To bring back corrupt officials who have fled abroad, China must sign more extradition and asset-recovery pacts with other nations

The basic principle of modern justice, that illicit property shall be confiscated or returned to the victims, applies to not only domestic but also international laws. Chapter V of the United Nations Convention against Corruption contains the basic principles that signatory countries should abide by while taking legislative and other measures so that when another signatory party seeks assistance they can help it recover the assets it has lost because of corruption.

China has suffered heavily because of corrupt officials and criminal suspects who, according to a 2011 People's Bank of China report, have fled abroad with at least 800 billion yuan ($128.8 billion). "Fox Hunt 2014" has succeeded in bringing back only some of the corruption and criminal suspects who have fled abroad. Most of the corrupt officials are still at large and the wealth they have illegally amassed is far from being recovered.

The case of Bo Xilai, former member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, is an apt example. While he was facing trial last year, the court found that his wife and co-accused Gu Kailai had purchased a luxurious villa in France, but up to now the illegal asset has not been confiscated.

There are reasons why corrupt officials' illegal assets abroad are difficult to seize. The legal prerequisite for recovering officials' illicit assets is a court verdict declaring them guilty of corruption. Without such a verdict, Chinese judicial officials cannot approach their foreign counterparts for help. And since the majority of corrupt officials are yet to be arrested, China cannot recover their ill-begotten assets.

Another problem is that even if a Chinese court rules that an official is guilty of corruption, foreign courts could refuse to accept the verdict, either because of misunderstanding or for lack of trust in China's judiciary.

Also, many corrupt officials divert their illicit earnings to their family members' bank accounts, which is often included in Chinese courts' rulings. But this is something foreign courts often fail to recognize; they question why the corruption charge against one official involves the bank accounts of his/her family members, and tend to deny the requests of Chinese courts.

Besides, despite the culmination of the legal process, some foreign governments are reluctant to help seize the corrupt officials' assets, because many such officials have invested their money overseas which boosts the local economy.

Even if all the barriers are overcome, foreign governments often demand a share in the recovered assets. The demand may not be totally unreasonable, because foreign countries have to use their judicial resources to help China. But Chinese authorities tend to seek "total recovery" as a sign of justice, which causes misunderstandings.

To make the seizure of overseas assets of corrupt officials more effective, China needs to make more efforts in the following areas.

It should intensify talks on extradition and asset recovery agreements with other countries. By the end of last month, China had signed 39 bilateral extradition treaties and 52 legal assistance treaties on criminal affairs. But most of the treaties have been signed with developing countries when most of China's corrupt officials flee to developed countries.

Moreover, there is only one treaty specifically on assets recovery - the one signed with Canada last June. China needs many more such treaties to ensure that the national wealth looted by corrupt officials returns home, but it has to be firm with the conditions, because some countries demand up to 80 percent of the seized assets as their share.

Another worrying factor is that the organizational nature of anti-corruption agencies is different in different countries. For example, the disciplinary committees of the CPC have hardly any equivalent bodies overseas, so many countries don't know how to deal with their requests. To solve this problem, China should empower procuratorates at various levels, which have equivalent departments across the world, to handle international cooperation in corruption cases.

Of course, that would require domestic judicial agencies to form a professional team. Although the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection has a special office, its 30 officials are far from enough to handle all the jobs. So a bigger committee has to be formed to hunt down the "foxes" and recover China's lost assets.

That will be a long process because even though several countries have vowed to support China's anti-corruption campaign, the detailed implementation will not be easy. There is no reason to be pessimistic, however. With China determined to advance the rule of law and eliminate corruption, it is definitely possible to recover the nation's lost assets.

The author is a professor at and deputy-director of the Research Center for Clean Government, Peking University.