(Xi’an, Shaanxi, China — June 20, 2025) On June 16, 2025, the second pretrial conference for the case against Pastor Lian Changnian, Pastor Lian Xuliang, and Preacher Fu Juan of Xi’an Church of Abundance, who are charged with “on suspicion of fraud,” was held at Baqiao District People’s Court in Xi’an. The defense attorneys believe that what should have been a key step toward a fair trial instead became an absurd proceeding under secret directives.
Pastor Lian Changnian, Pastor Lian Xuliang, and Preacher Fu Juan were detained on August 17, 2022, on charges of “suspected of fraud.” It took two years and ten months before this pretrial conference was convened. This long-delayed second pretrial conference was supposed to demonstrate judicial fairness by addressing issues related to the exclusion of illegal evidence and other matters pertinent to the trial, as well as to gather information and hear opinions. However, various procedural violations by the prosecution and the court during the handling of the case have exposed even deeper problems.
The lawyers pointed out that the main disputes in this pretrial conference involved the following six issues:
Firstly, only three days were allowed for case file review, and the lawyers’ right to review was restricted.
On June 13, Pastor Lian Xuliang appointed a new defense attorney, leaving the lawyer with just three short days to review the case files. The lawyer lawfully applied to the court for a postponement, but the judge flatly refused, saying, “Come if you want, or do not come at all.” To prevent further requests for postponement, the judge disbanded the lawyer’s communication group chat. The pretrial conference proceeded as scheduled on June 16. The lawyers argued that three days was grossly insufficient.
According to the law, the court should guarantee at least fifteen days for file review to safeguard the right to defense. Given the massive case files, three days was clearly rushed. The lawyers’ request for a postponement was reasonable and legal, but the court flatly rejected it.
The lawyers stated: The cornerstone of procedural justice is giving the defense a fair opportunity to prepare. How can the right to defense be protected under such haste?
Secondly, Pastor Lian Changnian is seriously ill and was therefore absent; why did the court ignore this?
Since Pastor Lian Changnian’s detention was changed to residential surveillance in April 2025, his health has severely deteriorated. At the end of May, Xi’an Mental Health Center diagnosed him with organic brain disorder, anxiety, severe cervical spondylosis, and soft tissue edema, which are conditions that had never appeared before his detention. His health status raises questions about the abuse he may have suffered during custody. On June 13, the family informed the court that Pastor Lian was hospitalized, mentally unfit, and unable to appear in court. Forcing a hearing under such circumstances means it is impossible to confirm whether his statements would have legal validity or confirm what caused his condition or when it arose.
The lawyer requested a psychiatric evaluation, proposing to postpone the hearing until the results were available. The court ignored this and pushed ahead with the pretrial conference, leaving Pastor Lian unable to attend due to his mental state.
The lawyer questioned: “What is the point of a pretrial conference if a gravely ill defendant cannot appear or confirm his mental capacity? Is it just a formality?”
Thirdly, unresolved issues from the previous conference and the prosecution are still “hindering the process.”
The first pretrial conference had already been held way back on February 7, 2025. At that time, the defense requested the prosecution to submit the victim’s interview records, which are the core evidence for the legitimacy of the charges. Four months have passed, and at the June 16 conference, the prosecution still failed to provide these materials. The lawyer said: “Without interviewing the victim, how can you allege fraud charges? The prosecution’s inaction betrays their lack of confidence in the alleged fraud charges.”
Fourthly, the indictment lacked an official seal. Is it a legal document or “scrap paper”?
At this pretrial conference, defense attorney Zhang Kai discovered something bizarre: the indictment sent to him was missing the official seal from the procuratorate. Lawyer Zhang pointed out, “The indictment is the cornerstone of criminal proceedings. Without an official seal, it has no legal effect.” The defense lawyer immediately demanded that it be” refiled and redelivered, and reserved the right to seek compensation from the state.” The lawyer representing the defendant argued this was no trivial slip-up, a seal-less indictment cannot represent a prosecution on behalf of the state, and such a loophole raises doubts about the prosecution’s attitude towards this case, whether it was prepared seriously, or was it just to complete a task assigned by the leadership? The public prosecutor was 17 minutes late to the hearing; when the defense questioned, he merely said he was busy at work.
The lawyer sarcastically said: “This very busy prosecutor was not only late but too busy to stamp the indictment and apparently so busy that state secrets were diverged…”
Fifthly, are the case files “state secrets” or interference from the leadership?
During the review stage of the case, the lawyer took the files after reviewing them in Xi’an. The prosecution suddenly called, demanding immediate return of the files on the same day, even offering to fly someone to Beijing to collect them. They claimed that parts of the files were “state secrets” that had been mistakenly given to the defense.
The lawyer questioned: If they could be reviewed, why the urgency to retrieve them? If not, has the prosecution itself violated the law against divulging state secrets? In court, the prosecution argued that the “state secrets” included “leadership instructions.” The defense countered: Which leader? What instructions were given? Does this interference violate the Constitution and the principle of the rule of law? The lawyers believed this move by the prosecution suggested a cover-up of interference rather than protecting secrets.
Sixthly, unequal treatment of prosecution and defense — where is fairness?
Throughout the pretrial conference, a bailiff videotaped the defense lawyer’s every move while no one was next to the prosecutor to supervise. The lawyer had to wait and queue at the court entrance while the prosecutor entered freely through a side door.
Every aspect reflected “differentiated treatment,” and the equality of prosecution and defense, as well as the neutrality of the trial, was nowhere in sight.
The lawyers argued that the Xi’an Church of Abundance case is not merely a criminal proceeding but also a matter of religious freedom, civil rights, and judicial justice. Procedural justice is the starting point for a fair trial. If the rights to review files, appear in court, and follow proper indictment procedures are riddled with flaws, how can substantive justice be discussed?
In this case, Pastor Lian Changnian, a minister of the “China Gospel Fellowship” from Henan, began serving the church in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Over decades, he suffered persecution, arrests, beatings, and imprisonment for his Christian faith. He founded the Church of Abundance in Xi’an, which has been in existence for 30 years. Shortly after his arrest and that of his colleagues, the authorities shut down Xi’an Church of Abundance on August 19, 2022.
(Reported by ChinaAid Special Correspondent Ningmeng)
