Shanghai executive’s family alleges 100m yuan police demand

SharpPost newsroom | 21 September 2026

In 2026, the family of Shanghai businessman Zheng Shuai has continued to press courts and prosecutors to explain his detention and why his case has yet to reach a verdict. No verdict had been issued as of a Fa Yu Qing report by Wu Yingjiao and Liu Hu republished by Sina Finance on 19 September 2026.

The family alleges that police in Shaoyang county, Hunan province, demanded 100 million yuan after taking Zheng from Shanghai in 2024, offering release and a promise that he would not be prosecuted. The case has since involved release pending trial, a further arrest and a court hearing. This year, his relatives have continued asking why there is still no judgment.

2024: Detention, payment and release, then another arrest

Fa Yu Qing identifies Zheng as the legal representative of Shanghai Maisi Technology, which an overseas client hired to develop software with virtual private network, or VPN, functionality. According to the report, Shaoyang county police took him from Shanghai on 8 January 2024. He was held in a hotel from 12 January to 26 February under what the report describes as residential surveillance at a designated location. His family alleges that officers repeatedly pressed him to raise money during that period.

SharpPost has viewed the full video of the conversation. Its on-screen timestamp reads 6 February 2024. One man lies in bed while another discusses payment and the handling of his case, claiming he can arrange for the man not to be prosecuted despite conduct he says constituted an offence. The speaker also refers to a deputy county head surnamed Yin setting the amount at 100 million yuan. Fa Yu Qing identified him as Tang Zhanxiong, then deputy head of the county public security bureau.

The speaker also claims to have discussed the case with the county procuratorate, court and political and legal affairs commission, and to have broadly agreed on an approach with the procuratorate and court. He cites local fiscal difficulties as a reason for collecting the money. Whether those bodies agreed to such an arrangement requires documentary evidence or a direct response.

According to the report's chronology, Zheng was moved to a detention centre on the evening of 26 February 2024. His family said he was released pending trial and returned to Shanghai on 22 April after the payment. He was arrested again in June that year.

On 16 July 2024, the report says, Shaoyang county prosecutors charged Zheng and others with providing programs or tools for intruding into or unlawfully controlling computer information systems. The court accepted the case in early August, and the report describes a hearing on 26 December. The defence argued that developing VPN software under contract did not amount to supplying illegal intrusion tools and challenged the county's jurisdiction.

2025: Video coverage and a dismissal notice

By January 2025, the video was circulating online. Radio Free Asia's Cantonese service reported on it on 24 January 2025 and said it had sought comment from the county public security bureau without receiving a response.

Fa Yu Qing's 2026 report reproduces an image of a county people's congress standing committee notice dated 11 July 2025. It lists Yin Xiangfeng's removal as deputy county head and police chief. The report also says Tang was removed in July 2025 and links both removals to the case. The notice itself does not mention Tang or give reasons for Yin's removal.

2026: The family challenges custody and asks about the court's deadline

According to Fa Yu Qing, Zheng's mother and other relatives began approaching courts and prosecutors at county, city and provincial levels in April 2026. They asked for a review of whether his detention had exceeded the lawful time limit and for a change to the measures keeping him in custody. The report says a custody review notice from the county procuratorate dated 24 April found him ineligible for release pending trial, citing the seriousness of the case and the fact that he had not admitted guilt and accepted punishment, among other reasons.

The report says prosecutors told the family in August 2026 that they had sent the county court two notices to correct legal violations that year. It does not give the dates the notices were sent, and relatives had not received copies.

On 16 August 2026, the report says, Zheng's mother called the court to ask why the case remained under internal discussion and how the time limit was calculated. A court employee said the family would be informed when there was an outcome and maintained that the applicable time limit had not been exceeded.

The report republished on 19 September 2026 also quoted Zheng's mother as saying that at least 64.8 million yuan of the 100 million yuan paid had gone to a non-tax revenue collection account at the county finance bureau. It did not include complete banking records sufficient to verify all the transfers or give the dates of individual payments. The total paid, the route taken by the money and the nature of the payments remain to be established.

As of that report's publication on 19 September 2026, the case still had no verdict and the family had not received the two notices. Their contents, the court's handling of them and its calculation of the time limit still require documentary verification. The report carried no direct police response to the allegations of demands for payment.