(Xi’an — June 26, 2025) The case against Pastor Lian Changnian, Pastor Lian Xuliang, and Preacher Fu Juan of Xi’an Church of Abundance, accused of “fraud,” was heard at Baqiao District People’s Court in Xi’an on June 24, 2025. The trial was shrouded with irregularities, as both lawyers and the so-called “victims” were barred from entering the courtroom. On June 26, individuals named as “victims” in the indictment collectively issued a statement declaring: “We were not defrauded; this was an act of faith-based offering.”
The central and most ironic controversial point in the case lies in the fact that several members of the Xi’an Church of Abundance, identified by the court as “victims,” unanimously denied having been deceived.
On June 26, seven members of the church issued a public statement, clearly asserting: “We believe we are Christians who are giving offerings in accordance with Christian tradition, and no one deceived us.” This statement directly refutes the prosecution’s foundational claim in charging the pastors and coworkers with fraud. They emphasized that offerings are a tradition of the Christian faith; they are voluntary and represent Christians’ expression of faith, not the result of coercion or manipulation.
The statement further pointed out that during the June 24 trial at Baqiao District Court, they requested to participate in the proceedings in accordance with law, but were denied by the collegial panel, Huang Xiaofeng, Duan Wenwen, and Judge Liu Jianglei. They were neither notified nor allowed to appear in court. The Christians stated that this action “violated the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law and deprived us of our litigation rights.”
The statement concluded by urging the Baqiao District People’s Court to “implement President Xi Jinping’s principle of governing the country according to law, and promptly arrange for our participation in the trial.” This, they emphasized, was not only a defense of their own rights but also a call for judicial fairness.
“Victims” deny being harmed: Who are the real victims?
When the so-called “victims” clearly state that they were not defrauded, the fraud charges in this case become untenable. Lawyer Zeng Yue previously questioned whether a “victim” was defrauded is the core element of a fraud charge. Denying them a chance to appear in court, he argued, is tantamount to barring plaintiffs from attending a civil case, which is utterly absurd. He asked rhetorically, “Who, then, has truly harmed the victims?”
Lawyer Zhang Kai also noted that barring the “victims” from entering the courtroom severely undermines the fairness of the proceedings. He stressed that only by allowing the “victims” to appear in court can the defense question them about where, how, and for how much they were allegedly defrauded. Without clarifying these facts, denying them courtroom access effectively strips them of their legal rights.
The Christians’ statement and the lawyers’ questions together expose the central contradiction of the case: the prosecution’s fraud charge lacks actual victims, and those labeled “victims” by law have instead become the actual victims, stripped of their right to be heard in court.
A Trial Shrouded in Doubt: Where Is Judicial Fairness?
Beyond the absence of the so-called “victims,” the trial proceedings were riddled with other troubling questionable points. Pastor Lian Changnian, Pastor Lian Xuliang, and Preacher Fu Juan were initially taken away on August 17, 2022, reportedly because their church, Church of Abundance, refused to join the state-controlled Three-Self Patriotic Movement. During their residential surveillance at a designated location, the three individuals were allegedly subjected to torture, including starvation, beatings, forced ingestion of unidentified drugs, and prolonged denial of bathroom use. On August 19, 2022, the Xi’an Municipal Civil Affairs Bureau officially shut down the church.
At the trial this time, not only were the “victims” barred from entering the courtroom, but even more troubling was the fact that, over an hour after the scheduled start time, six defense lawyers were still kept waiting outside in line. The court even attempted to unilaterally terminate lawyer Zhang Kai and others representing lawyers on the grounds of “tardiness.” Alarmingly, the indictment received by the lawyers from the prosecutor’s office bore no official seal, rendering it legally invalid. During the trial, the judge openly declared that “this case already has instructions from the leadership,” prompting serious speculations from the defense about the trial’s openness and impartiality.
On June 25, Pastor Lian Changnian issued a statement firmly asserting that he would not revoke the legal representation of lawyers Zhang Kai and Ge Xianyang, stating they “speak according to the law and uphold the principles of justice and fairness.” His resolve reflects both his yearning for a just trial and his trust in the integrity of his legal team.
On the 25th, Pastor Lian Xuliang also issued a “Statement on Not Terminating Legal Counsel,” which he submitted to the court and relevant authorities. In the statement, he explained that on the day of the June 24th hearing, his defense attorneys, Liu Anqiang and Yang Yaohua, had arrived outside the court on time, in accordance with the prescribed schedule, and were waiting to be allowed in. However, due to the court’s failure to grant timely access, the legal team was ultimately unable to enter and participate in the trial proceedings lawfully. Pastor Lian Xuliang affirmed that he had never intended, nor had he ever agreed, to dismiss his current attorneys. He called on the court to respect the defendant’s right to independently appoint legal representation, to uphold lawyers’ lawful rights to practice, and to ensure the trial is conducted in a legal and fair manner.
Against the backdrop of collective denials of fraud by church members, serious concerns surrounding trial procedures, and rumors of “leadership directives,” the Church of Abundance case has become more than just a criminal prosecution. It has become a critical test of religious freedom and judicial independence in China. ChinaAid calls on the international community to continue monitoring developments in this case and expresses hope that the law will serve the cause of justice, rather than be used as a tool to suppress faith.
(Reported by Special Correspondent Gao Zhensai of ChinaAid)