(Bengbu, Anhui Province – November 25, 2024) November 22, 2024 marked the final day of a four-day trial for four Christians from the Bengbu Living Stone Reformed Church who were charged with “fraud” due to their religious belief.
Family members of the four defendants arrived at the court at 6 AM to request permission to attend the trial but were denied by the court. They could only pray outside the courthouse. When the four Christians were transported to court in separate police vehicles, although the windows were tinted black and completely closed, preventing the brothers and sisters outside from seeing those inside, they still waved vigorously, calling out the four Christians’ names and shouting “Stay strong!” Some Christians at the courthouse entrance called out:
“Judge, we want to attend the trial! We want to testify!” “Officials! We want to attend! I am a member of the public, I care about this case, I want to attend. Didn’t you say the trial would be fair, just, and open? Where is the fairness? Where is the justice? Where is the openness?! Didn’t you say this would be a public trial? Why aren’t we allowed to attend?”
According to those who attended the trial, Wan Changchun, Xue Shaoqiang, Cao Binting, and Wan Chunqin appeared very weak, with concerning health conditions. During the third day of the trial on the 21st, Wan Changchun even fainted in court. During the first two days of the trial, the four Christians repeatedly asked the court for water, but court personnel ignored them completely until Wan Changchun fainted. Cao Binting appeared so thin as to be almost unrecognizable. All four Christians appeared extremely fatigued. It was learned that during the first two days of the trial, their lunch consisted only of two cold steamed buns, and the trial sessions lasted until evening. By the time they returned to the detention center, they had missed dinner and had to go hungry. It is unknown whether they received breakfast the next morning due to early trial proceedings.
For this trial, the Bengbu Living Stone Reformed Church hired 10 lawyers, forming a 10-person legal team. The lawyers believe that the Yuhui District Court engaged in abuse of public power, administrative inaction, fabrication of false evidence, prevention of immediate family members from attending the trial, and mistreatment of the four Christians. During the trial, the lawyers also discovered numerous holes in the prosecution’s indictment, shoddy work, and suspected falsification. The specific issues are as follows:
1. In the illegal evidence investigation procedure, the prosecutor provided absurd explanations.
Cao Binting and Wan Chunqin raised objections about illegal evidence presented by the prosecution:
The simultaneous audio and video recordings should not be transferred automatically; they should only be obtained if the defendant or defense lawyers provides clues about illegal evidence and the court deems it necessary. The court should require the defendants or defense lawyers to provide clues of illegal evidence.
The prosecutor provided the following evidence:
- Physical examination forms for the four defendants upon entering detention, proving they were healthy upon entry and that police did not beat them
- Reports from two investigators certifying no illegal conduct during the investigation
- A report stating that the case handling officers were national security agents from a classified unit and unsuitable for public appearance or court attendance
- A report stating equipment malfunction led to missing recordings and some videos lacking audio
The lawyer argued:
- According to law, this case should have simultaneous recordings
- These reports were issued before the pre-trial conference, so why were they prepared before the lawyers even requested them? And why weren’t they included in the case files?
- Missing or incomplete recordings should result in investigator accountability
- Without recordings, the evidence should be excluded
The lawyer stated:
According to the regulations on jurisdiction by public security agencies, offenses such as illegal business operations and fraud can only be under the jurisdiction of the Economic Investigation Department. It is unlawful for the National Security agents to have jurisdiction. Presenting evidence from an investigation conducted under such jurisdiction clearly suggests the possibility of complicity on your part. Therefore, we request their recusal.
Furthermore, it is absurd for National Security agents, as a secret unit, to refuse to appear in court. You are currently required to prove the legality of the investigative actions. Does being a secret unit exempt you from proving legality? Does being a secret unit mean you are not required to abide by the law?
Judge Chang Ling said:
I remind you to express opinions relevant to the case, not irrelevant matters.
The Lawyer said:
I am discussing case issues, please don’t remind me arbitrarily. This case’s investigation period lasted several months – were the recording devices broken that entire time? The defendants took statements at several locations – were the recording devices broken at all locations?
2. Strange “victims” and “forced victims”
Wan Changchun said:
I don’t understand if this is a religious case or an economic case. Why can national security agents handle this case? My defense lawyers just clearly cited specific legal provisions showing national security has no jurisdiction over illegal business operations or fraud cases. For public authority organs, what isn’t authorized by law is prohibited – this is common sense even to ordinary people, so why can such obvious illegality occur in court? These so-called pieces of evidence proving the legality of evidence collection are utterly ridiculous – they wouldn’t even fool a child.
This morning I heard the supposed victim testify in court that she is not a victim – if she’s not a victim, was she “forced to be a victim”? If she herself says she’s not a victim, I want to ask the prosecutor: how did she get victim status?
If she’s not a victim but you forcibly designated her as one, then this trial shouldn’t be about Xue Shaoqiang, Cao Binting, Wan Chunqin and myself, but about you prosecutors.
Today I finally met the sister from church who had been writing letters to me in detention expressing her apologies. I finally saw her in person and heard her say she’s not a victim, that I didn’t deceive her. I’m grateful for this, as I always believed she wasn’t a victim.
The lawyer then said:
The victim’s status is very strange now – please clarify who actually victimized you? Were you victimized by Wan Changchun or by the prosecutor?
The “victim” broke down in tears in court after hearing this.
3. Results of illegal evidence investigation: absurd reports somehow proved evidence was legally obtained.
The judge stated:
The court cannot confirm the legality of unsigned statements from Cao Binting and Wan Chunqin, so these will be excluded. For the remaining statements, there is no suspicion of illegal evidence collection. The prosecutor may now present prosecution opinions.
The lawyers requested to comment on the morning’s pre-trial conference report, as this is a legal procedure.
The lawyers stated:
- According to Article 7 of the “Procedures for Excluding Illegal Evidence in Criminal Cases”: The People’s Procuratorate must transfer excluded illegal evidence along with the case, noting it as legally excluded illegal evidence, and transfer interrogation recordings and related case materials to the court. We request the recordings for Wan Changchun and Xue Shaoqiang.
- Witnesses should appear in court, and witnesses without valid reasons for refusing can be compelled to appear. The judge’s statement that witnesses consider their statements truthful is not a valid reason for non-appearance.
The lawyers believed:
The indictment contains multiple obvious fabrications. Such serious errors in an official state document damage state agency’s authority. Please have the prosecution revise the indictment.
The indictment clearly states the prosecutor informed victims of their legal rights and obligations on August 18, 2023, but the victim testified in court she never met the prosecutor. Please clarify which victim was informed? Is the victim named in the indictment the same person the prosecutor read aloud in court? This involves key case facts – the prosecutor cannot casually modify this in court. The prosecutor now dares not formally amend but quietly changes when reading. We request the prosecutor’s recusal from this case.
The presiding judge said:
This case does not involve unclear facts or insufficient evidence.
The lawyer believed:
This prejudges the case – before the trial even begins, the presiding judge has already decided the facts are clear and evidence is sufficient. The lawyers stated that the presiding judge privately verified witness testimony and already deemed it truthful, so what’s the point of our cross-examination? This denies our right to cross-examine and is illegal. I want to ask how many victims are there in this case? (Judge Chang confirmed only two victims) Since the judge has confirmed only two victims, please proceed with the trial based on two victims. If new victims appear later, that would be illegal.
Absurdly, the amount allegedly defrauded from the two “victims” doesn’t even meet the threshold for filing a case, so this case shouldn’t have been filed at all.
The lawyer for one “victim” also questioned:
“Paying for a lawyer to prove you weren’t deceived? What unknown story lies behind this?” An informed source said: “The victim testified in court she wasn’t defrauded. Regarding the indictment’s claim that the defendant incited followers to make offerings, the victim said no one incited her – if anyone incited her, it must have been her God!”
Further trial sessions are scheduled for December 17-19, 2024, and January 7-9, 2025.
(By Ningmeng, Special Correspondant for ChinaAid)
