FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 24, 2026
Free China Movement Warns PRC Local Fiscal Stress Is Creating a Dangerous Incentive for “Profit-Driven Enforcement” Against Private Entrepreneurs
WASHINGTON — The Free China Movement (FCM) today called for an independent and transparent review of the detention and treatment of Guizhou entrepreneur Fu Guoyan (付国艳) and warned that her case should be examined against a broader pattern already acknowledged by PRC authorities: 趋利性执法 (“profit-driven law enforcement”) and 远洋捕捞式执法 (“deep-sea fishing” enforcement).
FCM warns that intense local fiscal pressure can create a dangerous incentive for authorities to use criminal, supervisory, and administrative powers against entrepreneurs whose companies, bank deposits, real estate, or other assets can be frozen, transferred, fined, or confiscated.
“Economic weakness must not be financed by turning private entrepreneurs into sources of emergency government revenue,” FCM said. “Criminal law must not become a substitute tax system, detention must not become leverage for extracting financial concessions, and confiscation must not become a budget tool.”
Fu Guoyan case raises urgent questions
Public reporting says Fu Guoyan, founder of the 37-year-old Guizhou handicraft enterprise 黔粹行, was taken into supervisory detention in November 2024, subjected to a second detention under another county after the first six-month period, and later placed under RSDL by Cen’gong County police in 2026.
Her family has alleged that investigators pressured her to admit helping conceal RMB 9 million in alleged criminal proceeds. Reporting also says her business revenue collapsed during the detention period and the company eventually ceased operations. These allegations have not been independently adjudicated and should not be treated as proven findings. Source.
FCM said the combination of repeated detention, changing legal mechanisms, restrictions on counsel, severe damage to an operating enterprise, and pressure connected to a large sum of money requires independent review of whether coercive powers were used for financial extraction.
This is a recognized systemic problem, not an invented label
The PRC Supreme People’s Procuratorate has publicly identified unlawful cross-jurisdictional and profit-driven enforcement as a major problem affecting private enterprises. In 2024, procuratorial authorities said they received more than 1,500 relevant leads and selected 31 key cases for special supervision. The SPP has specifically cited unlawful case filing, cross-regional arrests, improper use of criminal procedure in economic disputes, and unlawful seizure, detention, and freezing of company assets. SPP source.
In another SPP publication, National People’s Congress delegate Zhu Zhengfu argued that ending “deep-sea fishing” enforcement requires severing the financial link between local authorities and the proceeds of criminal cases. SPP source.
Other cases show a broader pattern
China Economic Weekly, published by People’s Daily, reported a Zhejiang case in which county police officers traveled across provinces and allegedly suggested that entrepreneurs could “pay money and avoid disaster,” an example publicly described as profit-driven enforcement. Source.
A Chinese Academy of Social Sciences publication also identified the Guangdong One Health Group case and the Xing Yanjun “designated residence” death case as publicly reported examples of “deep-sea fishing” enforcement against private enterprises. Source.
FCM also points to the experience of Wang Xing (王醒), a 1989 NAFUS secretary-general and author of NAFUS and the 1989 China Democracy Movement. Public reporting says Wang was repeatedly imprisoned and subjected to sustained security interference and account inspections while operating businesses in mainland China. Source. FCM is separately preserving Wang’s first-person account of alleged coercive confession, medication/drugging, and a large payment connected to a later release; those specific claims should be treated as testimony until the primary-source documentation is published.
FCM calls for transparency and safeguards
FCM calls for:
- Disclosure of Fu Guoyan’s current legal status and place of detention;
- Meaningful access to independent counsel;
- Disclosure of the legal and evidentiary basis for every coercive measure;
- Independent accounting of all personal and company money, property, bank assets, and business interests frozen, seized, transferred, sold, or confiscated;
- Disclosure of any requested payments, settlements, transfers, or forfeitures;
- Locality-by-locality publication of fine and confiscation revenue;
- Mandatory judicial review and appeal rights for enterprise asset freezes and seizures; and
- A strict separation between law-enforcement budgets, performance targets, and revenue generated from fines or forfeitures.
“PRC local fiscal deficits should be addressed through transparent budgeting, taxation, and economic reform — not through arbitrary detention, coerced payments, selective prosecution, or asset confiscation,” FCM said.
Media Contact:
Free China Movement
FreeChina.live