti-corruption campaign, suggesting it has failed to address systemic issues.

“The need to raise the threshold itself shows how widespread corruption has become,” he said.

A Beijing resident, speaking to The Epoch Times on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal, said the policy change had sparked widespread anger online.

“This is essentially an open encouragement of corruption,” he said. “After years of anti-corruption campaigns, this is the outcome—it makes people feel those efforts were just for show.”

Such reactions underscore a broader erosion of public trust, Wu said, particularly as the changes come after more than a decade of high-profile anti-corruption efforts under Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

Expanded Asset Seizures Raise Legal Concerns

Beyond the shifting thresholds, the new rules also expand the scope for confiscating alleged illicit assets—another provision that has drawn scrutiny.

Under the updated interpretation, the regime can recover bribes from the alleged giver even if the payment was never completed or was later returned.

One criminal defense lawyer warned that this could create troubling enforcement scenarios.

Cai Yaqi, a Chinese attorney, said in online commentary that the rule could allow authorities to confiscate funds based solely on an alleged intent to pay a bribe.

In one hypothetical scenario, he said, the authorities could detain a business owner and pressure them into admitting they planned to offer a bribe. Even if no money changed hands, authorities could still seek to confiscate the amount in question.

“How do you prove whether money was returned?” Cai said. “With cash transactions, it may come down entirely to oral statements.”

Wu warned that the risks could be amplified in a system where confessions play a central role in criminal cases.

“In many corruption investigations, cases are effectively decided based on statements,” he said. “If someone is coerced into confessing to a transaction that never occurred, it could directly lead to asset seizures.”

Wu described a hypothetical case in which a detained individual is being tortured and forced to claim that a third party promised a bribe in the form of property. Even if ownership was never transferred, the regime could still attempt to confiscate the asset.

Under the Chinese regime, it is not uncommon for law enforcement to obtain confessions through various forms of torture.

Such mechanisms, Wu said, could increase the likelihood of wrongful convictions and create opportunities for abuse of power.

For Wu, the controversy goes beyond legal technicalities.

He described China’s governance model as one that has long tolerated, and at times relied on, corruption as a tool of control—what he calls “rule by corruption.” From his perspective, raising the prosecution threshold is not an isolated policy change but part of a broader pattern.

“It signals to officials that they can benefit from their positions as long as they remain [loyal] and serve the regime,” Wu said.

Li Jing and Yi Ru contributed to this report.