"Nevertheless the Economist made it sound that she was only persecuted for accepting financing from unofficial sources, not that she was doing anything improper with the financing."
I can't agree with that. I read only the Economist article before coming to the comments here, and I managed to figure out that she was being charged with active fraud. I figured it out from things like mentioning a promise of an 80% return on investment, or possibly lending out money she received at usurious interest rates.
I think you may be missing the point of the last paragraph, which is that the plea bargain is to plead guilty to the crime of raising funds in the way Chinese entrepreneurs have been doing, not that she actually did it. She didn't, which why it's a plea bargain, but it's concerning that what she bargained to is a death-penalty crime, apparently.
To be fair, this article seems to be a little shorter than it should be; it requires closer reading than it should. And I'd also point out that she still appears to be getting the death penalty for that charge, which is worth reacting to.
I can't agree with that. I read only the Economist article before coming to the comments here, and I managed to figure out that she was being charged with active fraud. I figured it out from things like mentioning a promise of an 80% return on investment, or possibly lending out money she received at usurious interest rates.
I think you may be missing the point of the last paragraph, which is that the plea bargain is to plead guilty to the crime of raising funds in the way Chinese entrepreneurs have been doing, not that she actually did it. She didn't, which why it's a plea bargain, but it's concerning that what she bargained to is a death-penalty crime, apparently.
To be fair, this article seems to be a little shorter than it should be; it requires closer reading than it should. And I'd also point out that she still appears to be getting the death penalty for that charge, which is worth reacting to.