Should Qiao Jianjun, third on the list of China's red notice of 100 most wanted and also a fugitive wanted by the Interpol, be brought to justice in China where he is suspected of having embezzled more than 200 million yuan ($30.38 million)? Yes, of course.

However, the Supreme Court in Sweden made a decision to release him in late June although he was arrested again just a few days later at the request of the United States.

On the part of the Swedish court, there was no question about the evidence against Qiao. Its concern was that Qiao may not receive fair treatment in China.

Which might sound reasonable to some. But the question is how the Swedish court has reached the conclusion that Chinese fugitives, such as Qiao, who are suspected of economic crimes, will not receive a fair trial in China.

Has the Swedish court any evidence that criminals who have committed economic crimes have been tortured or ill-treated or gotten unfair trial in China?

In the past seven years since China launched its "Fox Hunt" campaign to catch and return corrupt officials who had fled overseas with their illicit gains, more than 4,600 fugitives suspected of economic crimes have been extradited, repatriated or turned themselves in from 120 countries and regions.

None of them have been subjected to torture or any other ill and unfair treatment or received the death penalty.

In the case of Qiao Jianjun, his ex-wife has already pleaded guilty in the US.

It is possible that his lawyer has jaundiced the Swedish court's view about China's judicial and legal systems by exaggerating some cases that Chinese courts have mishandled. By listening to some people who harbor resentment against China in the hearing, the Supreme Court of Sweden has politicized the case of Qiao Jianjun.

It is a pity that the Swedish court has been led astray by some who wish to tarnish the image of China by taking advantage of some Swedish people's bias or lack of knowledge about China.

By providing shelter to Qiao and turning an otherwise criminal case into a political one, the Swedish court is helping him to avoid standing trial in China and is setting a very bad precedent.

Can Sweden be said to be on the side of justice as far as this case is concerned?