(Foshan, Guangdong – August 27, 2024) It is reported that from August 19, 2024, the case of five Christians Zhu Longfei, Zhu Longjiang, Zhu Qiaoling, Deng Yanxiang and Wang Weicai from the Shengjia Church in Foshan, Guangdong, who were charged with “illegal business operation” entered the second trial stage. The second trial lasted for 11 days from August 19 to August 30. On the first day of the second trial, the prosecution and defense debated fiercely. The attorney pointed out that all the evidence provided by the prosecution was untenable, most of which were illegally obtained, and there were many mistakes and omissions, and contradictions.
On May 24, 2023, lay pastor Deng Yanxiang, Wang Weicai, Zhu Longjiang, and Zhu Qiaoling were arrested by the Shunde Public Security Bureau of Guangdong Province on suspicion of “illegal business operations”. On August 9 of the same year, the Shunde Public Security Bureau detained Elder Zhu Longfei of the church on the same charge. After more than a year of detention, the case was first heard in the Shunde District Court from August 5 to August 9, 2024. During the trial, the court rejected the lawyers’ application for a live broadcast of the trial on the Internet, and also rejected the lawyers’ application for the prosecutor, who had been accused by the lawyers in real name, to recuse himself.
In the first trial, Elder Zhu Longfei stated in court that this was a kind of religious persecution. He said that the church has a history of more than 2,000 years and is legal all over the world. Which law is the Shengjia Church “non-compliant”? The Chinese Constitution protects people’s freedom of belief. Which law stipulates that churches cannot be established? Regarding the indictment that “Zhu Longfei is the highest leader and decision-maker of the Shengjia Church”, he explained that he was an elder of the church, and that the elders and deacons of the church were not subordinate or superior in status, but had different divisions of labor. He also explained that he had not held a meeting on printing books and was not aware of the printing. He did not understand why he was detained for a year on suspicion of illegal business operations for something he had no idea about, and no one explained it to him. While in detention, he asked the investigators what crime he had committed, and they directly replied that it was the leader who said so. Could it be that the leader is greater than the law?
The prosecutor asked a very suggestive question: Who is the person in charge of the Shengjia Church? Elder Zhu Longfei answered wittily and sincerely: “Jesus Christ”. Another question asked was when it was said that books should be printed, did you agree or disagree? The lawyer objected vehemently, believing that this was obviously an inductive question, and asked the prosecutor to change the way and wording of the question, but the judge interrupted the defense lawyer before he finished listening to the defense lawyer’s reasons for objection, until three or four other lawyers loudly objected or even protested loudly that the defense lawyer can object with reasonable reasons, which is a right granted by law.
Several defense lawyers questioned the prosecutor. How can the church be regarded as a criminal group as if the church’s colleagues are all criminal partners? In the short indictment of a few pages, most of the space is about the church, and it is difficult not to feel that it is religious persecution.
The second trial was held for the first time at 10 am on August 19. The judge responded to the request of lay pastor Deng Yanxiang to see his youngest son. The judge said that because of the special nature of the case and out of humanitarian considerations, it was allowed to let the three siblings of Elder Zhu Longfei see their old father, because Uncle Zhu was over 90 years old and Mother Zhu had just passed away. The judge also agreed to let Deng Yanxiang see his youngest son. However, due to misunderstandings during the process of passing the message, Deng Yanxiang was unable to see his youngest son.
The trial that day continued to cross-examine the second set of evidence. The lawyer pointed out that the time, payment amount, and number of printed books provided by the witness were inconsistent and contradictory, and could not be used as evidence. The defense asked the prosecutor how the prosecutor could present such evidence, and he should be ashamed about defaming the university he graduated from and the legal professional knowledge he had learned. What’s more outrageous is that the prosecutor actually calculated the number of printed books by inferring from the amount of payment made, which did not meet the requirements of criminal law evidence collection and did not meet the standards for filing a case. Regarding the electronic evidence collection, the witness said that the transaction was made through WeChat and QQ, but the evidence showed that it was through 163 and Gmail, which was obviously inconsistent with the witness’s testimony.
The defense lawyer claimed the witness’ evidence was doubtful, and because the evidence collection was illegal, he requires the witness to produce the evidence recording or video or appear in court to testify. The lawyer strongly requested and was even willing to wait for him to come from Panyu, but the judge ignored it.
In view of the fact that Wang Weicai was suspected of printing less than 20% of the amount paid and quantity printed in this case, the lawyer applied for bail pending trial.
In the afternoon, the prosecutor presented the third set of evidence: the chat records between Deng Yanxiang and Wang Weicai. Elder Zhu Longfei said that the evidence had nothing to do with the case. The books placed upstairs in Zhu Qiaoling’s building were rented by them for marriage counseling and lectures on educating children. There were a lot of books in it that could be freely read.
Lay pastor Deng Yanxiang said that at least three or four pieces of evidence had nothing to do with the case, such as: the express delivery fee for donating clothes, voting for someone, etc.
Wang Weicai questioned whether the case was an “illegal business case” or Christians doing charity illegally? He said: “We are just doing good things and helping people, so why were we arrested? It can also be seen in the chat records that lay pastor Deng Yanxiang asked me to help in a very polite tone, and also said “thank you” and “can you help”, so there is no relationship between superiors and subordinates, and we are all equal. I just help to send and receive express delivery, and I will ask couriers or other people to help when I have time, so if I am guilty, are they also guilty?”
The defense lawyer defended from the following points:
- Question the integrity, authenticity, connectivity and consistency of the evidence.
- Because the defense lawyer team was hired from other places and could not understand Cantonese, and in the chat records of evidence three, there are a lot of voices in Cantonese. The lawyer proposed that the normal procedure should be that someone who is not related to the case should translate objectively instead of the prosecutor translating directly. (Later, the prosecutor denied that he was a translator and just explained that he was presenting evidence)
- Most of the evidence provided in the afternoon was the WeChat chat records between lay pastor Deng Yanxiang and Wang Weicai, as well as the voices of them sending and receiving express delivery. These records can indeed prove that they sent and received “Reading the Bible Interpretation“. All WeChat chats are in the public domain.
- The lawyer pointed out that lay pastor Deng Yanxiang’s mobile phone is an Apple mobile phone, which cannot be cracked unless it is through illegal means, so the evidence collection method is questionable. In addition, the chat records dated back to 2021 and are displayed as recovery information, indicating that they had all been deleted. They violated the privacy rights of citizens by recovering such information.
- All lawyers agreed that it was obviously not compliant for the prosecutor to only take the copied WeChat records as evidence. They requested the prosecution to provide the original mobile phone, or allow them to see the original evidence on the spot, or download the original USB flash drive of the chat records. But the judge said the original USB flash drive was broken and could not be opened. The mobile phone could not be provided either.
In summary, the lawyers believe that all the evidence provided by the prosecution is untenable, most of which were obtained illegally, and are full of errors and inconsistencies. Faced with many questions from many lawyers, the judge and the prosecutor did not respond.
Early on the morning of the 20th, the wives of several Christians on trial came to the gate of the court. They recorded a video and posted it online. They said:
Our husbands and second sister [Zhu Qiaoling] did not run a business or make profits, and they did not commit any crimes. We believe that the law is just. We look forward to them getting a just trial as soon as possible.
