In Inner Mongolia, nine Christians – Wang Honglan, her husband Ji Heying, their son Ji Guolong, nephew Wang Jiale, daughter Liu Minna, son-in-law Liu Wei, Zhang Wang, Yang Zhijun, and Li Chao – have been criminally detained by the Hui District Public Security Bureau since April 15, 2021, on suspicion of illegal business operations.
Except for Li Chao, who was released on bail after a year in custody, the others have been detained for more than two years and seven months, far exceeding the legal limit.
On November 22, 2021, the Hui District Procuratorate transferred the case to the court for prosecution. After two pre-trial conferences (the first declared invalid due to the prosecutor’s identity issue), the Hui District Court officially began public hearings on November 20, 2023 (Monday).
The court delivered two indictments to all defendants. Shortly after receiving the first indictment, it was inexplicably taken back. Without changing the prosecution, the court illegally delivered a second indictment, changing the “subsidy” for buying Bibles in the case to an “operating reward.”
Before the trial, the prosecutor (prosecutor) and the defense (lawyer) discussed the issue of guilty plea and sentencing. The prosecutor’s sentencing recommendation was still over five years, and most defendants firmly believed they had committed no crime, leaving no consensus.
Compared to the pre-trial conference, this hearing was held in a smaller, crowded courtroom, preventing many family members from attending.
Initially, some people who had been questioned were not allowed to attend, but the lawyers cited legal provisions, emphasizing that only those testifying should not attend, not others. The collegiate panel considered this opinion.
The lawyers also found the internet signal was blocked and protested again. Lawyer Fang cited relevant legal provisions, suggesting such actions could constitute criminal offenses, turning the court into a crime scene.
On the second day, the lawyers found that internet communication was restored. On the first official day of the trial, a prosecutor named Yang read the indictment.
Then the collegiate panel quickly read the pre-trial conference report, rejecting all the defense’s applications for jurisdictional objections, exclusion of illegal evidence, requesting investigators, appraisers, witnesses to appear in court, and obtaining synchronous audio and video recordings.
The defense lawyers strongly objected.
One lawyer used a few words to express his stance: “Expected, deeply disappointed, oppose everything!” Another lawyer said that according to legal provisions, cases requiring a not guilty defense or significant cases must record interrogations, otherwise, the interrogation records should be excluded as illegal evidence.
The collegiate panel disagreed to exclude them or obtain the recordings, contradicting legal provisions.
One defendant was not allowed to eat or sleep for 24 hours, verbally insulted by the police multiple times, making the interrogation records from such fatigue interrogation inadmissible.
Regarding not obtaining the recordings, Prosecutor Yang Yan said this case was not a major case.
The lawyers countered: If it’s not a major case, why were all defense lawyers’ local judicial authorities notified to attend the pre-trial conference in Inner Mongolia?
In the case files, both the Public Security Bureau and the Procuratorate stamped in black and white with red seals when extending the detention, indicating it was a major case. How can state organs contradict themselves?
The prosecutor said cases likely to be sentenced to over ten years in prison are major cases, but previously for Wang Honglan, nearly 70, the sentencing recommendation was up to 15 years, so how is this case suddenly not major?
Regarding the prosecutor presenting the judicial appraisal opinion as documentary evidence instead of an appraisal opinion, the defense also strongly opposed. This violates legal provisions and lowers the standard of proof.
One lawyer said this was akin to calling a deer a horse, treating a rat’s head as a duck’s neck. The collegiate panel ignored the law and facts, agreeing to the prosecutor’s actions.
A lawyer responded that the Inner Mongolia Public Security Department had no right to designate jurisdiction in this case.
First, the prerequisite for designated jurisdiction is at least two public security organs disputing jurisdiction, reporting to the higher authority for designation.
The Inner Mongolia Public Security Department designated jurisdiction without case materials or applications from lower-level public security organs, lacking legal basis; second, the publications involved in the case relate to Shandong, Fujian, etc.
If there is a dispute over jurisdiction, it should be designated by the Ministry of Public Security, not the Inner Mongolia Public Security Department.
The collegiate panel only noted the lawyer’s opinion and continued the trial. Several lawyers requested the recusal of the Chief Prosecutor, prosecutors, Chief Judge, all members of the Judicial Committee, and the entire collegiate panel.
Thus, the collegiate panel announced a recess. The second day of the trial ended.
On the afternoon of November 22 (Wednesday), the trial continued. The presiding judge, Duan, announced the rejection of the lawyers’ applications, which were not subject to reconsideration. During the trial, the lawyers repeatedly raised their hands to speak, opposing the forced progression of the trial, but the panel did not respond, and the court clerk did not record their objections.
During the questioning phase, Wang Honglan, an elderly servant with white hair, entered the courtroom handcuffed. She stated that she was willing to accept any treatment if it meant the release of her fellow brothers and sisters after the trial. She recounted being verbally abused during the investigation period. She had truthfully told the police that she helped many children continue their education, even studying abroad, but the police, disbelieving her, called her a religious fraudster. During the trial, many parents who had benefited from her aid attended the entire session.
Wang Honglan described being beaten and bullied in the detention center, forced to massage others for a year, and enduring much suffering, with her hands still in pain to this day. As she spoke, there were cries from the audience. She was prohibited from speaking for a long time in the detention center and others were forbidden from speaking to her. Eventually, after a long period of interaction, others began to acknowledge her as a good person.
Wang Honglan’s health is poor, suffering from allergic purpura. Coupled with the nearly three years of injustice, insult, and inhumane treatment her family has endured, she expressed that death would be preferable. When the lawyer asked about her faith doctrine, she recited the Apostles’ Creed loudly, ignoring the court’s attempts to stop her.
For her, enduring these sufferings is meaningful — it is a witness for the Lord. Wang Honglan mentioned that the police had threatened her, saying if she didn’t sign, they would imprison her daughter-in-law and nephew’s wife, so she signed everything. This indirectly explains why the public security organs and the procuratorate dare not provide full audio and video recordings.
When asked about her past, she bravely admitted to previously committing embezzlement, but later repented and decided to dedicate everything to God, living for Him. She was visionary in initiating education, aiming to bring the next generation to God. How desolate are the next generations of many churches!
She denied all the charges and crimes listed in the indictment. Wang Honglan herself did not profit a penny and continuously dedicated money gifted by younger relatives, maintaining this practice for decades. The printed gospel leaflets were intended for distribution, not for trade, she stated. She pleaded with the panel, saying if they found her guilty, to sentence her but release her family.
The public prosecutor frequently used leading questions when questioning Wang Honglan, which the lawyers strongly opposed. Despite their repeated attempts to speak, the panel pretended not to see, and the court clerk did not record their objections. The third day of the trial ended.
On November 23 (Thursday), the public prosecutor continued questioning Wang Honglan. She apologized for her emotional state the previous day but hoped for understanding, as she had been long prohibited from speaking.
During the break, the lawyers learned that the detained brothers and sisters could only eat two steamed buns each at noon. The lawyers requested the panel to sympathize and improve the meals, as there were many elderly and sick among the detained. The panel responded that what is eaten in the detention center is the same as outside, leading the lawyers to comment that the detention center in Hohhot was violating legal standards by providing substandard meals.
Next was the questioning of Wang Jiale. The lawyers asked him: being accused of illegal business operations, were you ever informed by the case handlers which specific national regulations you violated? Wang said he did not know and wished for the public prosecutor to clarify in court. The prosecutor stated that it would be addressed during the debate phase.
A lawyer objected, saying that if they accused someone of a crime without clarifying the law, it constituted an unqualified prosecution and should be withdrawn. The panel had a duty to review this.
The presiding judge said it was the questioning phase and asked if the lawyer had more questions. If not, they would proceed to the next person.
In the afternoon, the lawyer brought relevant articles from the Criminal Procedure Law and judicial interpretations, demanding again that the procuratorate withdraw the charges if they could not clarify the law.
Another lawyer questioned how they could ask questions without knowing the specific national regulations.
The presiding judge stated it was not a time for the lawyer to ask the judge but to question the defendant.
The lawyer asked: “Wang Jiale, have you ever illegally traded foreign exchange?”
“No.”
“Have you ever illegally traded fireworks?”
The presiding judge asked why the lawyer brought up fireworks.
The lawyer replied that since they did not know which specific national regulations the defendant violated, they had to ask about all items related to illegal business operations covered by judicial interpretations, otherwise they might miss something crucial.
The panel laughed: the indictment accused the operation of illegal publications, and the lawyer couldn’t differentiate between fireworks and illegal publications?
The lawyer retorted that fireworks also have packaging, printing, text, and even trademarks. He asked if the judge was unaware and said they were only going through a few dozen judicial interpretations.
The panel, amused and exasperated, asked the public prosecutor if they wanted to specify the specific national regulations violated.
The prosecutor remained silent, and the court was adjourned again.
The lawyers approached the judges for negotiation. Eventually, the panel agreed to continue the trial, noting that if the defense was insufficiently focused due to late notification by the prosecution, the court would revert to the trial investigation procedure.
The lawyers then criticized the prosecutor’s approach. One lawyer stated that the laws involved in the indictment should be publicized throughout the entire trial, including to the defendant and defense. Keeping them secret in some phases is mysticism in law enforcement, reminiscent of the experiences of the souls in the Gulag Archipelago and the dregs and malpractices of the former Soviet criminal justice system, which Chinese justice should not emulate.
The public prosecutor then questioned Liu Minna. After an obviously leading question, the panel reminded the prosecutor to change their questioning approach.
The fourth day of the trial ended.
On November 24, the fifth day of the trial continued, with the lawyers continuing to question Liu Minna.
During questioning, each Christian lawyer addressed her as “Sister Liu Minna,” hoping to offer her some comfort. Her condition was visibly poor, suffering from heart disease. Although not life-threatening, she often experienced pain and received extremely poor treatment in the detention center. She was punished once to stand on a 60-brick pile for a month and, due to others fighting, was punished to sit for one and a half months. The lawyers noticed her complexion growing paler since her detention. When her husband and she were arrested, their son was transitioning from elementary to middle school. Now, as he is about to move from middle to high school, his academic performance has drastically declined. During the trial, she appeared somewhat dazed and unresponsive.
In the afternoon, the public prosecutor questioned another defendant, Ban. Ban admitted guilt and punishment, claiming he was not a Christian, despite having previously introduced himself as Brother Ban to Wang Honglan and others. He was the only one who profited from the operations, now claiming everything was done under the direction of Wang Honglan and others.
The fifth day of the trial ended.
(Source: China 5 P.M. Prayer Meeting)
Leave a Reply