On a recent occasion, China has stirred international apprehension by issuing exit bans on a Wells Fargo executive, Mao Chenyue, and a U.S. government employee affiliated with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Such actions have raised red flags regarding the multifaceted nature of China’s legal and security framework, and they rekindle concern about the precarious situation for foreign companies and nationals operating within its borders. The implications of these bans are significant, highlighting the complexities and risks that foreign citizens face in China.
Exit bans are not uncommon in China; they are frequently deployed by authorities to inhibit individuals suspected of offenses from departing the country. In some instances, these actions are genuinely justified due to legitimate allegations, while in other cases, they may serve political motives, according to experts. The timing of the latest bans is particularly notable as they coincide with China’s efforts to encourage foreign investment. This move could inject additional uncertainty into the ongoing trade talks between the U.S. and China, especially in the lead-up to an impending tariff deadline on August 12.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in China announced on a Monday that Mao Chenyue’s exit ban stems from her involvement in a criminal case, compelling her cooperation with the ongoing investigation. Yet, details regarding the specific allegations remain undisclosed. Concurrently, U.S. State Department representatives confirmed that an employee from the United States Patent and Trademark Office is also barred from leaving China. They affirmed their commitment to ensuring the safety of American citizens abroad and expressed their diligence in working with Chinese officials to resolve these matters promptly.
Reports unveiled that the U.S. employee has been under scrutiny since mid-April, with interrogations focusing on his background with the U.S. Army. However, neither the State Department nor any other official sources have disclosed his identity. Indications suggest a growing concern within the U.S. diplomatic circles regarding China’s arbitrary exit bans, which they believe adversely impact bilateral relations. Over the years, such bans have targeted both foreign nationals and Chinese citizens, frequently without an apparent, transparent resolution process.
Legal expert James Zimmerman, based in Beijing and a former chair of the American Chamber of Commerce in China, pointed out that these exit bans are not a new phenomenon. They are often utilized during investigations to prevent individuals identified as potential flight risks—such as suspects or key witnesses—from leaving the country. Despite legitimate reasons hampering some bans, misuse of these laws for political reasons is common. Although there are procedures for appealing exit bans, the ambiguity and lack of a functional bail system make it considerably challenging for individuals to lift them effectively.
The prevalence of exit bans in China remains unclear as authorities do not disclose these figures. However, it is acknowledged that Chinese citizens are more frequently subjected to exit bans than their foreign counterparts. Numerous human rights lawyers, activists, and dissenters have found themselves entangled in such restrictions. In 2022, the Dui Hua Foundation estimated that at least thirty Americans were facing similar bans. Often, these restrictions extend to individuals indirectly associated with any investigations.
The potential reasons for the imposition of exit bans can range from participation in alleged criminal activities to demands for cooperation in legal inquiries. As early as 2019, the U.S. government issued travel advisories urging American citizens to “exercise increased caution” in China because of such practices. Reports indicate that the Chinese government might employ these bans to compel foreign nationals to cooperate in investigations, lure them back to China from overseas, or facilitate the resolution of civil matters favoring Chinese entities.
In one controversial case from 2018, American individuals Victor and Cynthia Liu were detained to apply pressure on their father, Liu Changming, a fugitive wanted for financial crimes in China. These examples illustrate the methods used by authorities to influence foreign relations and leverage the judicial system for political gain.
Furthermore, Zimmerman mentioned that foreign individuals engaging with China’s state-owned enterprises (SOEs) may also become targets of exit bans. The Central Commission on Discipline Inspection, the Communist Party’s top anti-corruption body, has ramped up investigations into such enterprises in recent years, applying exit bans to foreigners who may be integral to these investigations.
Recent legislative developments indicate a broader expansion of laws concerning national security in China, allowing the government greater latitude when implementing exit bans on both locals and foreigners deemed potential threats. In a 2023 amendment to the counterespionage law, China now permits exit bans for individuals under suspicion of being national security risks once they leave the country. A report by Safeguard Defenders pointed out that significant portions of the population are under exit bans, not including ethnic minorities in regions like Xinjiang, who face extra scrutiny.
These systemic issues haven’t gone unnoticed within the international community. A Japanese executive for Astellas Pharma was sentenced to prison based on espionage charges; such actions generate mistrust among foreign enterprises operating in China. American and other foreign nationals are increasingly anxious over the prospects of traveling to China for business ventures, particularly given the unpredictable nature of
