[JURIST] Chinese efforts against corruption have led to the conviction and investigation of 14 generals for corrupt financial practices, according to a Monday announcement. Chinese military prosecutors released a notice on Monday, inculpating military personnel of various levels and notoriety in serious legal violations and criminal offenses. Military corruption had been prevalent in China under the previous two administrations and was characterized by embezzlement, military kickbacks and the selling of ranks and positions. The current administration of Xi Jinping [BBC profile] has made efforts to eliminate the current grafting practices by investigating and convicting all levels of military command. The current notice lists investigations of personnel ranging from leading officers of provincial military commands, to Rear Adm. Guo Zhenggang, the son of Guo Boxiong, the retired former deputy head of the Central Military Commission that oversees the armed forces. The notice also publicized [AP report] the conviction and life sentence of a former deputy commander for corruption and illegal arms possession.
China’s efforts against corruption increased upon the appointment of President Xi Jinping in 2013. Last month Chinese officials announced [JURIST report] the impending prosecution of Su Rong, former vice chairman of China’s top parliamentary advisory board, for graft. At the end of last year, Zhou Yongkang [BBC profile], former head of China’s domestic security apparatus, was arrested and removed from the Communist party for accepting bribes, leaking state secrets and using his power to enrich himself and his family. However, efforts by anti-corruption activists have not been met with support. Last April a court sentenced [JURIST report] activists with the New Citizens Movement [WSJ backgrounder] group to jail for gathering a mob to disturb the public. That same month the Beijing Supreme People’s Court denied [JURIST report] an appeal by the group’s leader, resulting in criticisms from rights groups.
Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.