(Hefei, Anhui – May 28, 2025) On July 22, 2025, at the Second Courtroom of the Shushan District People’s Court, Pastor Zhou Songlin and Elder Ding Zhongfu stood trial on charges of “fraud.” The prosecution and defense engaged in fierce exchanges over the legitimacy of the church, the procedures of its administrative ban, and the authenticity of the evidence.
The prosecution characterized Ganquan Church as an unregistered “illegal organization” and accused Zhou Songlin and Ding Zhongfu of failing to inform church members that the church had been banned, and that preaching with the pastor title constituted “fraud.” However, the defendants and their legal team refuted these accusations one by one. The church representatives made clear that they had never received a formal ban notice, and that the public security records contained false statements, leaving the charges without basis and exposing serious procedural flaws.
During the hearing, Pastor Zhou Songlin testified that he merely served as a convener for church meetings; his duties were preaching, administering communion and baptism, and caring for the congregation, and not administrative management. All matters of the church are decided collectively by a team and managed transparently. Elder Ding Zhongfu also stated that when his deposition was taken by the police, his health was in poor condition, and some of his statements were not given voluntarily, emphasizing the transparency of the church’s administration. The attorneys directly questioned whether the notice to ban the church had ever been delivered, arguing that this deprived the defendants of their remedies for rights, rendering the ban procedurally and substantively unlawful.
Background of the Hefei Ganquan Church
Ganquan Church, a house church in Anhui, began as a small Bible study group of a few Christians, and twenty years later, it has grown into one of the more influential churches in the area. Its members make voluntary offerings, under strict financial oversight, with accounts made public on a regular basis. In mid-November 2023, the congregation discovered that hidden cameras had been secretly installed in the church; however, the church continued to gather. On November 30, 2023, local Hefei police suddenly detained Pastor Zhou Songlin, Elder Ding Zhongfu, and 16 others on charges of “fraud,” placing them in criminal detention. Except for Zhou Songlin and Ding Zhongfu, the others were later successively released on bail pending trial. Pastor Zhou Songlin and Elder Ding Zhongfu are facing criminal charges, with back-to-back hearings held on July 16–18 and July 21–22.
This case exposes a more profound misunderstanding within China regarding the legal status of house churches, the practice of Christian faith, and the natural right of belief. Regarding the technicalities of the case, local judicial authorities invoked unconstitutional regulations on religious management to determine the legality of Christian faith groups, from which they erroneously inferred that collecting offerings constitutes “fraud,” even resorting to various other unfounded charges to secure convictions.
In the long run, the correct approach would be to act within China’s own constitutional framework: abolish institutions such as the Religious Affairs Bureau and the “Patriotic Association,” allow all faith communities to register simply as social organizations, let the faith groups themselves decide pastoral qualifications, and grant churches tax-exempt status for their finances. Abolish all rules and regulations targeting religion, comprehensively affirming the right to faith rather than restricting it. Manipulating the rights of Christians through government power is a pitiable folly. Religious issues must not be criminalized or politicized.
Cases like this fully expose the deeply unprofessional handling by local authorities. The actions of Hefei’s public security, prosecutors, and courts toward Ganquan Church only increase public sympathy for the church while disgracing the Chinese government on the global stage. ChinaAid Association calls on the Ministry of Public Security, state security units, and the judiciary to ease the handling of this case, lift coercive measures, and immediately release Elder Ding Zhongfu and Pastor Zhou Songlin.
Below is a summary of the defense arguments from the July 22 hearing.
Court Summary: The Truth Is Revealed Through the Defense
Prosecutor Li Weihua presented evidence, accusing Ganquan Church of being an unregistered and therefore is an “illegal organization,” alleging that Zhou Songlin and Ding Zhongfu failed to inform the congregation that the church had been shut down and that their preaching as pastors constituted “fraud.”
The defendants and their attorneys countered with facts and law, pointing out that the church never received a formal ban notice, the public security transcripts contained falsified records, the charges lacked a legal basis, and the administrative process was unlawful.
Pastor Zhou Songlin testified in court that he served only as the convener of meetings, responsible for preaching, communion, baptism, and caring for the congregation, not as an administrative manager in the secular sense. Church affairs were decided collectively by the leadership team.
Elder Ding Zhongfu stated that when the transcripts were produced by the police, his health was severely compromised, some statements were not made voluntarily, and he emphasized the transparency of the church’s administration.
The attorneys challenged the failure to serve the ban notice to the defendants, which deprived them of their remedies for rights, rendering both the procedure and the ban unlawful. While the prosecution attempted to cloak its intent to suppress the church in legal terminology, the defendants and their attorneys, relying on fact and truth, exposed the absurdity of the charges.
Focus of the Accusation: The “Illegality” of Ganquan Church
The prosecutor presented the confessions of Zhou Songlin and Ding Zhongfu, asserting that Ganquan Church had not been registered with the religious affairs department, thus making it an “illegal organization,” and that their act of preaching without government approval constituted fraud.
Pastor Zhou Songlin responded that he and the church had repeatedly sought to communicate with the government, expressing willingness to be subject to government oversight. Since 2013, he had interacted with the Baohe District and Hefei religious affairs department and state security officer Wang Jun, but never received a positive response or a formal ban notice.
Elder Ding Zhongfu added that when the church was dispersed from meeting at Anliang City Plaza in 2018, Shushan District Ethnic and Religious Affairs Bureau director Hu Jinshan merely issued a verbal demand to stop gathering, without providing any written document. He emphasized that the church had never been formally declared “illegal” and that the use of “illegal organization” in the public security transcript was not his original wording. Under interrogation, due to high blood pressure and stress, his memory was unclear, and his signature was not voluntary.
Defense attorney Li Guisheng questioned the authenticity of the public security transcripts, noting that when Ding Zhongfu’s transcript was taken on November 30, 2023, his blood pressure was at 170, and with his consciousness clouded, parts of the content were altered.
Attorney Zhang Kai further pointed out that the prosecution failed to prove that the church had been lawfully banned, as no notice had been served on the defendants, stripping it of legal validity and depriving them of the right to administrative review and litigation.
Attorney Tang Xianlong emphasized that the religious affairs department merely found the church’s preaching to be “noncompliant,” without any connection to “fraud,” and that the public security and procuratorate overstepped their authority to pursue criminal charges, and it counts as “overstepping their bounds” (handling matters outside the scope of their duties).
Procedure on the Ban: The Absurdity of Administrative Action
The prosecutor presented three sets of evidence, attempting to prove that Ganquan Church had been banned. However, the defendants and attorneys consistently rebutted, asserting that the church had never received a formal ban notice and that the procedure was unlawful.
Pastor Zhou Songlin clarified that the activity at Super 8 Hotel was a marriage counseling seminar, not a religious gathering, led by a Chinese national speaker, aimed at helping families, and not involving religious content. He questioned: “Why classify a public service seminar as an illegal religious activity?”
Elder Ding Zhongfu added that the bureau of ethnic and religious affairs official Hu Jinshan had even facilitated the sale of chairs at church, transferring the proceeds back to the church, demonstrating that the authorities did not completely deny the church’s existence.
Attorney Zhao Qingshan noted that the notice for collecting evidence had no date filled in, and the copies lacked verification against the originals, violating the Criminal Procedure Law’s provisions regarding documentary evidence, rendering it inadmissible.
Attorney Ge Xianyang further argued that the notice was based on the Regulations on Religious Affairs, which conflict with the Constitution, making them subordinate and invalid, and therefore not a legitimate basis for the case.
Fraud Charges: A Baseless Accusation
The prosecutor attempted to accuse Zhou Songlin and Ding Zhongfu of “fraud” based on the church’s collection of offerings. Pastor Zhou Songlin responded that offerings were given voluntarily by members, used for the church’s daily operations and ministries, with transparent management. The annual budget was voted on by over 30 member representatives, and his own salary was only at the average salary level like the rest of the congregation.
Elder Ding Zhongfu clarified that he received no salary, only a 3,000 yuan monthly stipend for his marriage counseling ministry, through which he had helped nearly a hundred couples sustain their marriages, with none resulting in divorce, reflecting the church’s public service mission.
Ge Xianyang noted that church affairs were managed by a group, with major expenditures requiring collective consent, and the prosecutor had failed to present any evidence that the defendants had misappropriated funds.
Attorney Zhao Qingshan further questioned the legality of the prosecutor’s supplemental evidence, submitted on December 9, 2024, during the trial period, without requesting an extension of the investigation according to law, making the evidence inadmissible.
These defenses revealed that the “fraud” charge was utterly groundless. Church offerings were voluntarily given, transparently managed, and how could this constitute “fraud”? Such accusations are like clouds that obscure the truth, but are unable to conceal the light of the Gospel.
Testimony Amid Persecution
Under intense pressure, Pastor Zhou Songlin and Elder Ding Zhongfu continued to respond to the charges with the truth of Scripture, just as the Apostle Paul said: “Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death” (Philippians 1:20 NIV). The attorneys wielded the law as their sword, exposing procedural violations and the absurdity of the accusations, calling for fairness and justice. Though the church was labeled “illegal,” however, it bore witness to the sovereignty of Christ amid persecution: “and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” (Matthew 16:18 NIV).
Reprinted and translated by ChinaAid from the Kingdom Prayer Network
Relevant Coverage: