UK prosecutors alleged that one of China's most senior leaders had obtained intelligence from inside the UK parliament in a high-profile spy investigation that was subsequently abandoned, according to reports.
Central Claims and Case Details
British prosecutors stated in spring 2024 that a "high-ranking member of the CCP and a politburo member" had reportedly received "politically sensitive information" from two British analysts who were charged with spying for China.
The person in question is believed to be Cai Qi, a member of the executive committee of the CCP politburo. This committee serves as the governing council of the CCP and is chaired by Xi Jinping, the nation's all-powerful ruler.
The official, known as a close associate of Xi, holds the fifth most senior position within the seven-member committee, placing him as one of the most powerful figures in China. A former party secretary for Beijing, Cai also acts as a director of the party's administrative office, effectively the de facto senior aide to Xi.
Investigation Dismissal and Official Responses
In September, the CPS dropped the charges against one researcher and another researcher, citing a insufficient proof.
However Cai's naming in the CPS's case stands as the central of a two-and-a-half-year saga that some MPs assert exposes the threat of Chinese intelligence operations in parliament – while China experts argue it demonstrates a lack of understanding in UK authorities about China's political system.
Prosecutors claimed that between December 2021 and early 2023, "an intelligence agent" requested at least thirty-four documents from Berry, a UK researcher residing in the country.
The documents contained information from Cash, an associate of the first researcher's who was employed in Westminster for the China Research Group, a body of Beijing-sceptic Conservative MPs. The CPS believed that this material was transmitted to the senior official, who for the majority of that period was a member of the 24-member politburo. In autumn 2022, Cai was elevated to the executive committee.
Cash and Berry have consistently asserted their non-involvement. On September 15, more than two years after they were first arrested, the prosecution abandoned the proceedings.
Specialist Skepticism and Institutional Criticism
But the claim that a Beijing leader at such a high level was obtaining what is believed to be unclassified Westminster gossip from two junior analysts with no access to official information has been met with skepticism by experts in China's political system.
An expert, the director of the Lau China Institute at King’s College London, said an official of Cai's level having a line of contact with a non-Chinese national, even in cases of intelligence gathering, was "very, very, very unlikely".
Members of the political bureau "are not accessible", Brown said. "Especially under Xi Jinping, [they] don't really have any freedom to do anything too independent."
Brown said the investigation "creates doubts about how UK intelligence assess information in China".
UK authorities has recognized a lack of understanding about China as a challenge to the United Kingdom's national security and strategies for economic growth. In summer, David Lammy, said a "China audit" of the government's relationship with Beijing had revealed "a significant lack of confidence in how to engage with the country".
Legal Viewpoints and Additional Background
Berry's lawyer, John Armstrong, said: "Our client does not acknowledge that he met someone of the seniority apparently indicated by the crown."
The lawyer said there was no proof that his client had ever met "anyone of marked seniority within the CCP" and the allegations against him was "largely conjectural" and "shouldn't have been brought".
The attorney said the researcher wrote reports for a commercial client in China and not any of the material was confidential. Cash's lawyer did not respond to a request for comment.
Prof Steve Tsang, the director of the a China studies center, said: "You would expect and hope and wish that the senior Chinese leaders have something more serious to do than listening to what the China Research Group has to say." The professor said it was unusual for senior officials to have interaction with intelligence officers in China.
The expert said it would be "highly unwise" for the UK authorities to charge anyone they believed to have a line of contact to the political bureau, and instead the security agencies should try to turn them.
Prosecution representatives said: "The evidence in this case has been kept under continuous review and it has now been concluded that the evidential standard for the offence alleged is no longer met."
The State Council information office, which processes press inquiries for the Chinese government, did not reply to a request for response. The Chinese embassy has called the claims "completely false and malicious slander".
