Bribery vs charity in Shenzen

A photo grab from CCTV news on Dec 21, 2013, shows Huang Zhiguang receiving a 14-year jail term in addition to confiscation of assets worth 500,000 yuan ($80,050) for multiple crimes, including bribery, at Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court. [Photo/IC]

A graft case in Shenzhen, South China's Guangdong province, that sent a senior local official to jail is under review for the second time after prosecutors objected to a ruling that found donating bribe money to a temple was legal.

Huang Zhiguang, former deputy head of Shenzhen's political advisory body, was sentenced to 14 years in 2013 after he was found guilty of illegally owning guns and accepting bribes worth more than 3 million yuan ($480,300).

Crackdown on graft

In this earlier case, Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled that the sum involved in the bribery cases excluded an additional one million yuan ($160,100) that Huang accepted from a businessman and later donated.

In court, Huang testified that he received a box from businessman Li Yahe that Li said contained local food specialties. Huang claimed he did not know there was one million yuan in the case until he took the case to Jiming Temple and opened it. The sum of one million yuan was eventually donated to the temple for construction in the name of Huang's son.

The Guangdong Provincial People's Procuratorate thought differently and appealed the case so that the "dirty" donation could be handled as part of the bribery charges.

The second trial, which began on Tuesday, has aroused much debate online, with many netizens commenting on bribery and charity. The story has attracted more than 10,000 comments on the news portal Sina within 24 hours, with nearly 90 percent of posts supporting the prosecutors' appeal to add the bribe money to the verdict.

Huang's lawyer insisted in court that Huang did not ask for the money which was used for personal interests. Several Guangdong-based newspapers, however, supported local prosecutors' appeal.

Shenzhen Business Daily published an opinion on its Wednesday edition, saying the initial ruling blurred the line between graft and donation.

The newspaper believed the sum of one million yuan should be categorized as graft although it later became a donation.

The appeal court is yet to announce its ruling.