The illegal fund-raising case of Shandong Jianghai Group has affected over 60,000 families, with an involved amount exceeding 20 billion yuan. Recently, over a hundred victims from cities such as Qingdao, Binzhou, Liaocheng, and Zaozhuang attempted to petition in Jinan, demanding accountability for the top officials involved in the case. However, they were blocked by the police and even administratively detained. Some victims revealed that the case was obstructed at every turn due to the involvement of local governments who had previously endorsed the group.
A victim surnamed Chen from Weifang stated to a reporter from Epoch Times on June 13th that not long ago, victims in a WeChat group had discussed multiple times about going to the government in Jinan to investigate the situation of the main controller of Jianghai Group, An Zhicheng (also known as An Zhibin), and his wife Zhou Chunwei, who allegedly fled to the United States with the funds. However, many individuals were intercepted and detained by the police before departing. “At least two or three people from our side were administratively detained for 7 to 10 days for petitioning in Qingdao. The police didn’t allow us to go to Jinan, let alone Beijing.”
A woman named Xu from Jinan mentioned that the police had already deployed preventive measures: “Our community was blocked off in the middle of the night on that day, and no one was allowed to leave. They said they would detain whoever went out. They also warned us that they knew everything said on the WeChat group. But what about our money? Initially, it was the government backing that assured us to invest.”
According to victims, over a month ago, more than ten victims had been administratively detained for “illegal petitioning.” Recently, over a dozen affected depositors were detained again for sharing foreign media reports or images related to the petitioning scene.
A victim surnamed Chen from Binzhou stated that the public security department had used devices to retrieve deleted text messages and images from WeChat records, questioning whether they were “colluding with foreign forces.” He said, “My friend and I had our phones confiscated for almost two months. They asked us to reveal the lawyer we were instructed to hire, threatening that we couldn’t file a lawsuit, claiming it was to smear Xi Jinping.”
After the “explosion” of Jianghai Group in 2024, a wave of rights protection arose in various regions of Shandong Province. It is reported that the group had over 130 companies in 15 prefecture-level cities, claiming to assist small and medium enterprises in financing, but actually attracting large amounts of private capital through methods like “emergency loan transfers.” Victims stated that the group was able to raise funds widely because the government had previously endorsed it, and the company also held six types of financial licenses. A victim from Weifang said, “They pretended to respond to government calls and deceived us to invest. Without the tacit approval from the higher-ups, who would have dared?”
According to disclosures from victims, over the past month, they had repeatedly attempted to petition to the provincial government and local governments, but were obstructed and suppressed by the police. Many people have since suffered from depression, with some even having suicidal thoughts.
The Jianghai Group case is being handled by the Binzhou City. According to the Sina Weibo account “Information Management Blackboard,” the local prosecutor has arrested over 300 individuals and seized over 300 properties. However, the whereabouts of An Zhicheng and his wife remain unknown. When victims called the Binzhou Public Security Economic Investigation Detachment, the staff stated that they had filed a case for “illegally absorbing public deposits,” with the charges pending court determination, and regarding An Zhicheng’s whereabouts, they claimed to be “not clear.”
Regarding legal recourse, a woman named Wu from Zaozhuang said that victims had tried to collectively hire lawyers to sue Jianghai Group, but many lawyers declined to get involved, stating, “Once they heard it was a government-supported enterprise, they dared not take the case, fearing repercussions.”
Yan Jianfeng, a lawyer from Beijing Yingke (Shanghai) Law Firm, wrote in December of last year that if it was confirmed that the funds from Jianghai Group were directed towards fictitious projects, borrowing to repay old debts, or excessive spending, it would constitute fundraising fraud, and the controlling individuals could face life imprisonment. However, the case has yet to be settled in court, and victims are generally concerned that the situation of “small fries being caught to appease while the masterminds are let go” may become a common occurrence.
A victim named Wang from Zaozhuang told Epoch Times, “The court in Liaocheng recently sentenced a representative of Jianghai Group involved in a 50 million yuan case to only two years. We feel this is a test of public opinion. If no one protests, others will also receive lenient sentences.”
Some victims pointed out that Jianghai Group was not an isolated case. Over the years, Shandong has seen several financial platforms “backed by the government” explode. Currently, under the strong pressure of local stability maintenance, victims find it difficult to petition and have no access to judicial assistance, leading to accumulating social risks.
Regarding this case, a rights-protection lawyer in Shandong, Mr. Cao, mentioned that currently, the Jianghai case has not entered the public trial process, the main suspect seems to have fled, the government’s responsibility is unclear, and rights defenders face a dual pressure of information blockade and legal suppression.
He stated that in Shandong, such platforms that raised funds under the pretext of “political business cooperation” frequently exploded. While local governments try to resolve financial risks, they are also intensifying the suppression of public accountability voices. For the families who have lost their savings in the tens of thousands, their primary concern is not “who will be held accountable,” but “whether this hard-earned money can still be recovered.”