Govt scratching head on how to deal with plethora of fake officials
Con artists often claim to be affiliated with powerful CPC or government bodies such as the Party School (above) and the National Development and Reform Commission (below). Photos: CFP
Just as whistle-blowers thought they had landed another big fish, a middle-aged official who kept a 18-year-old mistress, and were expecting to enjoy the government's reaction, they were told the official and his committee were both fake.
On June 22, the Party School of the CPC Central Committee announced that the school and its affiliated organizations had no staff member named Li Guangnian, and denied ever having set up a Research Center on the Theory of Scientific Outlook on Development.
The school's reaction came after the fake official, the aforementioned Li, publicly alleged that he was director of the Chinese Dynamic Investigation Committee, which he claimed was attached to this non-existent research center of the Party School.
Fake committee
The committee was registered by Li in Hong Kong. Before 2012 it was called the National Dynamic Investigation Committee, founded in 2010 by the Mao Zedong Academic Research Society, according to China Newsweek.
While this latter research center does exist, it is attached to a privately-owned vocational school. This excludes any possibility that Li's committee was official, since the organization allegedly behind it has no ties to the government, the report said.
Many were fooled by Li and his committee, given the difficulty of registering an organization containing China or Chinese in its name on the Chinese mainland. The vast majority of those with such names are affiliated to the government in some regard.
This explains why Li registered the committee in Hong Kong, but this deception might never have come to light unless Li had been found keeping a mistress and exposed online.
Li's purpose in carrying out this trickery is clear. By impressing clients with his fake credentials, he and his team were able to swindle them for large amounts of money.
The committee claimed its aim was to carry out the Party's principles and to provide references upon which to base decision-making. Its investigation branches focused on the latest trends in academia, social and economic development, insurance and the anti-corruption fight and others.
Besides this cross-sector labyrinth of deception, they used other ways to deceive more to confuse people. Their own promotional materials stated that top Chinese leaders personally wrote to the committee, and minister and vice-minister level officials wrote to congratulate them on their work.
Its working office in the Chaoyang district of Beijing also lent the committee credibility as it was nestled next to Chaoyang's public security bureau and people's procuratorate.
Opportunity to strike
One commentator on Weibo, named Xu, alleged that he had frequent contacts with Li and even met him on occasion. He wrote that "Li wanted me to join his committee and head up its Jiangsu branch. But the precondition was that I had to pay him 500,000 yuan ($ 81,550) every year. This made me skeptical so I did some research and found he was a swindler."
Though Li and his team were skilled con artists, what also helped them were the opportunities thrown up by the more nefarious side of Chinese politics.
"Some swindlers can get ahead partly because of their skills. But it should also be noted that some people within the system may use people like Li for their own benefits," Zhong Dajun, director of the Beijing Dajun think tank, told the Global Times.
Some government departments use their power to protect their own interests, and their "needs" provide ideal work for swindlers, added Zhong.
As far as Yi Shenghua, a lawyer with Beijing Yingke Law Firm, is concerned, Li stood out as a con man.
"Li was always trying to show off his official background and his connections within the system, but I don't think anyone with a real such background would be that conspicuous," he said.
Yi said he had figured out early on that Li was a fake, and claims to have alerted the police and the media on several occasions but without piquing their interest.
Yi first heard of Li when one of his friends was deceived out of 3 million yuan. The friend went to Li with an "official" problem which Li said he could solve for that sum of money.
Li failed to help and Yi was contacted to step in legally. Yi aggressively went after Li who was forced to promise to return the money. Shortly after, Yi's client stopped all communication with the law firm, with Yi guessing the money was eventually returned.
The current system is set up in such a way that legitimate intermediaries, as Li pretended to be, are necessary. If local governments want to receive additional support or resources, central government approval is necessary. As explained by Qiao Xinsheng, a professor from Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, such an unofficial lobbying structure is rife for abuse by people like Li.
Some local governments, without doing any background checks, place blind faith in those who claim to have access to, or be representatives of, the central government, said Qiao, who has investigated a number of such cases.
Several cities in South China, which Qiao wouldn't name, were cheated in this manner. A fake official who claimed to work for a ministry said he could get approval for a large-scale chemical plant project. The local government in question showed strong enthusiasm as the official was introduced to them through their own connections.
The city took over about 200 hectares of land from local farmers, and didn't pay farmers before expropriating their land. But their contact turned out to be a smokescreen which promptly dissipated.
Despite such major reversals, there is still a lucrative market for people like Li Guangnian. Ding Shumiao, a businessman who was once close to Liu Zhijun, the former Minister of Railways, was swindled out of over 40 million yuan in one such case, according to People's Daily Online.
Ding was ordered by Liu Zhijun to "lift out" a former top official at the railway ministry, who was jailed for bribery. But the people whom Ding turned to for help failed to get the official out of prison after she had already paid them millions.
Common practices
Such organizations share certain similarities. They imitate the organizational structure of real government entities.
They claim to be following instructions from higher echelons of the government, their executives mimic the behavior, dress sense and even vocal style of real officials. They also make visits to "investigate" rural areas, being received by local authorities and covered by local media, adding even more credence to their deceit.
Zhao Xiyong, who claimed to be a director with the Research Office of the State Council, was caught by police in Liaoning Province on March 22. At that time, another swindler Zou Binyong, who once branded himself as a top official of the National Development and Reform Commission was put on trial in Changsha, Hunan Province.
The major difference between Zhao, Zou and Li is that the former claimed to be representing real organizations while Li represented a non-governmental but affiliated body in the CPC Central Party School. The consequences were the same for them all, however.
Since 2010, Zhao had been making a number of public visits to Hunan and Yunnan provinces but when he began showing up more frequently in Yunnan in 2012, he finally came across the authorities' radar.
He claimed that in 2010 he had become a researcher with the Development Research Center of the State Council, before being "promoted" to director.
Similarly to Li, Zhao was caught after the Research Office of the State Council published a warning on March 8, saying that they had no one on staff named Zhao Xiyong and had never sent any experts to do any sort of investigation in Yunnan.
A list of fake organizations or officials, numbering close to 100, has caught public attention. The list is rife with people claiming to be from such offices as the Chinese quality and credibility association, the Chinese supervision committee on brand quality, and the Chinese environmental protection commission.
Given the size of the Chinese government, it is very hard to tell real organization from the fake ones while also being difficult to carry out background checks, given the paucity of information available to the public.
Wang Yukai, professor with the Chinese Academy of Governance, says there are simply too many organizations or committees. Their management and oversight is not standardized, providing loopholes for crooks, while higher-up bodies cannot keep track and disclose all the fakes in time.