User Name:     Password:        Join Us
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
▪ China’s Market Regulator Reined in Internet Commercial Ads
▪ Stricter than the GDPR, China’s Privacy Law Provides Prohibitive and Control Oblig
▪ China kicked off the 1st national security review on DiDi
▪ Non-prosecution for compliance under ISO 37301 - Dentons lawyers take the world’s
▪ China’s Data Security Law is anything but frightening
▪ Alibaba fined USD 2.68 billion for abusing dominant market position in China
▪ China’s new “Blocking Statute” and the concerns it raised
▪ Survey result: how is bribery risk managed in China?
▪ China’s Administrative Punishment Law Awards Meaningful Credits for Compliance Eff
▪ Salon | How Would the Sanction on Pompeo and Blocking Measures Impact Foreign Comp
▪ Fees to speakers: academic exchange or commercial bribery
▪ China’s Personal Information Protection Law (2)
▪ China’s Personal Information Protection Law (1)
▪ Reading Into China’s Export Control Law
▪ English Translation of Export Control Law of China
▪ China Issued Its List of Unreliable Entities
▪ Demystify Corporate Social Credit System in China
▪ China is deploying “Operation Skynet” to further “Fox Hunt”
▪ China is to award whistleblowers heavily – foreign companies are more vulnerable t
▪ 130 Chinese headhunters arrested, involving breach of 200 million personal info
▪ Corporate Compliance Programs Evaluation Issued by US DOJ (Chinese Translation)
▪ The prospect is promising to commercialize Level-3 autonomous driving in China
▪ Intelligent and digital infrastructures are scheduled to accompany automatic vehic
▪ Will China illegalize VIEs?
▪ You cannot miss the gold rush under China's new Foreign Investment Law
▪ Classified Protection Under China's Cyber Security Law
▪ China is to fast-track law-making in autonomous driving
▪ What compliance obligations to meet to transfer data from within China?
▪ Chinese government uses digital forensics technology to dig bribery evidence
▪ A Chinese medical device distributor fined CNY 50,000 for bribing with Moutai
▪ How would Chinese E-commerce Law affect you (1)?
▪ Conflict between the culture and the Party’s rules: $70 gift money got a director
▪ "Excessive Pricing" from perspective of Competition Law
▪ Does China prohibit cross-border transfer of scientific data?
▪ Hypermarket Caesar jailed for ten years for giving “reward for go-between”
▪ How is environmental protection tax collected in China?
▪ China Redefined Bribery Anticompetitive in Nature
▪ China is to amend its Constitution
▪ Chinese government vowed to crack down on bribe givers more harshly
▪ China has its own Dodd-Frank; the award for whistleblower could be US$ 80K
▪ Chinese government may LIUZHI a suspect of wrongdoing
▪ Cooking clinical trial data is rampant and now criminally punishable in China
▪ 5th Viadrina Compliance Congress
▪ Does a compliance bird eat nothing?
▪ How Are Drugs Being Sold in China Despite the Anti-Corruption Crusading
▪ Chinese whistle-blower lauded while French boss fled out of China
▪ Life Sentence for Deputy Chief Justice of China
▪ Why Is Chinese Anti-bribery Law a Very Important Compliance Obligation?
▪ The Report on Corporate Compliance Management in China (2016)
▪ Use of "predictive coding" in eDiscovery document review…best friend or job replac
Home > Bribery
Hypermarket Caesar jailed for ten years for giving “reward for go-between”
By Henry Chen | 2018/6/7 9:43:27

Imprisoned for 10 years, the big shot of hypermarket, Mr. Zhang Wenzhong, was announced innocent.  

On May 31st, 2018, the Supreme People's Court of China held a retrial of Mr. Zhang Wenzhong’s case and revoked the original verdict under which Mr. Zhang was found guilty of fraud, making bribes by unit (i.e., Wumart), and misappropriation of funds.  Together with Mr. Zhang, Wumart Holding Group Co., Ltd. (the unit that was found guilty of making bribes) was announced innocent as well.

It is the first of several new trials of convicted entrepreneurs, aiming at reassuring the private sector about the government's caring for private businesses.

Before Mr. Zhang Wenzhong was put into jail, he was in charge of one of the most influential chain markets in China, Wumart – Wumart is among the earliest China mainland companies that was listed with Hong Kong Stock Exchange.  In 2006, pending the criminal investigation, Mr. Zhang was forced to resign from the Wumart.  Later in 2009, Hubei High People's Court sentenced him to 12 years in jail and a criminal fine of RMB 500,000 (about USD 70,000).  Also, Wumart was found guilty of unit bribery (i.e., a unit (vis-à-vis individual) paying bribes) and was fined RMB 5.3 million (about USD 800,000).

That case was quite controversial back then.  The original judgment by the court of appeal found that Wumart had swindled RMB 31.9 million (USD 5 million) out of state funds, and that Mr. Zhang had arranged the payment of a bribe after Wumart’s buying shares held by state-owned enterprises.  His attorney said, "there are serious mistakes in the determination of facts and the application of law in the previous judgment against Zhang Wenzhong."  It was, in Mr Zhang's own words, "a case of serious grievance against common senses."  Zhang Wenzhong has also been bittering about this.

In October 2016, Zhang filed a complaint with the Supreme People's Court which held a retrial on December 28, 2017.  The case was heard publicly on February 12, 2018.

After the retrial, the Supreme People’s Court held that Zhang Wenzhong was not guilty of any of the charges in the case, and announced that Mr. Zhang Wenzhong is innocent, so is Wumart.  The U-turn of the case was hailed to send a signal to private businesses and entrepreneurs that their private property will be under the same protection of the law as the state property.

We congratulate Mr. Zhang Wenzhong. However, companies doing business in China should be mindful of the risks in relation to commission or “reward for go-between,” which could easily fall with the category of bribery.

According to the original judgment, between 2003 and 2004, after Wumart’s acquisition of the shares that China International Travel Service (“CITS”) and Guangdong Yuecai Trust and Investment Company held in Taikang Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Mr. Zhang arranged “rewards for go-between” for now managers of CITS and Yuecai.  The reward was as much as RMB 5.3 million (about USD 800,000).  The reason why Mr. Zhang could be exonerated 10 years later is that Mr. Zhang, as per the exonerating judgment, did not have the intention to bribe.

Bribery is a serious offence under China’s Criminal Law.  There are ten crimes for bribery.  A unit could be the payer of a bribe; a unit (state-owned) could be the recipient of a bribe as well.  A death penalty could be imposed on the recipient of a bribe if the recipient is a governmental official.  You may get access to bribery-related articles of The Compliance Reviews by following the link.

*The author, Henry Chen, is a senior partner of Dentons Shanghai Office, before which Henry Chen was the AP Compliance Director of Ford Motor Company.  Henry Chen is licensed to practice law in both China and the New York State of the U.S.  Henry is the author of the book Risk Management on Commercial Bribery in China.  Henry is accessible via  

Tweet Like Email LinkedIn
There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
    Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Email:    (optional)
URL:    (optional)
  Comment Moderation Enabled
Your comment will not appear until it has been cleared by a website editor.
The Compliance Reviews COPYRIGHT © 2013-19 All Rights Reserved. Supported by International Risk and Compliance Association and International Risk and Compliance Institute Limited. 沪ICP备10034943号-8