Central Committee’s Comment on the Central South Bureau’s Directive Regarding the Prevention of Errors During Asset Recovery Proceedings

InstrucƟons on PrevenƟng Erroneous Measures
(May 8, 1952)
This document is hereby forwarded to all Central Bureau branches and through them to the party committees of provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions for implementaƟon by analogy.
Central Committee
May 8
[I]
Refers to the instrucƟons issued by the Central China Bureau of the CPC Central Committee on May 4, 1952, concerning the prevention of errors during the recovery of stolen funds, addressed to its subordinate organs and submitted to the Central Committee. The instrucƟons stated that when the Xuchang Special District sought to recover funds from corrupt officials who came from peasant backgrounds, it directly dispatched personnel to rural areas to force their families to dismantle houses and sell land in order to repay the ill-gotten gains. This practice had an extremely adverse impact, brought more harm than benefit, and must never be repeated. Henceforth, in all cases involving final adjudicaƟon and recovery of stolen property, the following regulations must be strictly observed: (1) A case must be fully established before any recovery proceeds; under no circumstances should money be demanded blindly without first ascertaining the truth or the magnitude of the offense. While recovered funds may serve as evidence of corruption, the mere possession of money does not automatically constitute such evidence. (2) It is forbidden to send personnel directly to the homes of corrupt officials, especially to those of working-class and peasant families, to extort the return of stolen goods. Where the facts are clearly established, the individual concerned shall be required to surrender the funds himself; if he is located far away, the local authorities should be notified to assist in the investigation and to persuade him to voluntarily hand over the money. If the family members resolutely deny any knowledge of the stolen funds, the case must be re-examined, and further attempts at recovery should cease until conclusive evidence has been obtained, whereupon the matter may be referred to the local court for legal adjudicaƟon. For families of worker or peasant origin who admit to having received the stolen funds but lack the means to repay them, reductions or exemptions may be granted; however, no demolition of dwellings, seizure of draft animals, or confiscation of farming implements shall be permitted. (3) When a corrupt official claims that the stolen funds are deposited in a store, yet there are no documents to support this claim and the merchant involved steadfastly denies it during the Five-Anti Campaign, a similarly cautious and skeptical approach should be adopted. Hasty affirmation and coercive pressure should be avoided, as they could lead to undesirable consequences. As a result of such prudent measures, the reported figures on recovered funds are likely to decline significantly, but there is no need to fear this. Let what ought to fall, fall—this is the spirit of seeking truth from facts. By rigidly clinging to the original figures, refusing to allow even a single reduction, and persisting in the erroneous practice of extracting confessions through coercion, one does more harm to the Party.