A man named Pan Yongjia from Dalian City, Liaoning Province, recently reported that thirty years ago, he was arrested by the Gaizhou City Public Security Bureau on suspicion of smuggling at Dalian Zhoushuizi Airport. He claims that 2,859.2 grams of gold, which he had legally purchased, were also confiscated. At the time, after his wife paid a 50,000 yuan bail, Pan was released on bail pending further investigation. Pan stated that he has never received any official documents concluding the case, such as a decision to drop the charges, terminate the investigation, or a notice of released bail, and was never informed of the case's outcome.
On January 6, 2026, Pan Yongjia, through his lawyer, submitted an application for compensation. However, the Gaizhou City Public Security Bureau issued a "Decision of Non-acceptance" on January 8, stating that after review, based on the available evidence, Pan's claim had exceeded the statute of limitations and did not meet the conditions for application, therefore it was rejected.
Pan stated that before applying for state compensation, he had repeatedly contacted the Gaizhou police to inquire about the status of his case and to request the return of the gold. Pan provided an audio recording of a phone call from August 20, 2024, which he claims is with a staff member of the Gaizhou City Public Security Bureau. The staff member reportedly stated that the primary officer handling Pan's case had passed away, and another involved officer had retired. When contacted by phone, the retired officer said they were unaware of the current status of the case. Regarding the gold, the bureau had sent a letter to the Gaizhou branch of the People's Bank of China to inquire about its disposition. The bank replied that due to a flood in 2012 that submerged its former office, archives were lost and records destroyed, making it impossible to locate any information.
Pan Yongjia disagreed with the decision and applied for a reconsideration with the Yingkou Municipal Public Security Bureau. He argued that the Gaizhou police failed to provide evidence proving the seized gold was handed over to the local People's Bank or that a decision regarding its disposal had been made and delivered to him. Therefore, he contends the seizure of the gold should be considered an ongoing act, meaning his request for its return is not time-barred, and the Gaizhou police should accept and make a compensation decision.
Pan's legal representative pointed out that the Ministry of Public Security had previously issued a reconsideration decision in 2021 regarding a similar case involving the seizure of gold from Ma Guanghui by the Qinghai Provincial Public Security Department. That decision provided a detailed analysis on issues like the statute of limitations for compensation claims and the nature of such applications. They argued that the Gaizhou police should refer to this precedent and handle Pan's application according to the law, considering the specific circumstances of his case.
On April 24, a staff member from the Yingkou Municipal Public Security Bureau stated that the bureau is actively reviewing the matter and will provide a response to the reconsideration applicant as soon as possible. Previously, it was reported that in 2020, Ma Guanghui, dissatisfied with the Qinghai Provincial Public Security Department's failure to make a decision within the statutory period, applied to the Ministry of Public Security for reconsideration of his criminal compensation claim, requesting a formal compensation decision. The Ministry issued a "Criminal Compensation Reconsideration Decision," finding that Qinghai police acknowledged seizing the gold Ma was carrying. As the Qinghai department failed to decide on Ma's state compensation application within the legal timeframe, violating relevant provisions of the State Compensation Law, the Ministry ordered the Qinghai department to make a decision within two months of receiving the reconsideration ruling.
Comments