Pan Yongjia, a resident of Dalian City in Liaoning Province, recently told the media that thirty years ago he was arrested at Dalian’s Zhoushuizi Airport by the Gaizhou Public Security Bureau on suspicion of smuggling. At the time, the 2,859.2 grams of gold he was accused of carrying were seized by the police. Pan Yongjia stated that he had purchased this gold legally and that it was not obtained through illegal means. Following the incident, his wife paid a bail bond of 50,000 yuan, and Pan Yongjia was subsequently released on bail pending trial. However, Pan Yongjia claims that in the years since, he has never received any formal legal documents regarding the conclusion of the case, such as a decision to dismiss the case, a decision to terminate the investigation, or a notice of release from bail pending trial, nor has he ever been explicitly informed of the final outcome of the case. In other words, from a legal procedural perspective, this case appears to have remained in a state of ‘pending’ for a long time. According to the ‘List of Seized Items’ issued by the Gai Zhou police in 1996, the gold in question was indeed registered as seized. The materials provided by Pan Yongjia indicate that, to date, no conclusive decision has been made regarding the return or lawful disposal of this gold. It was not until 6 January 2026 that Pan Yongjia, through his solicitor, formally submitted an application for state compensation to the relevant authorities, seeking compensation or the return of the gold involved in the case, as well as redress for the prolonged failure to resolve the case. However, on 8 January, the Gaizhou Municipal Public Security Bureau issued a ‘Decision on Non-Acceptance’, stating that, based on the available evidence, Pan Yongjia’s application had exceeded the statutory limitation period and did not meet the conditions for a state compensation claim; consequently, it was decided not to accept the application. Pan Yongjia does not accept this decision. He stated that prior to formally submitting the application for state compensation, he had repeatedly enquired with the Gaizhou police regarding the progress of the case and the whereabouts of the gold in question. According to a recording of a telephone conversation dated 20 August 2024 provided by him, a police officer indicated that the principal investigator in the case had passed away and another officer involved had retired; following verification by telephone, the officer stated that they were no longer aware of the current status of the case. Regarding the disposition of the gold in question, the Gaizhou Municipal Public Security Bureau had previously written to the People’s Bank of China in Gaizhou to enquire about relevant sales records. However, the People’s Bank of China replied that, due to flooding in 2012, the bank’s old archives had been submerged and the accounting records destroyed, making it impossible to locate the relevant records. Given the lack of clarity regarding the aforementioned circumstances, Pan Yongjia subsequently lodged an appeal with the Yingkou Municipal Public Security Bureau. He argued that, as the Gaizhou police were unable to prove that the gold in question had been sold in accordance with the law, nor was there any evidence to show that it had been disposed of lawfully and the decision served upon the parties concerned, the gold should be deemed to remain in custody. Under these circumstances, he contended that his request for the return of the gold and related compensation had not exceeded the limitation period, and that the police should accept the case and make a decision in accordance with the law. Pan Yongjia’s legal representative further pointed out that the Ministry of Public Security had previously handled similar cases in 2021, such as the case involving the Qinghai Provincial Public Security Department’s seizure of Ma Guanghui’s gold. In that case, the Ministry of Public Security’s review concluded that, as long as a compensation decision had not been lawfully made and served upon the applicant, the case should not be simply rejected on the grounds of the statute of limitations having expired, and it ordered the relevant departments to resolve the matter within the prescribed time limit. Consequently, this case should also draw upon similar legal opinions and examine Pan Yongjia’s claim for compensation in accordance with the law, taking into account the actual circumstances. As of 24 April, staff at the Yingkou Municipal Public Security Bureau told the media that the bureau is currently actively investigating the matter and will provide a formal response to the appeal application as soon as possible. In fact, such cases are by no means isolated incidents. Previously, in the case of Ma Guanghui, he applied to the Ministry of Public Security for a review of his claim for criminal compensation after the Qinghai Provincial Public Security Department had failed to issue a compensation decision for an extended period. The Ministry of Public Security ultimately concluded that the public security authorities had breached relevant legal provisions by failing to make a decision on whether to grant compensation within the statutory time limit, and ordered the Qinghai Provincial Public Security Department to issue a new decision within two months of receiving the ruling. Pan Yongjia’s case has therefore attracted attention, raising questions on the one hand as to whether a case spanning thirty years should be regarded as a ‘continuing situation’, and on the other hand concerning the starting point for calculating the limitation period for state compensation claims, as well as the legal liability of law enforcement agencies in cases that have remained unresolved for a long period.