(Hefei, Anhui — July 26, 2025) On July 21, 2025, the trial of Elder Ding Zhongfu and Pastor Zhou Songlin of Ganquan Church, charged with “fraud,” continued at the Shushan District People’s Court in Hefei. This case is essentially a fabricated and unjust prosecution, as Hefei authorities are seeking to suppress the two pastors in order to shut down Qingquan Church.

The Hefei prosecution claimed to have identified “victims” of the alleged “fraud,” but these so-called “victims” were all members of the church. When testifying in court, each made it clear they had not been deceived by the two pastors and firmly stated that their offerings were voluntary acts of faith. This brought the core issue of the case squarely onto the church’s offering practices. Hefei’s public security and procuratorates have sought to classify church tithes as “fraud,” using this as the basis to arrest the two pastors.

During the trial, Elder Ding Zhongfu pointed out that the case does not meet any of the elements that constitute fraud.

Defense: No Criminal Facts Exist in This Case

The defense attorneys unequivocally argued that no criminal act exists in this case. They emphasized that even if a Christian house church is unregistered with the government, it is still, in essence, a church. Its lack of registration cannot be used to deem it illegal, nor is this a valid reason for offerings given by Christians to be criminalized. The contents preached by the two pastors were Christian teachings, with no pretense or exploitation of Christianity for fraudulent purposes.

The lawyers further noted that the practice of offering and tithing has been a Christian tradition for over two thousand years. To label this as fraud is tantamount to denying the entire Christian faith.

Attorney Zhao Qingshan pointed out that both the filing and investigation of the case contained illegality, and that no law in China requires Christian pastors to be appointed by the state-sanctioned “Two Associations.” Attorneys Ge Xianyang and Li Guisheng thoroughly exposed the absurdity of the prosecution’s arguments from the perspectives of faith, common legal understanding, and procedural legitimacy.

Attorney Li Guisheng posed a rhetorical question: “If a victim in a rape case says she consented, can the police still claim she was forced?” He emphasized that all eight “victims” clearly stated they were not defrauded, and that the prosecution’s accusations were entirely fabricated. Attorney Zhang Kai further pointed out that the prosecutor was conflating a pastor’s identity with the lawyer’s qualification to practice law, thereby confusing professional qualifications with constitutional rights, which revealed a fundamental lack of expertise. He stressed that unregistered house churches are not illegal, as explicitly affirmed in national religious policies.

In the Face of Evidence, the Prosecutor Remains Obstinate

This case has already gone through four hearings this July. All of the evidence presented by the prosecutor in court from the so-called “victims” clearly proves the innocence of Elder Ding Zhongfu and Pastor Zhou Songlin. However, the prosecutor remains unrepentant, even openly showing contempt for faith during the proceedings. Nevertheless, all the defendants, “victims,” and defense attorneys have stood united in defending the dignity of their faith. The trial will continue, and we pray for God’s sovereignty to reign, that justice may ultimately prevail!

This is one of the typical cases where Chinese authorities fabricate “fraud” charges, primarily accusing leaders of house churches (churches not formally registered with the Chinese government) of fraud because they refuse government registration, believing that registering means cooperating with the political agenda of placing the government and the Communist Party above God.

Ganquan Church is a house church that, after twenty years of its establishment, has grown into a relatively influential church in the local area. On November 30, 2023, local police abruptly detained Pastor Zhou Songlin, Elder Ding Zhongfu, and others on suspicion of fraud charges. Apart from Pastor Zhou and Elder Ding, who remain in custody, the others have been consecutively released on bail pending trial.

The following account comes from a statement issued by the Kingdom Prayer Network, a Christian prayer group:

All Evidence Points to Innocence

During the July 21 hearing, Prosecutor Li Weihua first presented the deposition of “victim” Wei Wenli, stating that she would respond collectively to all cross-examination opinions during the court argument phase of the trial.

Elder Ding Zhongfu’s Cross-Examination:

I do not agree with the prosecutor’s plan to respond to all cross-examination points collectively. There are so many pieces of evidence and so many points of cross-examination; I do not believe it to be reasonable for an unified answer to properly address our opinions. The law outlines the elements required to constitute fraud, and our case meets none of them. I ask the prosecutor not to gloss over the issues; doing so is irresponsible to this case, extremely unjust to us, and inconsistent with the duties of a prosecutor. We, the two defendants, Ding Zhongfu and Zhou Songlin, are extremely insignificant before the law, and thus the law grants us corresponding rights such as the right to recusals. We must fight for our rights. If, due to the case’s procedures, we have caused you harm, this is not directed against you personally, please forgive us.

The defense lawyers agreed with Elder Ding’s opinions, and the judge ordered the prosecutor to respond to each examination individually. The prosecutor then presented the depositions of six “victims”: Wang Ting, Tang Chengliang, Jiang Yongjun, Feng Aixin, and Guo Xin.

All six of the depositions stated that they had not been defrauded. “Victims” Jiang Yongjun and Tang Chengliang also testified in court that their offerings were acts of faith, voluntary, and free from deception.

Attorney Li Guisheng’s Cross-Examination:

From the statements of the six “victims,” none were deceived as alleged in the indictment. All victims expressed that, according to the Bible, they gave their possessions to God’s house. Their understanding has nothing to do with whether the church was registered; wherever they worship, they would give offerings. From the depositions, it is clear the defendants did not “pose” as Christians; they preached genuine Christianity. A non-registered venue preaching Christianity is still Christianity, it cannot be said that it is not Christianity simply because it is unregistered. There is no illegal religious activity here, only a violation of the Regulations on Religious Affairs.

For citizens, anything not prohibited by law is permissible, and by “law,” we mean laws passed by the National People’s Congress; the State Council is just a law enforcement department. To forbid religious activities based on registration is unconstitutional. It is those suppressing and banning religious activities who are violating the Constitution. The depositions of the “victims” not only fail to substantiate the accusations but, in fact, affirm that no crime has been committed in this case.

Attorney Zhang Kai’s Cross-Examination:

To date, we have seen no evidence of anyone deceiving the so-called victims. All of them say they gave according to the Bible and God’s will. Are you all planning to put God on trial? We have also seen no evidence that anyone was defrauded; all the victims stated that it was voluntary and that they were not defrauded. There is also no evidence on how the fraud took place.

The indictment claims the pastors “fraudulently used the name of Christianity,” but the “victims” consistently state they gave in accordance with the Bible. So, what does it mean to “fraudulently use the name of Christianity”? Does the lack of registration automatically make them “fake Christians”? If that is what the prosecution is asserting, then this is outright anti-Party and anti-society. At present, we see no evidence that they preached anything other than Christianity or preached a false Christianity. Does it mean all of it is fraud if the collection of tithes, something that has been a Christian tradition for over two thousand years, even practiced in “three-self” churches, constitutes fraud? This is not a trial of two defendants; it is a trial of this entire era, a trial of all religious policies enacted since 1982.

In the afternoon session, Prosecutor Li Weihua presented the deposition of “victim” Jiang Jun.

Attorney Zhao Qingshan’s Cross-Examination:

Jiang Jun is fully aware that he is part of a house church and that his offerings were voluntary. He is well aware of whether the pastor is qualified, and he attends precisely because the pastor’s preaching is sound.

Attorney Ge Xianyang’s Cross-Examination:

Jiang Jun’s deposition still cannot substantiate the claims of “fraudulent use of the name of Christianity” and “fraud.” Unless the prosecution believes that all house churches are “fraudulently using the name of Christianity”.

Lawyer Ou Yuanfang, representative of Jiang Jun did not cross examine, but instead asked the defendants two questions: Did the two defendants know that the Qingquan Church case has been publicized by Western anti-China media, and do you acknowledge it? Previously, the church’s teachings were about not involving politics or foreign affairs, so why allow anti-China media to sensationalize it?

Elder Ding Zhongfu Responded:

Isn’t this also a leading question? How would I know what anti-China media has published? I have not published any content. What are you trying to get me to say by asking me to make a statement?

Pastor Zhou Songlin Responded:

I don’t know what is happening outside. I have no way to judge what is anti-China or not. I have always believed that the church has no political agenda, not involving politics means we have no political demands. We also do not oppose the Party’s leadership. Our only demands are matters of faith. This time, our faith has been interfered with. We hired lawyers to defend our right to practice our faith, not to confront the government. I consider it an honor to suffer persecution for my faith. As for foreign involvement, my stance is that all churches should be independent. We are truly ‘Three-Self’— self-dependent, self-sustaining, and self-propagating.

Attorney Li Guisheng Pointed Out:

Attorney Ou, as Jiang Jun’s representative, did not address the authenticity of Jiang Jun’s deposition but instead questioned the defendants about political and foreign involvements. This violates a lawyer’s fundamental duty to their client.

Attorney Zhang Kai Added:

Our efforts are precisely to prevent anti-China forces from eroding our nation. We believe the greatest anti-China forces are the corrupt officials. Everything we are doing is to ensure the law returns to the law itself. This case must be strictly handled according to the law, without interference from these so-called anti-China forces.

Attorney Li Guisheng Produced Supplemental Statements from Jiang Jun and Feng Aixin:

These two pieces of evidence represent the true intent of the alleged victims. Both prove there was no “fraudulent use of the name of Christianity”; offerings were made according to the Bible, with no compulsory requirement, and the sermons were even more sound than those of the state-sanctioned “Three-Self” churches. No one was defrauded; the offerings were voluntary. Jiang Jun repeatedly told the police he was not a victim, yet the police did not record it in the deposition. This is a criminal act! This is bending the law for personal gain! According to the Provisions on the Procedures for Handling Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs, such depositions must also be recorded. By not including them, they are bending the law for personal gain, which is a crime punishable by prison! These two pieces of evidence completely disprove the prosecutor’s accusations.

“Faith Testimony Is Superstition; Fraud Charges Don’t Require a Victim”

Prosecutor Li Weihua’s Rebuttal:

Attorney Zhao Qingshan Responded:

1. “A case must be initiated against a person or an event, but neither was done correctly here. This case was not lawfully filed, and all investigations were illegal.

2. There is no law in China that states pastors must be appointed by the “Two Associations”. Christianity is a religion with over two-thousand-years of history, would there be no pastors without the ‘Two Associations’?

3. Not a single victim claims to have been defrauded, yet the defendants were charged with fraud. Even the prosecutor admits the charges are based solely on the Regulations on

Religious Affairs. Victims themselves say they were not defrauded, yet the prosecutor insists they were. How absurd!

4. The prosecutor says Tang Chengliang is deeply deceived because he believes faith can heal. Christianity is a faith that, for over two thousand years, has been testified to by countless people and withstood endless scrutiny. The God of Christianity truly exists, we have seen evidence, and countless people have witnessed the existence of God for more than 2,000 years.To say something not seen by the eyes and therefore must be superstition, this is true ignorance!”

Attorney Ge Xianyang Added:

The prosecutor dismisses Tang Chengliang’s courtroom testimony on the grounds that “faith can bring healing is impossible.” Prosecutor, have you studied Christianity? Have you even read the Bible? I myself have witnessed many such things firsthand. I was once an intellectual and a Party member. Through many experiences, I realized how small and humbled I truly am. I urge you to maintain reverence, do not blaspheme God!

Attorney Li Guisheng Responded:

According to the prosecutor’s claim about the legality of case filing and evidence collection, the prosecutor portrays the police as selfless, almost mythical figures. Such people basically do not exist in reality. The case registration states that the public security organ filed the case because they discovered criminal facts. How did they discover them? Through monitoring others’ WeChat? That itself is illegal.

Just now, the prosecutor cited the Measures for the Recognition of Christian Clergy in China. This regulation was issued by the Christian Council, which has no authorization to do so. They can only set rules for clergy within their own denomination, which has nothing to do with this case. Everything the prosecutor read applies solely within the Christian Council’s internal framework.

Regarding the prosecutor’s claim that fraud charges should not hinge on whether victims themselves believe they were defrauded, Attorney Li rebutted: In a rape case, if the victim says she consented, can the police simply claim she was coerced anyway? All eight alleged victims have said they were not defrauded. If it is said that they were under the wrong impression, then why, after the case has reached the court, with trial underway, do the alleged victims still insist they were not defrauded? This completely defies logic.

The prosecutor argued that Feng Aixin’s ability to recall what the police asked her, even eight months later, is not logical. But these questions concern her faith, something she will remember for her entire life. What she said is factual, not just after eight months, any Christian would remember such things for life.

The prosecutor claimed that believing in faith can heal is ignorant. Li countered:
“I graduated from Northwestern Polytechnical University, where I studied engine manufacturing. I used to be a staunch materialist. Human understanding of this world is still shallow; science is extremely limited. To say believing in science above all is in itself superstition. There are countless testimonies everywhere of people who have been healed after coming to faith in God. Some were former Buddhists or believers of other religions, who were healed after coming to faith. To claim that it is impossible for someone’s illness to be healed after believing in God is a statement in itself that is truly ignorant.

Attorney Zhang Kai Responded:

After listening to Prosecutor Li Weihua’s arguments, I think they might seem reasonable at first listen, especially to someone who does not understand the law, who might be persuaded by her stance. The problem is, the law is not that simple. If it were that simple, it would not require at least four years of professional study. As a legal professional, the moment he opened his mouth, I could tell he was not a skilled legal professional.

I can say that if an individual practices law without a license, claiming to be a lawyer, that is indeed fraud. However, the qualifications for being a lawyer and for being a pastor are not the same. One is a professional license; the other is a constitutional right. Professions like lawyers and doctors involve qualifications that are granted after the fact. However, some rights are natural, inherent to being human. Religious belief is one of those rights. This is not just the right to believe, but also the right to practice one’s belief. The prosecutor equates the qualifications of a lawyer with those of a pastor. This demonstrates a complete lack of professionalism.

The prosecutor claimed that Jiang Jun did not know his church was illegal and the pastor never told him therefore he was defrauded. First of all, this presupposes that the church is illegal. Is failing to register automatically deemed it illegal? I have explained many times: not registering does not mean illegal. There is a clear legal basis for this. What does “illegal” mean? This is actually a very complex issue. For over two thousand years of legal history, people have debated this question, since the death of Socrates, jurists have asked: What is law? Is an unjust law still law? From natural law to positive law, the question has persisted. After World War II, during the trials of Nazi Germany, the Nazis argued they acted according to German law, but the tribunal ruled that they violated a higher law. If such a complex issue has been debated for millennia, could Jiang Jun possibly articulate it clearly?

What exactly is our country’s position on the legality of house churches? Former Director of the State Administration for Religious Affairs, Ye Xiaowen, once said that China’s requirement for religious venues to register was intended to protect religious activities; registration is voluntary, not mandatory, and whether or not a church registers cannot be used as grounds for deeming it illegal or criminal. When the Regulations on Religious Affairs took effect in January 2018, and the White Paper on Religious Affairs was issued in April, it clearly stated that all religious activities conducted by believers in their own homes are legally protected and no one may interfere. We have made so many public statements internationally, yet none of these are being acknowledged. What you are putting on trial is not just two individuals; you are putting an entire era on trial. I believe these actions are an anti-Party move by individuals within the Party who are violating the law, and prosecuting these two individuals will have enormous negative repercussions.

What shocks me most is Prosecutor Li Weihua’s failure to understand cases where people are healed of illness through faith in Jesus. This is such ignorance and foolishness! Anyone who reads even a little will recognize what a display of ignorance this kind of idea is. This is the arrogance of so-called rationality, how terrifying it is! We must remember humanity is small and limited. The Bible says, we are all in a play for the angels to watch, what we do today is like a play, all that we do is being watched by the angels, and everything we do will receive judgment from God. I hope those committing evil will repent and confess their sins soon. What moved me most was the conduct of the two defendants, they are truly worthy of being called servants of God.

Tang Chengliang:

“You say my parents’ recovery from illness after believing in Christ is superstition. If it had not happened in my own family, I wouldn’t believe it either. But I saw it with my own eyes, so I must believe. My Christian faith is not superstition. You call me superstitious, well, fortunately, I can no longer be a teacher. Whether I am fit to teach is not for you or the school to decide, it is for the students and their parents. After I left, the parents’ group chat exploded; children cried and refused to eat, saying my departure had drastically hurt the class’s performance and the parents wanted me to come back.

Zhou Songlin:

The prosecutor shows deep disrespect for our faith. When I attended training by the United Front Work Department years ago, the Minister of the United Front Work Department told me, we must respect one another’s beliefs. The prosecutor’s attitude of utter disrespect for our faith makes me feel deeply grieved.

A Cry for Justice: A Plea for Forgiveness

The July 21 trial revealed the ignorance and arrogance of many law enforcement officials toward matters of faith, but it also displayed the courage and conscience of Christians who stood firm to defend the truth in court. As Jesus said on the cross:

“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34, NIV)

(China Aid Association)

Relevant Coverage:

Series on the Legal Defenses for the Ganquan Case (II): Testimony Illuminates the Courtroom – Report on the July 17 Ganquan Trial