The rhetoric coming out of the government is exactly the same in both cases.
That is a big assumption. The Chinese government is very flawed, but you are wrong in assuming that they would define corruption in a completely arbitrary manner. They would most likely (as they have done already) make an example of the worst, most clear cut, cases.
The Chinese government hasn't generally cracked down because they were feeling virtuous, but because their hand was forced (corruption was revealed independently), and they feared social discontent more than they feared upsetting the gravy train.
It's certainly believable that they would sometimes use "corruption" as an excuse to persecute those they don't like for political and other reasons -- but they can't just ignore every case of true corruption, especially obvious ones, because they don't want to risk real public unrest.
You hear about "democratic socialism", which is a democratic government that implements socialist policies. China has the opposite: a communist government that implements capitalist policies. Considering the abject failure of 20th century Soviet-style communism, it's not a foregone conclusion that the Chinese will follow that example.
I read a book this summer about the Chinese Communist Party (http://www.amazon.com/The-Party-Secret-Chinas-Communist/dp/0...), and was rather surprised to find that the party exists outside of the Chinese legal system. So there's this entire apparatus that cannot, under Chinese law, be investigated, sued, or otherwise held accountable.
I think that it's somewhat inevitable that power without accountability will lead to massive corruption -- all the more so when you're dealing with a country as immense as China, which has accumulated such wealth in recent years.
I find it easy to believe that some wealthy Chinese, unsure of when the party (so to speak) will be over, and when they might be accused (rightfully or not) of corruption, just decide to leave.