The lawyers’ arguments are as follows:

1. Ding Zhongfu and Zhou Songlin never fabricated facts or concealed the truth about their identities as elder/pastor or the nature of the church. The prosecution’s most important accusation is the judgment of the defendants’ “deceptive” behavior. So, let’s first examine whether Ding and Zhou engaged in deceptive behavior. Deceptive behavior refers to actions that cause the other party to fall into a misunderstanding about disposing of property by fabricating facts or concealing the truth.

The indictment states: “Since 2008, the defendants Ding Zhongfu and Zhou Songlin, without obtaining qualifications as religious personnel, established ‘Ganquan Church’ in this city. Ding Zhongfu claimed to be an elder, responsible for the organization and management of the church, while Zhou Songlin claimed to be a pastor responsible for teaching doctrine. They engaged in illegal religious activities at multiple unapproved and unregistered religious activity venues and organized illegal religious training. They exploited others’ faith in Christianity to induce participants to pay 10% of their income as ‘tithe offerings,’ and used the money obtained to purchase and rent illegal religious activity venues, pay salaries and social security for preachers, and cover the daily expenses of ‘Ganquan Church’… All venues used by ‘Ganquan Church’ for religious activities were not registered as religious activity venues. Ding Zhongfu, Zhou Songlin, and others are not religious personnel registered in Hefei and do not have the qualifications to preach.”

The lawyers argue that the prosecution’s accusations logically equate “not obtaining qualifications as religious personnel” and “not being registered religious personnel in Hefei” with “deception” by Ding and Zhou, and equate administrative violations or internal disputes within Christianity with criminal offenses, which is completely erroneous. Ding and Zhou did not knowingly pretend to be registered religious personnel, nor did they conceal the truth that they were not elders or pastors ordained by the local Christian Council and Committee of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement of the Protestant Churches. Instead, they made this public, which did not lead to any misunderstanding among church members that Ding and Zhou were registered religious personnel in Hefei. Ding and Zhou’s Christian faith is real, their roles in the church’s management, preaching, and pastoral care are real, and the Christian church’s “tithe offering” system is real. Ding and Zhou’s identities as elder and pastor were publicly ordained in the church, and it was openly acknowledged that these identities did not originate from the recognition of the local Christian Council and Committee of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement of the Protestant Churches. Therefore, Ding and Zhou never fabricated facts or concealed the truth regarding the “tithe offerings,” let alone used such methods to cause believers to fall into a misunderstanding about disposing of property. Ding and Zhou were ordained as pastors and received elder/pastor certificates. Even if this was not approved by the local Christian Council and Committee of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement of the Protestant Churches, at most it is an internal disagreement and dispute within Christianity. The government does not have the knowledge or authority to act as an arbitrator or judge in this matter. Even if administrative agencies consider this “lack of religious personnel qualifications” as an administrative violation, judicial departments cannot equate such administrative violations with criminal offenses, because administrative violations or administrative offenses are not just quantitatively different from criminal offenses, but qualitatively distinct.

The principle of legality requires that the accused behavior clearly complies with the specific provisions and purposes of the criminal law before it can possibly constitute a criminal offense. Moreover, criminal judicial departments and their staff must take an independent stance in judging the facts of the case during the process, rather than directly accepting or adopting the judgments of administrative agencies. The true basis of the pastor ordination ceremony and self-made pastor certificates lies entirely in the authenticity of Ding and Zhou’s own religious beliefs and their understanding of their roles. The indictment did not present any evidence to question, let alone refute, Ding and Zhou’s claims about the authenticity of their religious beliefs and the origins of their elder/pastor identities. Therefore, Ding and Zhou do not engage in any deceptive behavior as clearly defined in Article 266 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China.

2. Ding Zhongfu and Zhou Songlin had no “deceptive” intent or purpose of “illegal possession”. Fraud can only be constituted by intent and must have the purpose of illegal possession. In other words, only when the perpetrator knowingly engages in deceptive behavior that causes the other party to develop a misunderstanding and dispose of property, resulting in property loss, and still desires or allows this result to occur, can it constitute fraud. Therefore, let’s now look at the indictment’s judgment of the subjective responsibility of the perpetrators. In this case, Ding and Zhou’s approval and management of believers’ “tithe offerings” in church’s management, preaching, and pastoral care fall within the scope of their responsibilities as church elders and pastors. Believers, based on their Christian faith and following the Christian obligations established by the Bible they believe in, voluntarily and decisively transfer ownership of a portion of their property to the church, to be owned and used by the church. Ding and Zhou are aware of and approve of the believers fulfilling this obligation and the process and results of this property transfer. However, the believers have not suffered property loss, and Ding and Zhou do not consider this a property loss, let alone desire or allow such a result of property loss to occur. Due to conflicts between Ganquan Church and local religious management departments, the church was banned and thus lacks legal person status and a social organization code certificate, making it impossible to open an independent bank account for the church to deposit and withdraw funds. This is the fundamental reason why the church’s tithe offerings were deposited into personal bank accounts. Even so, the relevant evidence in the indictment shows that 99.9% of the offerings were deposited in accounts belonging to others, not Ding’s personal account, and Zhou never participated in managing church finances. Therefore, the fact that offerings were deposited in personal bank accounts cannot be evidence that Ding and Zhou had the purpose of illegal possession. Moreover, all properties purchased by the church were decided by the church co-worker meeting, and several co-workers were elected to jointly hold the properties. Legal procedures were followed, with video notarization archived, proving that the properties belong to the church. In other words, Ding and Zhou never had the purpose of illegally possessing such property from beginning to end.

3. Church members did not develop any misunderstanding about Ding and Zhou’s identities as elder/pastor or the nature of the church. The indictment accuses: “Since 2008, the defendants Ding Zhongfu and Zhou Songlin, without obtaining qualifications as religious personnel, exploited others’ faith in Christianity to induce participants to pay 10% of their income as ‘tithe offerings’.”

Interestingly, the entire indictment provides no evidence of whether these victims developed any misunderstanding, what kind of misunderstanding they developed, and whether they disposed of property based on this misunderstanding. The ordination ceremony of Ding and Zhou as elder and pastor was held publicly, and it was common knowledge when Ding and Zhou were summoned by the police station when the church was banned. Therefore, it is impossible for believers to have any misunderstanding or erroneous perception about their identities as elder/pastor and the nature of the church.

4. Ding and Zhou never acquired the property; the property belongs collectively to the church, not to any individual. The indictment states, “exploiting others’ faith in Christianity to induce participants to pay 10% of their income as ‘tithe offerings,’ and using the money obtained to purchase and rent illegal religious activity venues, pay salaries and social security for preachers, and cover the daily expenses of ‘Ganquan Church’.” Tithe offering is an obligation of Christian church members based on biblical teachings, voluntarily contributing 10% of their personal monthly income for the church to use, including paying church workers’ salaries and other expenses. Tithe offering is based on a two-thousand-year church tradition, practiced by Christians worldwide. Offerings are given to God, not to any individual. Offering acknowledges that Christians’ earnings are given by God, so Christians give with grateful hearts and on a voluntary basis. Moreover, believers did not strictly adhere to the tithe offering requirement. Additionally, the church specifically appointed accountants and cashiers, indicating that the church had established a financial system commensurate with its capabilities and awareness. The reason why tithe offerings were deposited into personal bank accounts, as mentioned earlier, was due to the predicament that the church lacked legal person status and a social organization code certificate, making it impossible to open an independent account for the church at a bank. All unregistered churches in China operate their finances in this manner. The church has the right to decide what constitutes religious use of funds, including giving to individuals. The principle of “separation of church and state” determines that the state has no right, and in fact lacks the knowledge, to intervene so deeply in religious affairs as to judge what constitutes religious use. Unless the prosecution has conclusive evidence proving that Ding and Zhou intentionally violated the church’s financial system and engaged in deceptive behavior with the purpose of illegal possession at the time of violation.

5. There is no causal relationship between believers’ tithe offerings and Ding and Zhou’s actions. The indictment lists several witness testimonies and so-called “victim” statements, attempting to prove the fact that believers’ property was damaged. Indeed, from the perspective of property (rights) transfer, the believers’ or so-called victims’ property decreased. But there are two reasons for the decrease in property, or two types of “property decrease”: One is that believers have genuine Christian faith and, based on this faith, fulfill their obligation of “tithe offering” by voluntarily giving a portion of their property to the church. The other is that believers were deceived by Ding and Zhou preaching Christian beliefs that they themselves don’t actually believe in, fabricating their identities as elder and pastor, and inventing the church system of “tithe offering” and other such “scams,” and according to Ding and Zhou’s wishes, gave a portion of their property to the church. Obviously, only the second type of property decrease could comply with the corresponding provisions of Article 266 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China regarding fraud. Only this type of property decrease could be called being deceived into a misunderstanding and then making a property disposition. However, the indictment neither provides any evidence that Ding and Zhou employed the aforementioned “scams,” nor any evidence that the believers’ acceptance of the Christian faith was the result of being “induced” by Ding and Zhou. Similarly, there is no evidence that Ding and Zhou’s identities as elder and pastor were denied by all pastors, elders, and believers, nor any evidence that “tithe offering” is not a system that exists in Christian doctrine and tradition. Believers making tithe offerings is the result of their own pursuit and understanding of the Christian faith, fulfilling this Christian obligation. In short, believers did not donate property to the church due to any misunderstanding caused by Ding and Zhou’s actions.