China's premier turns to lawyers from Jun He and Grandall amid New York Times row
Chinese premier Wen Jiabao’s family has instructed two veteran Chinese lawyers for advice following a New York Times report into its alleged wealth.
Wen Jiabao
Jun He partner Bai Tao and Grandall executive partner Wang Weidong have issued a statement confirming that they are representing the family of Premier Wen and denying allegations made by the New York Times on Friday that the family has accumulated at least $2.7bn in “hidden riches”.
Both lawyers, who are based in Beijing, confirmed their engagement in the high-profile case, but refused to comment beyond what has been said in the statement.
In the statement, first published on Saturday in the South China Morning Post, the two lawyers jointly stated: “The so-called ‘hidden riches’ of Wen Jiabao’s family members in the New York Times’ report does not exist.”
According to the statement, some of Wen’s family were engaged in business activities, but they did not carry out any illegal activity and they do not hold shares in any companies. It added that Wen’s mother receives a salary and pension according to regulations, but has never had any other income or property.
The statement said that the lawyers are considering whether to take legal action against the New York Times.
Both Bai and Wang are senior-level partners at their respective firms. Bai obtained her juris doctor degree from Cornell Law School in the US in 1988 and became a founding partner of Commerce & Finance law firm in 1992 before joining Jun He as a partner in 2002. During her time in the US, she worked briefly in the legal department of GM. Her practice focuses primarily on foreign investment and intellectual property. She is also active in providing pro-bono services to non-profit organisations and is currently serving as vice-president of the Beijing Lawyers Association.
Wang, the executive and managing partner of Grandall’s Beijing office, also trained in the US, gaining an LLM from the University of Minnesota. He is a veteran lawyer in corporate and M&A with experience in the infrastructure, and power and energy sectors. In recent years, he has represented a number of state-owned and privately owned Chinese companies in outbound investments.
There have been few occasions in China when senior political leaders have instructed lawyers to provide legal representation on reputational issues. However, several international lawyers working in China have queried why the lawyers engaged are not defamation lawyers and why Chinese rather than New York lawyers have been instructed.
“It seems hardly the right choice if it’s purely on the basis of expertise,” said one lawyer working in Beijing.
“This is the first time I’ve ever seen anyone from the reputable firms being asked to act as a mouthpiece for Chinese leaders in this way. Yet I expect it’s not the last time,” said a foreign lawyer based in Beijing.
Readers' comments (6)
PR guru | 29-Oct-2012 11:15 am
Don't know who's advising this guy on PR, but trying to sue the NYT over a story you don't want to give publicity to is a crazy strategy.
If you hadn't seen this story yet, by the end of the week you certainly will have.
Moreover, how can Wen prove the NYT is wrong? The NYT can just state its case is solid, refuse to hand over its sources and that is the end of that. What is China going to do, try to extradite the editor of the NYTimes to a Chinese court? And if they think they'll win a libel suit in a New York court vs New York's main paper they're even more deluded.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29-Oct-2012 11:33 am
Many US presidents are super rich! But there are enough public scrutiny in the US. The problem in China is transparency! If people disclose their wealth at the first place, there won't be such big issues like this. The Chinese government is already pushing for publishing government officials' personal wealth. But it's practically hard to achieve, because the information channel are the transparent, and there is not effective way to enforcement.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
anon | 29-Oct-2012 6:01 pm
The other problem is that the Chinese premier is not elected surely.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Montgomery Chen | 30-Oct-2012 0:56 am
It's not merely a question of transparency. It is illegal to own assets overseas without having gone through the SAFE approvals. It is illegal whether held directly or through proxies. In addition, the Party constitution does not allow the amassment of wealth overseas. Add to that the likelihood that the wealth was amassed under dual nationalities, which is also unlawful, and you get a total of very serious risks for the Wen family, including likely criminality. So the NYT allegations are destructive. Of course, the other leaders are probably worse.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Philippa Z | 30-Oct-2012 1:03 am
@PR guru: the NYT cannot simply refuse to hand over its sources if it actually gets sued for libel. But Wen's family will (if they want to go ahead, which I doubt) need to hire NY lawyers as mentioned in Kriegler's article. What the Communist Party has done here is typically moronic: they have Chinese law firms at their beck and call, and have simply instructed these two veteran but unqualified lawyers to issue a clunking denial. And it is the Party calling the shots: for something this serious Wen's family can't just handle things their own way.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30-Oct-2012 3:58 pm
To suggest that th Premier of China turn to a foreign, even U.S. law firm, is a little naive. This is a highly political case and a question of face! Of course, it is only the Chinese top law firm that he can turn to and with Jun He and Gradall he has done exactly that. The fact that the two lead senior partners are not specialized libel lawyers, looks to me like a detail. Much more fascinating is the fact that it is not a goverment spokesman as one would have expected but a pri vate law firm that comes forward with the first reaction. This clould convey a higher degree (and more aggressive) determination to fight these allegations. It might also signal a desire to remain more in control of teh defense (although this may be an illusion.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment