West Taiwan (aka CHINA)

OMG, the scale of these disappearances is absolutely staggering.

The sinister disappearance of China’s bosses

Detentions, public shaming and suicides intensify the country’s corporate gloom

Illustration of a man in business attire being interrogated by shadowy officials in a smoky room with a large portrait of Xi Jinping in the background

Illustration: Simon Prades

Oct 8th 2025|Shanghai |6 min read

Until recently Yu Faxin was best known as a leading scientist and entrepreneur, specialising in advanced semiconductors for military applications. But on September 22nd he made headlines for another reason. His company, Shanghai-listed Great Microwave Technology, disclosed that Mr Yu had been taken away by China’s anti-corruption agency. Mr Yu is in liuzhi, an extra-judicial form of detention in which increasing numbers of Chinese businessmen are being snared.

The country’s entrepreneurs must contend with a lengthening list of worries. Foremost is the economy, which has never fully recovered from the pandemic. Consumer sentiment is tepid at best; overproduction and ruthless competition are rife. Retail sales have shrivelled. The number of lossmaking industrial firms has been hovering at a record high.

But a further set of concerns is growing in prominence. As the economic outlook darkens, China’s institutional shortcomings are making the business elite even more miserable. Official investigations into company leaders are on the rise. So are court rulings that limit their freedom to travel around the country. A spate of suicides among bosses this year is widely seen as evidence of intensifying pressure.

Liuzhi detentions are perhaps the clearest source of unease. When the system was created in 2018 it was aimed mainly at Communist Party members and government officials, part of the anti-corruption crackdown begun by Xi Jinping, China’s supreme leader, five years earlier. It is now frequently directed at businesspeople too.

The system runs parallel to normal policing. Detentions do not require court approval. Detainees are denied the standard services of lawyers. Changes to regulations in June allow agents to hold people for up to eight months, to reset the clock if a new crime is suspected and to interrogate prisoners endlessly. Cells typically have no windows, lights are always on and detainees are often supervised 24 hours a day, even when using the toilet.

This year bosses at listed companies have been vanishing into this grim system at a staggering rate: The Economist counted 39 such cases by the end of September, or about one a week, in stock-exchange filings. That already exceeds last year’s record tally. But it is just a fraction of the broader picture. Most corporate liuzhi targets work for unlisted companies, which are not obliged to explain to investors why their chief executives have disappeared.

Chart: The Economist

Total detentions, including those of both officials and businesspeople, soared by nearly 50% in 2024, to around 38,000, according to statements by the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI), the party body authorised to carry them out (see chart 1). The corporate side of the crackdown appears to be extensive. The CCDI has said it took some form of disciplinary action (including liuzhi) against more than 60,000 people in the pharmaceutical sector and 17,000 in finance last year.

One explanation of why so many bosses have been detained is the rapid expansion of Mr Xi’s corruption crackdown. The number of cases filed is on track to hit a record 1m this year, reckons Gavekal Dragonomics, a consultancy. When an official is investigated, their entire business network can come under scrutiny, leading to a ballooning in corporate cases. Some of the industries facing deepening anti-corruption probes, such as computing hardware and green technology, are tightly connected to local governments through procurement and contracting, notes Zhu Jiangnan of the University of Hong Kong. This puts executives in these fields at greater risk.

Flagging economic growth may also help to account for the rise in detentions. Local governments are short on cash; many have enormous debts. Some CCDI investigations have been characterised as “deep-sea fishing” expeditions, in which an executive is held on flimsy grounds in the hope that the harsh conditions of liuzhi will yield a confession of wrongdoing or the accusation of another wealthy person. The investigators can then seize that person’s (and their company’s) assets.

Of the 39 executives of listed firms lifted this year, more than half were detained by CCDI departments far from their companies’ headquarters. A Chinese lawyer specialising in such cases says this is a sign that one local government is fishing in another’s jurisdiction in search of funds. (The lawyer has asked to remain anonymous.)

Another cause of bosses’ distress is a notorious credit blacklist, to which the names of some of the country’s richest tycoons have recently been added. China’s bankruptcy laws are not fully developed and courts often reach for quick fixes to put pressure on debtors to pay up. One method is to publicly add their names to the list, which bans them from “high consumption”. Those on it may no longer fly, ride on high-speed trains or stay in fancy hotels, among other things.

Chart: The Economist

This credit list may originally have been intended to force people to repay small debts, but entrepreneurs have been herded onto it in recent years as their ventures struggle. A court database shows that by the end of September some 200,000 people had been added this year, up from around 17,400 in the whole of 2019, before the economic rupture of the pandemic (see chart 2). About 46% of this year’s blacklistings were owing to contractual disputes, indicating that business-related activities led to the court rulings.

The fear of falling onto the list is real and may lead companies to take fewer risks. It is thus another “dangerous drag on business sentiment”, says Lizzi Lee of the Asia Society Policy Institute’s Centre for China Analysis, a think-tank. At a time when the economy is badly short of dynamism, “the signal from the current system is that if you fail, you don’t just lose your business; you may lose your basic ability to function,” she says.

The central government has tried to improve conditions for entrepreneurs. In February Mr Xi met a handful of China’s top company bosses in the hope of signalling a reset. A new “private-sector promotion” law was put in place to help spur growth.

But the dominant mood among entrepreneurs has instead stayed gloomy. On September 28th it was revealed that ■■■■ Jianlin, a property tycoon who was once China’s richest man, had been added to the debtors’ blacklist because of a contractual dispute. This ban was lifted a day later but not without igniting a discussion on the dire situation facing some leading business figures. Mr Yu’s detention has had a similar effect. If senior military scientists can be swept into liuzhi, no one is out of the corruption agency’s reach.

The suicides have made matters darker still. Between April and July at least five prominent bosses leapt to their deaths from high buildings, leading to anguished public discussion about the burden on entrepreneurs. The suicide of ■■■■ Linpeng caused particular shock. The founder of a successful department-store chain, ■■■■ was once the richest man in Hubei, his home province. In April he was put into liuzhi. He was freed in late July, but kept on a watch list. His suicide, days after his release, is just one of the few “that float to the surface”, says the lawyer. “There are many more that no one knows about.” ■

3 Likes
1 Like

So what is going on with all these purges and [alleged] suicides?

I’ve seen some very anti-CCP channels on YouTube suggest these are Xi supporters in the military being purged, and it’s now Zhang Youxia who controls the military.
But these channels are very biased and they can’t wait for Xi to fall.

The walls are closing in on Xi, Trump & Putin.

2 Likes

Statement on unsafe and unprofessional interaction with People’s Liberation Army–Air Force

20 OCTOBER 2025

The Australian Government has expressed its concerns to the Chinese Government following an unsafe and unprofessional interaction with a People’s Liberation Army–Air Force (PLA-AF) aircraft.

On 19 October 2025, a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft conducting a maritime surveillance patrol in the South China Sea experienced an unsafe and unprofessional interaction with a PLA-AF Su-35 fighter aircraft.

The PLA-AF aircraft released flares in close proximity to the RAAF P-8A aircraft. This was an unsafe and unprofessional manoeuvre that posed a risk to the aircraft and its personnel.

No injuries were sustained by Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel nor was damage caused to the RAAF P-8A. The safety and wellbeing of our ADF personnel continues to be our utmost priority.

Australia expects all countries, including China, to operate their militaries in a safe and professional manner.

For decades, the ADF has undertaken maritime surveillance activities in the region and does so in accordance with international law, exercising the right to freedom of navigation and overflight in international waters and airspace.

All maritime claims must be consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

2 Likes

Not sure this wins many wars. Ditto insisting on “safe and professional” actions from an adversary.

2 Likes

“The safety and wellbeing of our ADF personnel continues to be our utmost priority.”

Yeah, as if…

If that were true, we’d get the hell out of the South China Sea and bring our military back home where they belong, in Australia, not pissfarting around as the Septics’ deputy sheriff in their imperialistic conflict with China.

Isn’t it strange, our horrified reaction when a Chinese gunboat, while carefully sticking to international waters, circumnavigates our island ? The Chinese aren’t supposed to do that, it seems, but we feel free to buzz around in their local sea.

The job of the Australian Defence Force is to defend Australia, not going off to the other side of the Equator to take the pish out of our number one trading partner at the behest of the Septics. We have 12 permanent Septic bases here in Australia and another 6 rotating ones. That’s more than enough kowtowing without sending our forces up into the South China Sea. Anyway, the official Australian position vis-à-vis China and Taiwan is a One China Policy, so why would we even consider getting involved up there doing the Septics’ imperial dirty work ?

1 Like

Every western military has been doing freedom of navigation through those waters for 40+ years. This isn’t aimed at bending over for the US, it’s to create a level of strategic uncertainty for China and attempt to dissuade them from invading Taiwan.

If China invades Taiwan it would trigger a massive risk of escalation that Australia would struggle to not get caught up in. Even if we backed out of our alliance commitments and burned those bridges, leaving us to shoulder the cost of our own defence alone, any war involving China would decimate the Australian economy. We’d lose our main export market and also the source of much of our imports.

The best thing the world can do right now for collective prosperity is dissuade China from doing something recklessly stupid. It’s in our own interest, not anyone else’s.

3 Likes

I would just change that last sentence to -
It’s in our own interest, it’s in everyone’s interests (this includes china who will not benefit from invading taiwan), and it’s also the right (moral) thing to do.

A previous discussion on here is that Taiwan provides china with a symbolic rallying call for ‘one china national unity’. It allows the CCP to leverage this idea to control and ramp up when needed, patriotic fervour amongst the populace.

This benefits the CCP, and can continue to, without the need to fight a bloody war. As long as the CCP believe Taiwan is defended they are better off continuing with the idea.

2 Likes

Reality is, China is an adversary of Australia. It’s a dictatorship. If China decide to take back Taiwan, Australia will almost certainly follow the US and its allies into war to defend Taiwan. The US have signalled it will defend Taiwan.

Focus for Australia & other nations is to do its bit to dissuade China from wanting to acquire Taiwan. That’s where the energy needs to be directed. Hence why countries are increasing their budget allocations to defence spending. It’s about deterrence. All these deals like AUKUS, rare earths etc are in part about dissuading China from initiating conflict that will result in a major war in this region.

Good news with the Albo / Trump meeting going smoothly, that is another important event that serves to reinforce the strength of the US / Australian alliance. It would’ve been terrible and sent encouraging signals to China if the meeting fell apart in misalignment.

3 Likes

Your point 3 - Agree 100% with 3.

Your point 2 - US might do something halfarsed eg send a frigate and some missiles, but it won’t properly defend taiwan and it will not send US troops to their death, defending one group of han chinese fighting another group of han chinese (the reality that one of these groups is democratic won’t mean much to the US that doesn’t care much for democracy these days). I think this is 99% likely while trump is prez, but probably true of democrats too. This makes your point 3 even more crucial.

Why would US directly go to war with china when the mere threat from putin sends them scurrying down their bunkers? Economically, politically and socially for their own populace, war with china is a disaster which the US will avoid.

Your point 1 - Given 2 I don’t think this will be tested. I think all that taiwan would get from Australia, like from the US, is some indirect support (not troops hands on; not the best US weapons etc), as Ukraine has discovered.

1 Like

Largely agree.

Did read the White House statement on Albo’s meeting. Pretty standard Trump appeasement stuff, with most of it either fluff with no commitment or stuff that was already in place. The US investment into Australian rare earths was interesting, but unsure if that was new. Promising $1T of super fund investment into the US is something that the Aus government has no leverage over to control. It all just struck me as theatre to make Trump feel special.

3 Likes

Most important thing was there was no dust up or embarrassing moments that showed fragmenting of the relationship which likely could’ve been seen as weakness in alliances to a watching world.

It’s the minimum possible expectation of a nation state leader meeting with Trump. Stoke his ego, throw some impressive sounding numbers around of what might theoretically be possible and let his simplistic mind create an imagined deal that he won.

It’s obvious theatre to everyone but Trump. The EU did it, the UK did it, Albo did it. There’s a recipe that leaders are following and it’d be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.

6 Likes

Don’t agree it is sad at all. Love him or hate him, Trump and USA are our most important partner and having a working relationship is very important. I am not a fan of the submarine deal, but Australian Government and Opposition are fully committed and getting the same from Trump is critical.

Doing a deal with rare earths has been years in the making, and I recall it was Turnbull as PM who first tried to get USA on board. There are a number of operating mines here in Victoria who will benefit and development of local processing is a massive win. Just hope the revenues flow into our pockets.

2 Likes

Yeah, I’m a fan of the outcome. I’m more saying that the theatrical stoking of the great orange buffoon’s ego to make him think he got a deal is sad.

Like this, what specific powers does the Australian government have to make this a reality? It’s just palatable fiction or taking credit for a predicted trend.

“Australia’s superannuation funds will increase investments in the United States to $1.44 trillion by 2035—an increase of almost $1 trillion from current levels. This unprecedented investment will create tens of thousands of new, high-paying jobs for Americans.”

1 Like

This. The Super funds are getting so big that they need to look outside Australia to find investment opportunities with the right risk/return characteristics; there is only so much benefit continuing to pour money into CBA, BHP and CSL, and they already own a massive chunk of Australian infrastructure assets.

1 Like

All true but maybe they should make it easier for Aussies to get the critical funding they need for our new technologies. What do you think @Albert_Thurgood ?

In my case, while we did get a commercialisation grant from Government, but in order to export to the World we had to go to USA to get any venture capital which we finally found in Texas. It was just too hard for Australian investors.

2 Likes

There’s a lot of capital available in Australia, but the super funds are incentivised to invest in stable, predictable areas instead of a portion into venture capital. I think there’s also requirements around liquidity that can get in the way.

Getting out of my depth here, but there’s clearly no lack of money in Australia.

Yep there are many local investors, all cashed up, but they just rarely invest in local projects.

2 Likes