(Bengbu, Anhui province – December 17, 2024) Recently, attorney Zhao Qingshan, representing four Christians from Bengbu Living Stone Reformed Church—Wan Changchun, Xue Shaoqiang, Cao Binting, and Wan Chunqin—who are accused of “fraud,” expressed three points in response to the prosecutor’s indictment.

He argued that the legality of the church is not determined by the Religious Affairs Bureau, and the judicial authorities cannot accuse the church’s pastors and elders of fraud simply because they are not recognized by the Religious Affairs Bureau. Fraud involves the intentional illegal possession and actual deceitful behavior; voluntary donations from church members do not involve fraud.

Attorney Zhao Qingshan elaborated on these three points as follows:

1. The Inherent Legality of the Church

Firstly, the Legality of the Church: The legality of the church is not determined by the Religious Affairs Regulations; it is inherent. The Religious Affairs Bureau has no authority to determine whether a church is legal or illegal. Belief in God is a fundamental right of an individual which he should enjoy as a human being, and our constitution is meant to recognize and protect these rights.

What is the purpose of the constitution? It is to recognise and determine human rights. It is to establish a set of state organs, formulate laws and associated regulations to protect these human rights. The absence of legal provisions or registration does not negate these rights.

Whether a believer practices a religion or a pastor serves God based on their calling, these actions are natural human rights. It is not that their existence is dependent upon the law which prescribes their existence or otherwise. If the law denies these rights, it is the law that is problematic, not the individual’s faith. This is the essence of natural human rights.

The current judicial understanding in similar cases is flawed, assuming that unapproved or unregistered religious practices are illegal, which is entirely incorrect. This assumption is incorrect.

2. No Logical Link Between Recognition and Fraud

Secondly, no Logical Connection: The fact that the defendants’ church or their religious roles are not recognized does not logically lead to the conclusion that believers were defrauded.

“I’ll give an inappropriate example. If today a lawyer is found to have used false documents to obtain their lawyer’s license, such as a fake degree, a fake bar exam qualification, or a fake internship experience, these false documents might mean the lawyer’s license was not legally obtained.

But can you say that after obtaining the lawyer’s license, the fees they earn from practicing law are from defrauding their clients? This logic clearly does not lead to that conclusion.

We cannot say that a lawyer earning fees with their license is defrauding their clients. Furthermore, if we find that a party member’s resume is falsified, does that mean all their salary is earned through fraud?”

3. Understanding the Crime of Fraud and Intent

Thirdly, when discussing the crime of fraud, we must consider the logic of fraud itself. A key element of the logic of fraud is the intent of illegal possession, and in fact, the perpetrator has also engaged in deceitful behavior. Of course, they may have obtained property or may not have obtained property, which involves the issue of whether the crime was completed or attempted.

However, if someone is merely making a donation without the purpose of obtaining this so-called benefit (property), and in fact, they did not take this benefit, how can we say they are a fraudster?

We have already stated that Wan Changchun, due to his pastoral role, is entitled to receive offerings according to standard practice. The other three defendants did not take any money. Can we accuse someone who did not take any money of being a fraudster? Does this accusation stand up to basic common sense?

I believe the overall drafting method of our indictment, its accusatory logic, is extremely unwise. The initiation of this case is essentially religious persecution, merely under the guise of combating criminal activity. However, the way you have written this indictment does not even achieve the purpose of concealing your motives. By accusing someone in a church who did not take any money of a crime, are you not targeting the church itself?

A Call for Justice and Faith in the Trial

In conclusion, I hope the court will immediately declare my clients innocent, the prosecution will withdraw the charges, and all defendants will be granted bail. However, on the other hand, I also hope this trial will continue.

Why do I hope this trial will continue? Because only in court (by allowing the defendants to speak about their actions) can we let others see how these four defendants serve God, how they worship God with faith, how they face the world’s oppression and persecution of their faith, and how they glorify God. So, if you want to hold a trial, let it continue.

Attorney Zhao Qingshan, also a Christian, has written “Why the Gospel Can Change China” and has represented several religious cases, including Early Rain Covenant Church, Guiyang Ren’ai Reformed Church, Guangdong Shengjia Church, and Bible sales in Hohhot, Inner Mongolia.

(Reported by Lemon, a special correspondent for ChinaAid)