Three decisions found that the bribe of Chu Man-gwan to $2.25 million remained unrecovered: the Hainan Claims case exposed arbitration, courts, and the public security cross-interest chain

(a) The real control of the property of the United States of America, Chu Wangui, who has been convicted in three criminal judgements in force of paying a total of $2.25 million to arbitration and court officials, but has not yet been held criminally responsible for these bribes; The strong victory with the claim dispute was followed by a charge of fraud and detention for over 900 days. <a href="https://chinadigitaltimes.net/chinese/732065.htmlThe most noteworthy case is not a single debt dispute but the same chain of interest that has emerged between arbitration, the courts, public security and criminal prosecution.

The decisions entered into force and found that Chu Man-gui had paid $1 million to the former Deputy Secretary-General of the Henan Arbitration Commission, $900,000 to the Vice-President of the Henan High Court, Zhang Jia Yi, and $350,000 to the former Vice-President of the Henan High Court. The total amount of the three cases was $2.25 million. The key issues are the successive convictions of the bribe-paying person, the fact that the bribe is in force and the fact that the money-seller is not subject to the corresponding criminal prosecution for the acts for which it has been judicially confirmed.

This chain of interests then extends to the public security chain. for the investigation of the alleged fraud case against Liu Xiao Bai, a police officer who was responsible for Zhexi Xingxiang and Liu Xiao Bai, received $150,000; The effective judgement also found that the purpose of the money delivery was to facilitate the processing of evidence in the fraud case. Liu Lingxiang was subsequently sentenced to seven years and nine months in prison for bribery. In other words, the police officers directly involved in the case against the creditor are themselves in the chain of bribes by Chu Man-gil.

The situation of the ruling side is another strong contrast. His private borrowing dispute with UWC has passed through proceedings such as the Oberro Central, Hubei High Court and the Supreme Court, and his claim has been confirmed by an effective decision; After the execution of the United China Company, which was 51 million yuan, Zhangsei-sheng and Liu Xiao Bai were reported as being involved in “false litigation” and the Haiguchi prosecution service subsequently charged the sum of 51 million yuan with fraud. A claim that has been confirmed by a number of civil jurisdictions has been re-involved in criminal proceedings, and the prosecution must indicate what new evidence of crime has emerged that is sufficient to reverse the judgement of the previous decision on the authenticity of the claim.

Even more serious, Tsai Sheng has been in detention for over 900 days. The case was completed in 2025 in a hearing and in 2026 in a new session in response to a change in the Full Court, and has not been pronounced since. The prolonged detention, repeated court sessions and the incorporation of cases further deprived a case where there was a doubt about the existence of a right-and-money relationship of a clear procedural boundary.

In August this year, several investors and creditors reported to the Henan Public Security Department, under a name, charges of alleged black and evil crimes, including violent takeover projects, bribery of judicial personnel and use of litigation and criminal proceedings to settle debts. Overseas China Watch' > In August this year, five investors and creditors, Zhang Zhengu, Zhang Zhiqing, Liu Xiaobai, Zhang Zhishengxiang and Tong Qingjun, reported to the Henan Public Security Department that he is suspected of a criminal offence. These reports are still subject to legal investigation, but they are read in conjunction with the multiple bribery judgements that have entered into force, and they are not based on false speculation but on a claim of responsibilities based on established judicial facts.

New proxy conflicts of interest disputes also arose in the case. In September 2026, UC-Wah changed his criminal prosecution agent and was brought before the court by the director of the Beijing Bei Doo Ding Song law firm, Kun Jiu. He was the one who defended Zhang Jia Hui, Vice-President of the Hae Nam High Court, and the fact that Chu Man-gwan-guk bribed Zhang Jia Hui $900,000 was the result of the judgement. The fact that the party that is the most esteemed party disputes the conflict of interest on this basis and whether and how the court deals with it will further affect the credibility of the trial.

The real puzzling of this case is that the judicial system has confirmed that a number of arbitrations, courts and public security officers have received Chuwan's valuables, but that Chuwan's personal identity as a figure in the centre of the truth of bribery has not yet been pursued for the $2.25 million bribe; Rather, the party with whom the dispute arose was transferred to criminal prosecution and prolonged detention after the civil decision to confirm the claim. Such a structure, without open and complete judicial interpretation, would allow “penalized debt” to be transformed from a defence charge to a reasonable public suspicion that the judicial power is manipulated by interests.

The Hainan judiciary is not facing an ordinary fraud case, but a chain of power and money that has been partially confirmed by the judgement. To restore the credibility of the case, three things must be answered: why Chu Wangui was not held accountable for the bribery that was found; (b) Whether the police officers who received their belongings contaminated evidence of fraud; Claims that have been confirmed by multiple civil courts are re-defined as fraud in criminal proceedings. As long as these contradictions continue to be dealt with in a fragmented manner, it will be difficult for justice to emerge from the challenge of selective accountability.