The freezing of personal assets of Apple Daily founder Lai Chi-ying under the Hong Kong National Security Law is another milestone in the abuse of this law “in accordance with the law” (in official parlance). In fact, this is not technically the first time this law has been used to freeze personal assets. According to Liu Kang, an 18-year-old student living in exile in the United Kingdom, his HSBC account was also frozen, but his entire assets were only in the tens of dollars, so he did not attract much attention.
Apple Daily’s Next Media Group, as a listed company, naturally cannot be regarded as the private property of the majority shareholder, Lai Chi-ying, so theoretically, the HKSAR government can only freeze his personal account, the Hong Kong account of his private company, as well as his stock holdings, including Next Media Group, so it did not directly freeze Next Media’s account. Although the group’s land assets in Taiwan are said to be very valuable, cash flow has always been a big problem, and I believe that because of this “basket” of reasons, the paper “Taiwan Apple Daily” can no longer hold up. Although the system of Apple Daily should have some overseas accounts, when all the assets of the major shareholder Chi-Ying Lai are frozen, it is a question that everyone will think about whether the group will have enough cash flow to sustain itself soon.
Naturally, it is difficult to know whether there will be other follow-up actions, but since the Hong Kong National Security Law is omnipotent, I am afraid there are many things that can be done, such as freezing the assets of other Apple shareholders or senior management “suspected of violating national security”, which will not only put everyone at risk, but also make the cash flow of the company concerned more difficult. According to the National Security Law of Hong Kong, the government can not only freeze assets, but also confiscate them directly. If the government directly confiscates more than 70% of Lai Chi-ying’s shares, the government has already become the majority shareholder of Apple Daily, and then it can sell or dissolve the company, all “according to the law”. Whether or not to go this far is entirely up to the Secretary for Justice.
This is the law.
And this law, we read the provisions, found that it does not necessarily target people. According to the published “implementing regulations”: if “a property is property related to a crime against national security, a written notice may be given to direct that no person shall deal with the property”. In other words, if the Apple Daily, or even the entire Next Media Group, is directly classified as such “related property”, it is already sufficient to freeze the entire group’s funds, so that it can not pay salaries, so employees actually have no choice but to leave. Even if it is immediately crowdfunding, one, now the “new Hong Kong” will almost certainly be treated as “money laundering”, or may even be the National Security Law to deal with; secondly, distant water can not put out a fire; third, legally, that also requires a new framework, the old contract may have been invalid, and the government To freeze this new framework, the same can be done to cook the bowl.
The irony is that, on the contrary, because the meat follows the chopping block (in fact, who in Hong Kong is not), “Apple Daily” in the end how to be “rectified”, but there is still a certain “suspense”. What is most noteworthy is not this single case, but whether such extraordinary measures will become the norm in the business environment. To understand this issue, as SAR government officials often emphasize, it is indeed quite important to understand the national situation.
China’s “tiger hunting” package: death penalty, deprivation of political rights for life, confiscation of all personal property
The “family raiding” provisions of the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law are in fact part of China’s national conditions, and can be said to be directly transplanted from the Chinese Constitution “according to law”. Why is it that Chinese tycoons are full of insecurity, while Western tycoons are always at ease, such as former U.S. President Donald Trump, who has declared bankruptcy several times? Zhang Hongjie, a scholar of Chinese history who teaches at Renmin University, in his new book “China under the World History Benchmark,” takes a macro-historical perspective on the big differences between the East and the West, mentioning that the rule of the state by legalism (or “Confucianism”), which deliberately suppressed businessmen and made them feel insecure, was the main reason for China’s failure to develop a humanistic spirit such as liberalism. This is the main reason for China’s failure to develop a humanistic spirit such as liberalism.
Let us refer to Article 13 of the Chinese Constitution: “The lawful private property of citizens shall be inviolable. The state protects the private property rights of citizens and the right to inheritance in accordance with the law. The State may, in the public interest, expropriate or requisition the private property of citizens and pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the law.”
Now we are getting used to the “Chinese law”, should also know how to interpret such provisions. The Constitution is solemn and sacred, guaranteeing that “legal” private property is inviolable, meaning that when the government says your private property is “illegal” (e.g., in violation of national security laws), it can just “legally “lawfully” violated. Another example is that the Constitution says that the state protects citizens’ private property rights and inheritance rights “in accordance with the law,” which means that citizens can be raided “in accordance with the law” if they “violate the law. As for the constitutional guarantee of expropriation and confiscation of private property “in accordance with the law,” any reason given by the government must be “in accordance with the law,” just as under the Civil Code, “violation of national security” As for “compensation”, naturally, it does not provide a reference that meets the clear and measurable criteria of Western logic, not necessarily the market price, and according to the practice of “public-private partnership” in the 1950s, “compensation” is purely symbolic. Compensation” is purely symbolic, and those who are “expropriated” need to shed tears of gratitude because they can share the glory.
The law is such that if it is not always enforced, it is still prepared but not used. However, “the right is not exhausted” is not in line with today’s situation, so the above-mentioned clause is often enforced. Especially for political prisoners, the usual “according to law” package is the death penalty or life imprisonment + deprivation of political rights for life + confiscation of all private property, for example, the most sensational “big tiger” Bo Xilai and Zhou Yongkang, both enjoyed such treatment.
Lai Chi-ying’s shares in Next Media alone have a market value of more than HK$300 million, and with his private company’s local account, the total amount frozen is naturally considerable for the average person. In terms of private assets, Zhou Yongkang and Bo Xilai are probably far ahead of Li Zhiying, but they are still small compared to China’s top-tier tycoons. Wu Xiaohui, the CEO of Anbang Insurance, is probably even more powerful: his official fortune in his heyday was about 10 billion yuan, and his unofficial fortune is said to be more than $10 billion. His current wife is the granddaughter of Deng Xiaoping, and the mastermind behind Anbang is said to be Chen Xiaolu, son of Marshal Chen Yi, so the crackdown on Wu Xiaohui is a “deep water” that we can only guess at.
After his arrest, Wu Xiaohui was apparently sentenced to 18 years in prison, four years of deprivation of political rights and confiscation of 10.5 billion yuan; however, the court soon added that he would have to recover another 75.24 billion yuan of “illegal gains”. However, the court added shortly afterwards that it would recover another RMB 75.24 billion in “illegal proceeds” from him. With such a figure, I wonder how it can be paid in real money, or will more people be implicated? As for Chen Xiaolu, who coincidentally died after the case, it reminds us of another Chinese tycoon, HNA Chairman Wang Jian, who died unexpectedly in France more than two years ago, and then his HNA shares, with a market value of about 10 billion yuan, were donated unconditionally to the state charity; this year, HNA finally went bankrupt.
I am afraid that the CCP’s characterization and conviction of Li Zhiying’s case has long been written: it is not “fake news” but has been publicly and repeatedly certified by national officials and the national public opinion machine, and whether this is in line with the spirit of the presumption of innocence (of the law we used to be familiar with) naturally does not apply because “it is a matter of national security ” does not apply. Whether we like it or not, this is the law that Hong Kong must abide by “by law” at this moment. The central figure of the pro-establishment camp has argued that if the NPC had not “stepped in”, it would have been possible for the Legislative Council to pass such a law, which is also not fake news, but a big old truth.
Recent Comments