Which primary sources and official statements have been released by China about the investigations into Zhang Youxia and Liu Zhenli?

1. The Ministry of National Defense announcement — the core official source

The single most explicit primary statement from China is the defence ministry’s announcement that “it has been decided to initiate an investigation” of Zhang Youxia and Liu Zhenli for “suspected serious violations of discipline and law,” language used in multiple Chinese government and state news outlets and republished internationally ^{[1] [2] [3]}; that statement is the de facto originating official text cited across Reuters, CNA and other reports ^{[2] [3]}.

2. Xinhua and the government English site — release and republication

China’s official Xinhua feed and the English‑language Ministry of National Defense website republished the ministry text as the authoritative account, ensuring the announcement’s phrasing and timing circulated through state channels and foreign databases — Xinhua’s copy is listed as the defence ministry’s published item and is the basis for later foreign summaries ^{[1] [2]}.

3. PLA media and editorial framing — punishment, zero tolerance and hints of scope

Following the terse ministry note, PLA‑affiliated outlets such as the PLA Daily ran editorials and commentary amplifying the disciplinary framing, stressing “zero tolerance” for corruption and using Party disciplinary vocabulary to characterize the move, which state organs used to signal that the inquiry is being treated as a major anti‑graft action while still withholding specifics ^{[4] [5]}.

4. What was omitted in China’s official releases — no details, no evidence, limited procedural transparency

Crucially, the ministry’s and state media releases gave no specifics about allegations, evidence, or procedural steps; multiple outlets note the announcement “gave no further details” and that the phrase “serious violations of discipline and law” is the standard Party shorthand that often signals corruption probes rather than a detailed legal indictment ^{[6] [5] [4]}.

5. Photographs and event notices used as indirect signals by state outlets

State media and CCTV footage that earlier showed Zhang and Liu at public events — and the conspicuous later absence of the two from certain high‑level meetings — were highlighted in official and semi‑official reporting as contextual cues that fed speculation; those visual records were reproduced by China’s state agencies, but they are ancillary to the formal written announcement and do not substitute for documentary evidence of wrongdoing ^{[3] [6]}.

6. Official tone and diplomatic echo — embassy and spokesperson lines

Chinese diplomatic or embassy spokespeople echoed the domestic messaging in English‑language exchanges reported by some outlets, reiterating the Party’s “full‑coverage, zero‑tolerance” stance on corruption as the interpretive frame for the investigation, but those comments restate policy posture rather than disclose new factual material about the probe itself ^[7].

7. Independent gaps and the limits of state disclosure

Across the catalogue of Chinese primary releases — the defence ministry statement, Xinhua republication, PLA editorials and public imagery — the consistent pattern is a formal announcement of an investigation plus political framing, with no operational detail, evidence or legal charge disclosed; reporting by international outlets therefore relies on that limited set of official documents and associated state commentary to describe the investigation’s existence and political significance but cannot document specific alleged acts from Chinese sources alone ^{[1] [4] [6]}.