A death sentence for a young Chinese businesswoman chills entrepreneurs | Hacker News Reader

A death sentence for a young Chinese businesswoman chills entrepreneurs

economist.com

171 pointskungfooey70 comments

This Economist article paints a very different picture from the article below:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/18/content_920158...

Businesswoman gets death sentence for defrauding investors out of tens of millions of dollars vs. Businesswoman gets death sentence for fundraising

Well, we know which of the two publications has prepublication review of content by the Communist Party of China.

It raises a valid question: How to find reliable sources for stories such as this?

Is it even possible, concerning the usual secrecy of similar processes?

Chinese forums, if you know where to look. But you have to learn to read Chinese, or find some one/way to translate.

That raises a whole new problem though, which is distinguishing signal from noise, truth from fiction. That's hard, even in North America when some crazy rumour races through Twitter and the media starts reporting on it accidentally as true. It has happened a couple of times. :(

You'll need to participate a lot and then you can start to get a sense on who to trust. Or at least who is sensationalistic, who's logical, etc.

Google translate is certainly a good start to help with this problem. Thanks google. http://translate.google.com/#zh-CN|en|http%3A%2F%2Fbaike.bai...

Doubtful. You think Chinese readers can understand HN conversations with Google Translate? Especially when commenters are trying to be subtle to dance around censors?

You make it sound like the Chinese source is not to be trusted, and you may be right. But this story shows that the Economist is just as trustworthy as any Chinese communist sources (i.e., not very trustworthy).

The Chinese source states: "The money was used for Wu's personal consumption and in paying back the loans and operation costs of her company, said the court."

Now this is a quote from the court which is something that should have been available to the Economist. Nevertheless the Economist made it sound that she was only persecuted for accepting financing from unofficial sources, not that she was doing anything improper with the financing.

A death sentence for running a ponzi scheme sounds like a bit much (but then again I am against most death sentences) but it is a lot less unjust than a death sentence for only accepting financing from unofficial sources, which is what the Economist makes it sound like.

"Nevertheless the Economist made it sound that she was only persecuted for accepting financing from unofficial sources, not that she was doing anything improper with the financing."

I can't agree with that. I read only the Economist article before coming to the comments here, and I managed to figure out that she was being charged with active fraud. I figured it out from things like mentioning a promise of an 80% return on investment, or possibly lending out money she received at usurious interest rates.

I think you may be missing the point of the last paragraph, which is that the plea bargain is to plead guilty to the crime of raising funds in the way Chinese entrepreneurs have been doing, not that she actually did it. She didn't, which why it's a plea bargain, but it's concerning that what she bargained to is a death-penalty crime, apparently.

To be fair, this article seems to be a little shorter than it should be; it requires closer reading than it should. And I'd also point out that she still appears to be getting the death penalty for that charge, which is worth reacting to.

IIRC, financial fraud that makes the country (e.g., from its citizens/organizations) lose a lot of money is a capital offense in China. And also everything you own will be confiscated to pay back to the country.

(If you ignore the "China is Evil" bit for a minute) It kind of makes sense: you steal money from a country, maybe go to jail for a bit, leave the country, reunited with all your stolen money. Not so good.

Yeah, but they're going to execute her.You get that? She going to die.

Playing devil's advocate here -- I'm totally opposed to the death penalty. However ...

From the government's point of view, why should crimes of violence like murder or aggravated sexual assault warrant a harsh punishment, but economic crimes that affect vastly greater numbers of people receive more lenient treatment?

Given that we can approximate a lifetime's productive labour to, say, $1M, a fraud involving multiple millions in stolen money amounts to alienating multiple life's worth of work. Steal $500M and you've done the equivalent of wiping out five hundred lifetimes' work.

If your perspective is that the judicial system exists to punish crimes against the state, then a $500M fraud is considerably worse than the actions of a serial killer.

(That's not the judicial theory we run on here in Scotland, but it's rather closer to the way things work in one-party states.)

Your point makes perfect sense if one is of opinion that human life can be pegged to monetary value at some exchange rate. And this is indeed the founding assumption at which many totalitarian regimes operate.

It is the assumption of every country and society, not just totalitarian ones. Every time we set food, safety, environmental, or medical rules we assume there is an exchange rate between life and money and make our regulations accordingly.

Your point makes perfect sense if one is of opinion that human life can be pegged to monetary value at some exchange rate.

If you hold any other opinion, you are fooling yourself. A lot of people will go to great length to deny it, but if you think about it unprejudiced, you'll have to accept it. There are just too many instances where spending amount X of money can save a life and people make the conscious decision not to do so because X is more than they can or want to afford. Usually they'll rationalize or otherwise hide this reason (or even the fact that they even made a decision), but it's there.

And this is indeed the founding assumption at which many totalitarian regimes operate.

How does this have anything to do with totalitarian regimes?

> If you hold any other opinion, you are fooling yourself. A lot of people will go to great length to deny it, but if you think about it unprejudiced, you'll have to accept it.

Now this is a promising beginning. Put that Randian tone aside if you want to be taken seriously.

> There are just too many instances where spending amount X of money can save a life and people make the conscious decision not to do so because X is more than they can or want to afford.

We're not talking about saving someone's life in varying circumstances. We are talking about cut-off figure that makes e.g. financial crime punishable by death. Those societies that practice it, tend to be totalitarian, with the conversion rate to e.g. RMBs or Soviet Roubles written down in criminal law.

Don't forget that taking enough money from enough people will kill some of them. So you can decide purely on deaths caused without caring about money amounts, but your numbers will be less accurate.

The problem of who decides what's good/bad for 'the state' immediately rears its ugly head. If the government can literally kill political enemies, the people are more likely to rebel. Like imagine if Russia actually executed that tycoon who funds the opposition (who they keep jailing for 'fraud'). At least the death penalty for murder is somewhat objective. Regardless, I think that type of judicial theory is a few methods short in the object factory to start with.

If quantum suicide is real, you and I will hear of her death but she will only find herself in realities where the Communist Party indefinitely delays her death sentence.

Still, a death sentence?

China has the death penalty for many crimes, including tax evasion. This seems to be an appropriate sentence on those levels.

Hopefully there will be people left to run the country after their property and construction bubble pops.

Here are a list of financial crimes punishable by death, per Wikipedia (hope this is a reliable source since there seems to be a debate above!)

    * 12. Whoever, for the purpose of illegal possession, unlawfully raises funds by means of fraud
    * 13. Whoever commits fraud by means of financial bills in any of the following ways:
          o (1) knowingly using forged or altered bills of exchange, promissory notes or cheques;
          o (2) knowingly using invalidated bills of exchange, promissory notes or cheques;
          o (3) illegally using another's bills of exchange, promissory notes or cheques;
          o (4) signing and issuing a rubber cheque or a cheque, on which the seal is not in conformity with the reserved specimen seal, in order to defraud money or property; or
          o (5) signing or issuing bills of exchange or promissory notes without funds as a guaranty, in the capacity of a drawer, falsely specifying the particulars thereon at the time of issue, in order to defraud money or property.

    * 14. Whoever commits fraud by means of a letter of credit in any of the following ways:
          o (1) using a forged or altered letter of credit or any of its attached bills or documents;
          o (2) using an invalidated letter of credit;
          o (3) fraudulently obtaining a letter of credit; or
          o (4) in any other ways.

... AND if the amount involved is especially huge, and especially heavy losses are caused to the interests of the State and the people.

    * 15. Whoever falsely makes out special invoices for value-added tax or any other invoices to defraud a tax refund for exports or to offset tax money if the amount involved is especially huge, and the circumstances are especially serious, thus causing especially heavy losses to the interests of the State.

    * 16. Whoever forges or sells forged special invoices for value-added tax shall, if the number involved is especially huge, and the circumstances are especially serious so that economic order is seriously disrupted.

The problem in China is that the expectation to get caught for any crime at all is very low. The population is huge and it's very easy to get away with tax evasion, financial frauds, etc. Since the expectation to get caught is low, they make up with very harsh sentences.

I think its more than just a population issue. The legal system is not quite as developed as it could be.

For example, the courts don't have a working appeals process. People can appeal, but they have to go to Beijing to plead their case. And the central government punishes the provinces when too many people from their province do this.

So what do the provinces do? Why, they kidnap people in Beijing, of course.

They seem to keep track of people when they try to get justice, but not who's ripping them off.

If they are smart, those in charge would make reforming this situation a top priority. They have a lot of internal dissent. Improving the legal system would help.

Of course, that's probably a very tall order.

This is baidu page for her (in Chinese): http://baike.baidu.com/view/606422.htm

I can't say how accurate/objective it is, but based on the discussions on TV and on the Internet, it seems to be fair, and most importantly, very detailed.

If China had a justice system where trials were carried out in the open rather than in secret behind closed doors and a press blackout, then it would be easier for us to determine the truth...

I don't know.

80% returns?

Really?

She was able to get 80% returns?

GUARANTEED?

This lady kind of sounds like a potential Madoff who got caught early.

Yes, she may be totally innocent. That is one of many possibilities. Having mentioned that... man...

80%?

guaranteed?

Trading Futures?

Maybe the punishment is a bit harsh, but it really does seem she was not totally on the up and up.

And secondly, what kind of a person gives their money to someone promising 80% returns risk-free? Who did she raise this money from?

I mean let's say you're listening to a financial services guy give a pitch over Evian and roasted sweet potatoes with cumin. Right. He says, "I'll get you 80% yearly on your money! Guaranteed! Risk-free!"

Well at that point you and I probably look at each other, and just leave. Who would believe that?

"A bit harsh" is a lot of an understatement. They're talking about killing her.

+1, Cmon how can you kill someone for raising money, regardless of its whereabouts or accompanied false promises...

"A bit harsh", my god, get a grip

Maidoff was rising money as well. Here he spent life in prision; in China they kill. I wish they penalties in US would be harsher. Death is too extreme, but this is China, overpopulated, I never lived there havent been raised so have no idea how their brains work. But the truth is, if penalties in US would be harsher, you wouldnt have 30yrs old pot smoker going to jail for 5 years for 2 joints, while Vacovia washing $700mil of worth cocaine on plane to US and got "penalized" $300mil and nobody goes to jail. Same with real estate bubble. People committed suicides after loosing houses, while Goldman was giving $100mil in bonuses. Wild Wild West in 2011!

How is execution different than 150 years in prison, aside from the chance to be exonerated later? Madoff's life is just about as thoroughly destroyed as Wu's. They will both die in prison.

I dislike capital punishment for several reasons, in particular the greater potential to be applied falsely, but I do not feel that Madoff's sentence is substantially less harsh.

I think the convicted can answer this question better than I. They almost always prefer to keep living.

It'd be interesting to see numbers on how many people serving a life sentence would choose to commit suicide if materials for a painless suicide were readily available. Prisons actively attempt to keep people from doing so, and it's apparently frequent enough to be a major problem at some prisons.

Depression can be a factor here.

I think depression comes with the punishment of life imprisonment, so the ? about the availability of suicide is still valid.

> How is execution different than 150 years in prison

In China, it's much cheaper.

There are ways to generate such returns if you fund illegal activities (being separated from them by an intermediary) – not necessarily drugs/firearms – stealing government funds (kickbacks, abusing authority, etc.) works even better.

Mr/Ms bilboOs... seems your tax return has some discrepancies... possibly serious discrepancies. On another somewhat related topic... Did you say that Ms Wu assured you of... what was that? an 80% return on your investment? That might account for the discrepancy in your return. We can take care of that for you...

The 80% return thing reminds me of: http://sheldoncomics.com/archive/040203.html

However I have to say that claiming 80% returns does not make her a potential Bernie Madoff. Since he promised more reasonable rates of return and kept it going for far longer. Therefore on the surface his ponzi scheme seemed much more legitimate than the 80% return of hers.

Now the other thing that got me in the article was using animal placenta as a beauty treatment. I know people are injecting themselves with toxins, so I guess it shouldn't come as that much of a surprise.

Does this mean angel investing is illegal in China. I am not sure what "raising and pooling money outside the official system" really means.

That's a good question. That seems like important context. What does the "official system" consist of, exactly, and why do so many entrepreneurs apparently raise funds outside of it?

Think of it as the wild west of financial system. People can skew the rules or laws by setting up saving and loan "banks" with promise of high return. Of course these are Ponzi scheme with the latecomers paying off the earlier ones, and eventually the "bank" collapses and the "entrepreneurs" simply disappear while many people lose their money.

So many "entrepreneurs" raising funds outside of the rule and law because they can't satisfy the financial regulations that protect the lay investors. And financial scams are lucrative?

She has "raised" hundreds of millions in this case. People losing the their life savings are furious. I'm sure in this case, these people have asked for her head. People who have had millions to start with are usually in the position of power, and they seem to get their wish this time.

There's more to the story since behind door trials occur when officials get involved.

I believe it's more than that due to the wild speculation.

Angel investing in US has the requirement of being Accredited Investors by law, so no you can't just angel investing willy nilly but follows the law (or "official system").

The comparable scale of punishment is another story; on the other hand a few people would wish Madoff was tried in a Chinese court for defaulting people.

Really? Is there anything similar in the UK? I don't believe there is - but I generally tend to believe there is less red tape around entrepreneurial activities in the US than the UK (we run businesses in both places).

In the uk angel investment is only typically allowed by high net worth or sophisticates investors (definitions below).

High Net Worth Investors

have an income in excess of GBP 100,000 per annum and/or have net assets (excluding primary residence) in excess of GBP 250,000 Sophisticated Investors

have made at least 2 investments in an unlisted company in the last 2 years have worked in the private equity sector or in the provision of finance for SMEs or have been in the last 2 years a director of a company with a turnover of at least GBP 1 million have been a member of an angel network or syndicate for the last 6 months

What strikes me as odd is that she pleaded guilty and helped broaden the investigations and still got a death penalty. This pretty much removes any incentive for a guilty plea and for helping an investigation.

I think it's fairly reasonable to consider whether she is facing capital punishment for financial fraud or for having helped broaden the investigation in the wrong direction.

>and still got a death penalty.

The death penalty alone is better than execution of you and your kids, or better than torture and execution, etc..

I don't think those are options under the Chinese penal code.

  I'd be surprised if there wasn't some form of prosecutetorial discression that couldn't overlook your children's involvment in your business dealings.  Think of Madoff's kids.

This is horrifying and I don't even know where to start examining the problem. Firstly, how do we trust any news source on a case like this when the press is controlled by the accuser? Second, even if the sentence is 'legally correct,' when does the threat of a human rights violation become too important to ignore - should countries be pressured to abolish death sentences (at least) for non-violent crimes? Even if the death penalty is the 'official' punishment to fit the crime, certainly it's a big problem if the actual delivery of that sentence is relegated to a minority of cases in which the government is motivated to prosecute. Of course selective prosecution is a problem with any legal system, but when the sentence is death it is all the more important to monitor cases through a transparent system. It doesn't seem that this kind of transparency is in place. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/23/business/main67982... see: "...the judicial system is overly secretive in deciding on death penalty cases." http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2014070,00.htm... see: "...opaqueness of its legal system."

[@PG and the hacker news team: I think it's pretty important to see some indication of supporting votes on these comments. Please keep considering if you want to bring back that feature in some form. Thanks!]

Ultimately, she was convicted of “illegal fund-raising” for, the court concluded, raising 773m yuan from illicit sources.

What does this MEAN, I wonder? Money laundering? Or?

Hey guys, try and follow the laws of the country in which you live.

Even if you think it's unjust, you can't change it if you're dead.

What if the laws make criminals of ordinary, innocent things. This is pretty much the case in China(and many countries actually) its impossible to live without commiting some kind of crime. Thats how they get you.

This article (inspired by a book, I believe) is relevant:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870447150457443...

Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...

Also read any of James Bovard's books; Lost Rights, Freedom in Chains, Feeling Your Pain, Terrorism and Tyranny, The Bush Betrayal, Attention Deficit Democracy, or Vin Suprynowicz books Send in the Waco Killers and Ballad of Carl Drega or his column on the Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com/columnists/Vin_Suprynowicz.html

Your odds of changing it do not decrease significantly when you die.

I'm of the opinion that you change more by talking with others.

I guess if you become a martyr, it's different.

The law is only just if applied equally. I would have less problems if Chinese authorities prosecuted everyone involved in fraud.

Discretionary application of the law is a worst-case-scenario.

But that's what you have even in Canada and the US if you get down to it. Discretionary = someone made noise about it.

Only the prosecution occurs regardless of who makes the noise, considering only the evidence there was reason for the noise.

I can see you've never been arbitrarily stopped by cops. Lucky you :)

Happens everywhere.

20 year old black guy walking down street gets stopped by cops. Cops find one joint. Punishment: 5 years... he'll serve between 24 and 36 months if he's smart and stays out of trouble inside.

20 year old white guy walking down street gets stopped by cops. (I know, I know, it probably wouldn't happen. Just suspend reality for a moment. You know. Humor me). Again, cops find one joint. DA declines to prosecute. 20 year old white guy is referred to drug treatment options.

> Happens everywhere.

That doesn't make Chinese law enforcement any more just.

China. So close, yet so far away.

Off-topic:

The new comment system where votes next to comment aren't shown anymore is quite interesting. Over the course of a day my comment received about 10 up-votes and now an equal amount of down-votes.

My comment was the first to comment made on this post and in the first two hours or so my comment received all it's up-votes. Then, slowly over the next 24 hours it began to sink.

I think the reason my comment received the down votes is because over time more elaborate comments where made that made my comment look more and more insignificant and out of place.

Now I don't think my comment was great and deserved any up-votes what so ever, but it's interesting to see how not showing the votes next to a comment makes such a huge difference and I don't believe my comment would have been down-voted if the 10 up-votes would have been shown next to it.

Wow, and just when I thought death for mass murderers was a bit too cruel...

Please correct me if I am wrong. Basically she is dying because she defrauded a bunch of rich dudes and created employment opportunities. The rich dudes are pissed and so she is now facing a death sentence? This is pretty screwed.

Sending her to jail is one thing but death sentence. That is just idiotic.

Barbaria.

Edit: I shouldn't attempt irony on the interwebz. Barbaria was said with a wink at history.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com