State Media Exposes Export Data Fraud; U.S. Seaports See No Chinese Cargo Ships Docking

A desolate seaport. (People News / AI illustration)

[People News] The CCP authorities recently announced that the trade surplus from January to November exceeded US$1 trillion, a record high. However, a Chinese financial media outlet recently published an investigative report revealing that for many years local governments have tacitly allowed, or even led, fraudulent practices of “buying export data.” Falsification of CCP economic data is widely known, but amid recent official demands to promote the narrative of an “economy with bright prospects,” the exposure by official media of export fraud has drawn attention.

According to a report by CNN, on May 9 the two largest ports on the U.S. West Coast—Long Beach and Los Angeles—simultaneously experienced a rare phenomenon: not a single container ship from China docked that day, marking the first “zero” record since the outbreak of COVID-19. Port officials described the scene as “even quieter than during the pandemic,” warning that the severing of U.S.–China economic and trade links has moved from numbers to a real-world crisis.

Reports said that just six days earlier, as many as 41 cargo ships had still been scheduled to depart from China for San Pedro Bay along the California coast, but all were subsequently canceled. The speed of the impact stunned port management. Long Beach Port CEO Mario Cordero said, “The number of canceled sailings has now exceeded pandemic levels—we are witnessing an unprecedented cooling.” The impact is not limited to the West Coast; East Coast ports are also being affected. Cargo volumes at Long Beach have fallen 35% to 40%, Los Angeles Port has dropped 31%, and the ports of New York and New Jersey have also reported continued slowdowns in cargo flows. On the 7th, the Port of Seattle even had no cargo ships docking at all. Port Commission President Ryan Calkins stated bluntly: “That’s because there’s simply nothing being shipped over.”

Official Media Reveals Local Export Data Were “Bought”

According to The Dajiyuan, on December 29 Yicai (China Business Network), which is affiliated with Shanghai Media Group, published a report titled Bought Export Data: Consuming Local Finances With No Substantive Boost to the Economy. The report said that in recent years, many cases of fraudulent “buy-order exports” have appeared nationwide, exposing a little-known gray area in foreign trade export statistics.

So-called “buy-order exports” refer to cases in which foreign trade enterprises’ income comes from government subsidies and rewards for exporters. By setting up large numbers of shell companies with foreign trade qualifications, these entities “purchase” export data from customs brokers. Local governments then issue rewards based on the export figures returned by customs. These exports did not actually occur in the shell companies’ places of registration, yet they still brought growth in export statistics to those localities.

The report said more importantly that this phenomenon of “buy-order exports” has existed for many years across many regions in China. Local commerce departments and bureaus have taken an ambiguous stance toward such practices, and many cases show that local commerce authorities have tacitly allowed or even led them.

The report mentioned that in January this year, multiple foreign trade practitioners in a certain province were accused of colluding to set up shell companies in multiple locations, purchasing export data from foreign trade enterprises in other provinces to defraud the government of massive export reward funds, with amounts involved exceeding 100 million yuan. In a southwestern province, individuals temporarily registered more than 100 shell companies to commission customs declarations, fabricating self-operated or agency import-export performance under the shell companies’ names, defrauding more than 200 million yuan in government foreign trade subsidies.

One defendant confessed: “The purpose of setting up these companies was to obtain export data through ‘buy-order exports,’ then go to the commerce bureau to receive subsidy funds. After getting the subsidies, the companies were deregistered.” Family members of the defendant repeatedly said that these actions were carried out to cooperate with the government in creating political achievements.

A foreign trade boss accused of fraud said: “Comprehensive foreign trade services take effect too slowly. Commerce bureaus everywhere are using ‘agency exports’ to generate foreign trade data, so they asked us to also do ‘agency exports’ locally.”

In addition, in coastal areas, some small and medium-sized exporters that lack export qualifications or general taxpayer status choose customs brokers, freight forwarders, and similar agencies to handle the relevant procedures on their behalf, switching the exporter name to a qualified company.

Lawyers representing related cases said that heads of local commerce bureaus are very familiar with the market conditions for “buy orders” and even adjust export reward standards according to market conditions. Some defendants revealed that before the cases were exposed, their companies had “pleasant cooperation” with relevant local government departments, which would even step in to coordinate when the companies “ran into trouble.”

“Buy-order exports” involve benefit transfers and rent-seeking. In one prefecture-level city in Jiangxi, someone was convicted of illegal business operations for improper profiteering through “buy-order exports,” while the then director of the commerce bureau accepted bribes totaling several million yuan in the form of “dry share” dividends.

Official Media Self-Exposure Confirms Trump’s Claims of “Unfair Trade” by the CCP

China affairs expert Wang He told The Dajiyuan that the report describes export activities that are real, but with fake exporting entities (enterprises). This practice consumes local fiscal resources, contributes almost nothing to real economic growth or industrial development, and inflates local export figures.

U.S. economist David Huang told The Dajiyuan that such export falsification amounts to “using fiscal funds to buy growth,” with foreign trade data being inflated through local subsidies. Exports may appear strong, but in reality local finances bleed first. Moreover, the heavier the debt pressure on a locality, the more likely it is to trade short-term numbers for short-term political achievements.

Huang said that China’s “buy-order exports” and data inflation also substantiate Trump’s reasons for launching the trade war—namely the CCP’s “unfair trade,” including government subsidies to promote exports. Local CCP governments pushing exports through subsidies, and even spawning chains of “buy-order exports/data inflation,” essentially hand the United States an evidence chain of “subsidies—distortion—surplus.” Future U.S.–China negotiations will become more difficult, and other economies will follow suit with counter-subsidy, anti-circumvention, tariffs, or investigative measures against China.

Over the past three years, the CCP has emphasized promoting the narrative of an “economy with bright prospects.” This time, official media’s self-exposure of these irregularities has drawn attention.

Wang He said that while the authorities want to promote the bright-economy narrative, the overall economy is currently very bad. The central authorities fear losing control, so they continuously pressure local governments, punish certain chaotic phenomena, and look for scapegoats. But falsified political achievements are a deeply rooted defect of the CCP’s political system and cannot be fundamentally resolved.

Data released by the General Administration of Customs of China on December 8 showed that in the first 11 months of 2025, China’s trade surplus reached US$1.08 trillion. CCP party media boasted that “China’s trade surplus in the first 11 months exceeded US$1 trillion for the first time, with the main reason being the strong resilience of China’s foreign trade.”

Wang He said that in reality, China’s foreign trade data itself has many problems. For example, data from the General Administration of Customs and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange often “clash,” with large discrepancies. Moreover, the trade surplus itself has two issues: first, it amounts to low-price dumping, triggering foreign backlash and sanctions; second, it involves providing high-risk credit—for instance, selling products to African countries that cannot afford them, then lending money so they can buy the products, loans that are very likely to go unpaid and carry significant risk.

“Nominally there is a US$1 trillion surplus, but in substance it provides massive foreign trade loans with very high risk, so the actual economic benefits are very limited,” he said. △