December 22, 2024

Chinese Journalist Said to Be Detained in Beijing

Two copies of an unsigned police warrant dated June 1 found recently by friends in the apartment of the journalist, Du Bin, said that it had been issued for “disturbing order at a public place.” That falls under an administrative statute the police can use to hold people for up to 15 days for minor offenses, said Jerome A. Cohen, a scholar of Chinese law at New York University.

The police could release the detainee during that period, move that person to China’s “re-education through labor” system, or seek a formal criminal charge, Mr. Cohen said.

One friend of Mr. Du said he had heard that the police were investigating the journalist, who is 41, for illegal business activity related to his books, many of which are on politically delicate subjects. It is a charge that officials have used before against Chinese journalists writing books on such subjects even when, as with Mr. Du, the books have been published outside mainland China.

His most recent book, “Tiananmen Massacre,” is mostly a compilation of previously published accounts from various sources of the government crackdown of June 4, 1989. It was released in late May by Mirror Books, which has offices in New York and Hong Kong.

Friends of Mr. Du, a self-taught photographer, also said they believed the authorities had been angered by his work on the hourlong documentary film he recently completed on the Masanjia labor camp and what inmates described as abuses there.

Many of the Masanjia camp’s prisoners are petitioners seeking redress from the state for perceived wrongs. Other prisoners include practitioners of Falun Gong, a spiritual movement that is banned in China.

Mr. Du had also shown the film at least once in Hong Kong, and a version was posted online on May 1.

Mr. Du was escorted from his apartment on May 31 by more than 10 police officers, two of them in uniforms and the rest in plain clothes, according to two friends who had spoken with the landlord’s family. Relatives of Mr. Du said the police had not notified them of his whereabouts or why he is being held.

Human rights advocates say the new party leadership under President Xi Jinping has continued the hard-line approach toward outspoken Chinese liberals and dissidents that characterized the decade-long rule of his predecessor, Hu Jintao. On Sunday, a brother-in-law of Liu Xiaobo, the imprisoned winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, was given an extraordinary sentence of 11 years in prison on fraud charges.

Mr. Du’s photography work, some of which has appeared in The Times, has covered a wide range of subjects, from petitioners to the Three Gorges Dam to the village of Liangjiahe, where Mr. Xi lived for seven years during the Cultural Revolution. Among the subjects of his books are Mao Zedong’s reign, the Japanese invasion of China and the rebel artist Ai Weiwei. A novella, “Toothbrush,” is set in a dystopian society ruled by a single party.

Jonathan Ansfield contributed reporting from Beijing, and Chris Buckley from Hong Kong.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/world/asia/chinese-journalist-beijing.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: An Agreement Opens Some Chinese Audit Papers to the U.S.

James R. Doty, center, chairman of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, an independent agency that oversees accounting firms.Philip Scott Andrews/The New York TimesJames R. Doty, center, chairman of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, an independent agency that oversees accounting firms.

Accounting regulators in the United States and China announced on Friday in Beijing that they had reached an understanding that could give American fraud investigators access to work papers of Chinese audit firms. Until now, American efforts to see such papers have been rejected.

The memorandum of understanding was signed by the China Securities Regulatory Commission and the Ministry of Finance for China, and by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board for the United States.

“This agreement with China is an important step toward cross-border enforcement cooperation that is necessary to protect the interests of investors in U.S. capital markets,” said James R. Doty, the chairman of the American group.

Whether the agreement will result in more cooperation remains to be seen, however. China retained the right to reject requests if they violated Chinese law or “essential national interest.”

In addition, the agreement covers only enforcement actions, not routine inspections of audit firms.

In an interview, Mr. Doty called the agreement “the culmination of years of effort” and voiced hope that progress could be made this year on arranging joint inspections of Chinese audit firms by the two countries. He said it could lead to cooperation that would be equal to that now provided by European authorities.

Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act passed in 2002, accounting firms that are involved in the auditing of companies whose securities are sold to the public in the United States must register with the American board and submit to inspections by it. Many Chinese firms have registered, but no inspections have taken place. In addition, the Securities and Exchange Commission has sought work papers from Chinese audit firms as it investigated a string of frauds but has been turned down because the firms said they would be violating Chinese law if they turned over the papers.

Mr. Doty said that the inspectors from his board had been able to “observe the quality control reviews” of Chinese firms, made by Chinese regulators, but had not been able to observe reviews of actual audits.

Under the new memorandum, he said, if the board is investigating a potential fraud, it will be able to ask for papers from the Chinese audit firm through the Chinese regulators. The securities commission regulates the larger firms, but many smaller ones are regulated by the finance ministry. The regulator would then decide whether to forward them to the American inspectors.

If such papers are supplied to the United States board, they could then be obtained by the S.E.C. But the board cannot investigate other types of violations of securities laws, like insider trading, and therefore could not seek documents related to other investigations.

The American board has the power to revoke the registrations of firms that cannot be inspected, but it has not chosen to do so with overseas auditors and probably would not do so without approval of the Treasury Department. Mr. Doty said that such an action had not been ruled out, however, if additional progress was not made.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/an-agreement-opens-some-chinese-audit-papers-to-the-u-s/?partner=rss&emc=rss

The Price of Ivory: An Illicit Trail of African Ivory to China

“We call them bloody teeth,” said Xing, a furniture maker and ivory trafficker who is part of a shadowy trade that has revived calls for a total international ban on ivory sales.

To the outrage of conservation groups trying to stop the slaughter of African elephants and the embarrassment of Chinese law enforcement agencies, Xing’s thriving ivory business is just one drop in a trail of blood that stretches from Africa, by air, sea and highway, to Chinese showrooms and private collections.

“The Chinese hold the key to the elephants’ future,” said Iain Douglas-Hamilton, founder of Save the Elephants. “If things continue the way they are, many countries could lose their elephants altogether.”

Critics say the Chinese government is not doing enough to stem the illicit ivory trade, which has exploded in the five years since conservationists and governments agreed to a program of limited ivory sales intended to stifle poaching and revive a centuries-old handicraft. Since the beginning of 2012, more than 32,000 elephants have been illegally killed, according to the Born Free Foundation, a wildlife organization, and conservationists say the majority of ivory sold in China, which sells for more than $1,300 a pound on the black market, is of questionable origin.

Legalized ivory sales have been a boon to carvers and brokers, who have helped fuel the demand for ever greater supplies. But those who investigate the trade in China say the skyrocketing sales — and the incentive for poaching — can be tied to a combination of incompetence by law enforcement and official corruption, especially by the military.

The only way to save the African elephant, conservationists say, is to outlaw the sale of ivory entirely.

Though the clandestine nature of ivory smuggling makes it difficult to fully map out, experts say Africa’s elephants are being slaughtered at the highest rate in two decades, largely to satisfy soaring demand among China’s growing middle class. “China is clearly driving the illegal ivory trade more than any other nation on earth,” said Tom Milliken, an elephant expert with the wildlife trade-monitoring network Traffic.

Things were meant to turn out differently. In 1989, the United Nations-backed Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or Cites, banned the sale of ivory in an effort to stop what conservationists say was an elephant “holocaust.”

But as herds recovered, Cites officials in 2008 agreed to a contentious one-time auction of stockpiled African ivory to Japan and China, with the money going toward wildlife conservation. As part of the arrangement, the Chinese government introduced a complex documentation system to track every trinket and carving produced from the 68 tons of auctioned ivory it won. Supporters hoped a flood of cheap, regulated ivory would undercut the illegal trade, saving more elephants.

The sale, however, has proved to be a colossal failure. Like the forest canopy that protects poachers from detection, the regulated ivory trade has provided unscrupulous Chinese carvers and collectors with the ideal legal camouflage to buy and sell contraband tusks.

Things went wrong from the start, and wildlife groups say the Chinese government is partly responsible.

After obtaining the auctioned ivory at artificially low prices, state enterprises in China began selling limited amounts to carving factories for up to eight times the winning bid. Instead of smothering the sale of illicit ivory, the spike in prices made poaching even more attractive.

In 2011, for example, auctioned ivory fetched about $94 million, double the previous year’s total, according to the China Association of Auctioneers. “Buyers wouldn’t even take home the carvings they bought before putting them up for bid again,” said an employee with a major Beijing auction house who asked for anonymity because of the sensitivities involved.

Even though the Chinese government in 2011 barred auction houses from selling ivory, sales continue — as does the bloodshed.

The Chinese Market

First opened in 1898, the Old Phoenix Auspicious Jade and Ivory Carving Company in Shanghai is a tradition-bound shrine to China’s newfound prosperity. Its shelves bulge with cabbage-shaped jade carvings and coral broaches, though customers mostly come for the blindingly white array of ivory bookmarks, chopsticks and idols. In one corner, spotlights illuminate a large tusk carved into a 360-degree-panorama of pagodas, palm trees and robed scholars. The price: about $205,000.

Shi Da and Mia Li contributed research.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/02/world/asia/an-illicit-trail-of-african-ivory-to-china.html?partner=rss&emc=rss