Commentary by the Central Committee on the Central South Bureau’s Directive Concerning the Prevention of Errors in Recovering Illicit Gains (May 8, 1952) This document [1] is hereby circulated to all Central Bureau Branches and forwarded to provincial, municipal, and city-level Party committees for implementation by analogy. Printed on May 8 by the Central Committee from Mao Zedong’s manuscript.

Refers to the directive issued on May 4, 1952, by the Central South Bureau of the CPC Central Committee to its subordinate organizations and submitted to the Central Committee, concerning the prevention of errors in the recovery of illicit gains. The directive states that when the Xuchang Special Administrative Region sought to recover stolen 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 to repay the ill-gotten money. This practice had an extremely adverse impact, brought more harm than good, and must never be repeated.

Henceforth, in all cases involving final adjudication and recovery of illicit gains, the following provisions must be strictly observed: (1) A case must be fully adjudicated before any recovery proceedings are initiated. It is absolutely forbidden to demand money indiscriminately without first ascertaining the truth or the extent of the offense. While recovered funds may serve as evidence of embezzlement, the mere possession of money does not necessarily constitute such evidence. (2) Directly sending personnel to the homes of corrupt officials—especially to the families of working people—to extort the return of stolen property is prohibited. Where the facts of a case are clearly established, the individual concerned shall be required to surrender the funds himself; if he resides at a distant location, the local authorities should be notified to assist in the investigation and to persuade him to make voluntary restitution. If the family members persistently deny any knowledge of the illicit proceeds, the case must be re-examined, further recovery efforts suspended, and once conclusive evidence has been obtained, the matter should be referred to the local court for legal prosecution. Where the family belongs to the worker or peasant class, acknowledges receipt of the stolen funds but lacks the means to repay them, reductions or exemptions may be granted; however, no demolition of dwellings, seizure of draft animals, or confiscation of agricultural implements shall be permitted. (3) When a corrupt official claims that the stolen funds were deposited in a store but can produce no documentation, and the merchant involved steadfastly denies having received them 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 this prudent stance, the reported figures for recovered illicit gains are likely to decline significantly; there is no need to fear such a reduction. Let what ought to fall, fall—that is true realism. To rigidly cling to the original figures, refusing any downward adjustment and persisting in the erroneous practice of extracting confessions through coercion, would be far more detrimental to the Party.