The Chinese Communist Party in Wuxi Deprives Human Rights Defender Shen Aibin of His Right to File a Criminal Appeal Through Blatant Abuse of Power

（Rights Defense Network Information Center report）On July 25, 2026， this outlet learned that the Chinese Communist Party in Wuxi has deprived human rights defender Shen Aibin of his right to file a criminal appeal through blatant abuse of power.

On February 22, 2026， Wuxi human rights defender Shen Aibin mailed a Criminal Appeal Petition to the Wuxi Municipal People’s Procuratorate by postal double registered mail（see attachment: double-registration receipt）， and the Wuxi Municipal People’s Procuratorate received it on February 23.

This was Shen Aibin’s appeal after he objected to the third wrongful conviction handed down by Wuxi’s criminal judicial scoundrels and after his appeal to the Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court had been rejected. He submitted it to the Wuxi Municipal People’s Procuratorate. The docket number for the original trial was: （2022）Su 0213 Criminal First Instance No. 873; the docket number for the second instance was: （2023）Su 02 Criminal Final No. 338.

Under the Criminal Procedure Rules of the People’s Procuratorates and the Provisions on the Handling of Criminal Appeals by the People’s Procuratorates, after receiving Shen Aibin’s appeal petition, the Petition and Complaints Department of the Wuxi Municipal People’s Procuratorate should issue a procedural response within seven days; within three months from the date of acceptance, it should decide either to conclude its review or transfer the matter to the criminal prosecution department, and notify the appellant. The criminal prosecution department should, within three months from receiving a transferred criminal appeal case, decide either to conclude its review or conduct a reconsideration, and notify the appellant. It is also stipulated that for a criminal appeal submitted to a people’s procuratorate for the first time, the original case files should be obtained and reviewed, and the opinions of the appellant or the lawyer entrusted by the appellant should be heard.

However, as of press time, more than five months have passed, and Shen Aibin has received neither any procedural notification nor any substantive review or reconsideration conclusion from the Wuxi Municipal People’s Procuratorate. This has seriously exceeded the statutory review period. Shen Aibin has repeatedly urged the procuratorate to act, but no one has responded, effectively depriving him of his right to file a criminal appeal.

It is understood that Shen Aibin’s appeal is the third instance of abuse of power, retaliation, and persecution carried out against him by the Chinese Communist Party in Wuxi. The Criminal Appeal Petition and the first- and second-instance judgments make clear that this case was indeed a case of bending the law for personal ends, carefully plotted and fabricated by personnel handling the case in Wuxi’s public security, procuratorate, and courts.

The provisions used by the first- and second-instance judgments to establish guilt were Article 293, paragraph 1, item 4 of the Criminal Law—“causing a disturbance in a public place and causing serious disorder in the public place”—as well as Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Cases Involving Defamation through Information Networks, which extends that provision to online virtual space: “Fabricating false information, or knowingly disseminating fabricated false information on an information network, or organizing or directing people to disseminate such information on an information network, causing a disturbance and causing serious disorder in public order, shall be convicted and punished for the crime of creating a disturbance in accordance with the provisions of Article 293, paragraph 1, item 4 of the Criminal Law.” In the Criminal Appeal Petition, Shen Aibin analyzed these provisions together with the first- and second-instance judgments. Anyone familiar with the law can clearly determine that the first- and second-instance judgments misstated the facts and were supported by insufficient evidence: they deliberately and unlawfully characterized Shen Aibin’s subjective evaluative statements about objective facts concerning his own experiences as “fabricated false information.” The court openly confirmed during the trial that the information involved, published on overseas networks, “was not disseminated by Shen Aibin,” and it also failed to prove that Shen Aibin had engaged in “causing a disturbance” on the information networks involved or that such conduct produced the harmful result required for prosecution—“causing serious disorder in public order.”

Shen Aibin’s lawyer said: “It can be stated without concealment that this case is an abuse-of-power persecution case deliberately fabricated by the judicial scoundrels of the Chinese Communist Party in Wuxi. They are extremely sensitive to Shen Aibin’s experiences being exposed on overseas networks. They fear that their crimes will be exposed and that their political futures will be affected. But they should not use such criminal, abusive methods to persecute Shen Aibin. Moreover, in a case like this, anyone who understands the law and reason can see the trickery at a glance.”

This outlet has also reported on the detailed course of this case. We strongly condemn the blatant abuse of power by Wuxi’s judicial scoundrels of the Chinese Communist Party—inhumane, without any bottom line, trampling on the law, and openly using such crude methods to deprive Shen Aibin of his right to appeal the case and his right to know.

Attachments: 1. Mailing receipt; 2. Criminal Appeal Petition

Criminal Appeal Petition

Appellant: Shen Aibin, male, Han ethnicity, born October 15, 1973, citizen identity card number 320201197310154018, residing at Room 202, No. 53 Guangyi Jiayuan, Liangxi District, Wuxi City, telephone: 17348228687.

Because the appellant objects to the unlawful judgment numbered （2022）Su 0213 Criminal First Instance No. 873 and the unlawful ruling numbered （2023）Su 02 Criminal Final No. 338 issued by the three judges of the Wuxi Liangxi District People’s Court—Wu Wei, Li Peng, and Xia Yan—and the three judges of the Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court—Gu Rongrong, Xu Haihong, and Yang Liu—in a blatantly deliberate manner contrary to the facts and the law; and because he objects to the Notice of Rejection of Appeal numbered （2025）Su 02 Criminal Appeal No. 40 issued by Niu Zhaoxiang, Li Hailin, and Guo Jiguang of the Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court, he hereby files an appeal with the Wuxi Municipal People’s Procuratorate.

Requests for relief:

1. Conduct a comprehensive, objective, open, and impartial reconsideration of the entire case in accordance with the law; organize a public hearing in accordance with the law; and file a protest in accordance with the law;

2. Transfer, in accordance with the law, to the relevant competent organs or departments for handling any conduct of bending the law for personal ends discovered during the review and reconsideration of the appeal, including the deliberate issuance of unlawful judgments by the first- and second-instance judges while handling the original case.

Facts and grounds 

This case was deliberately initiated for political-stability achievements by Xu Nuo, director of the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau; deputy director Zheng Bangxian; Shen Qi, head of the Legal Affairs Brigade; Yang Hua, head of the Criminal Investigation Brigade; Wu Deyue, director of the Guangyi Police Station; and political instructor Han Dawei. They first treated the appellant’s “posting content on mobile WeChat inciting others to petition” as the criminal facts and opened a criminal case for creating a disturbance. After their carefully planned scheme to coerce the appellant into submission through criminal and abusive methods failed, they urgently changed the alleged facts to “disseminating fabricated false information on an information network,” and transferred the case for review and prosecution as the online form of the crime of creating a disturbance. Finally, the case was produced through a coordinated public-security, procuratorial, and judicial process that bent the law for personal ends at the direction of Zhang Zhen, former deputy secretary of the Wuxi Municipal Party Committee Political and Legal Affairs Commission and vice mayor of Wuxi concurrently serving as director of the municipal Public Security Bureau (currently dismissed and under investigation).

This case is a blatant case of bending the law for personal ends, judicial corruption, and abusive persecution, produced by Wuxi’s criminal judicial scoundrels for the purpose of retaliation and persecution and using an unlawful judgment as the means. It is irrefutable evidence of resisting the central authorities, placing themselves above the law, professing loyalty while acting otherwise, deceiving superiors and subordinates, acting defiantly despite warnings, and being two-faced.

The facts established in this case are unclear, the evidence is insufficient, and the law was misapplied. It is a case of abusive persecution manufactured through deliberate distortion of the facts and abuse of the law. Details follow:

I. The statutory provisions on which the judgment relied to establish guilt

1. Article 293, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China Any of the following acts of creating a disturbance that disrupt social order shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than five years, criminal detention, or public surveillance:

(4) Causing a disturbance in a public place and causing serious disorder in the public place.

The following understandings can be drawn from this provision:

(1) The criminal conduct punished under this provision is “causing a disturbance”; the place of the crime is a “public place”; and the standard for filing a case and initiating prosecution—that is, the harmful consequence—is “causing serious disorder in the public place.”

(2) The criminal subject punished under this provision is the “person causing the disturbance”; the criminal conduct is the “disturbance” carried out by that person in a “public place”; and the criminal consequence is that the person’s “disturbance” “causes serious disorder in public order.” Moreover, the place where the disturbance is carried out and the place where “serious disorder in public order” is caused must be the same place.

(3) To constitute this crime, the person causing the disturbance must meet the subjective-motive requirements of the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Cases Involving the Crime of Creating a Disturbance (Judicial Interpretation [2013] No. 18).

(4) To constitute this crime, the conduct must also meet the filing and prosecution standards set out in Article 8 of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and Ministry of Public Security Supplementary Provisions on the Standards for Filing Criminal Cases under the Jurisdiction of Public Security Organs for Investigation and Prosecution (I).

2. Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Cases Involving Defamation through Information Networks (Judicial Interpretation [2013] No. 21)

Article 5, paragraph 2: Anyone who fabricates false information, or knowingly disseminates fabricated false information on an information network, or organizes or directs people to disseminate such information on an information network, causes a disturbance, and causes serious disorder in public order shall be convicted and punished for the crime of creating a disturbance in accordance with Article 293, paragraph 1, item 4 of the Criminal Law. 

The following understandings can be drawn from this provision:

(1) This judicial interpretation extends the conduct of “causing a disturbance” in a “public place” under Article 293, paragraph 1, item 4 of the Criminal Law to an “information network.” The core conduct is “causing a disturbance”; that is, conduct carried out to “cause a disturbance” on an information network is brought within the scope of accountability.

(2) The information disseminated on an information network must not only be false information; it must also be fabricated false information;

All information inconsistent with objective facts is false information. According to how it is formed, it can be divided into naturally formed false information and fabricated false information.

Naturally formed false information is a factual description inconsistent with objective facts that people make about the people, events, and things around them in daily life because of misunderstandings, inadequate understanding, memory errors, distortion during transmission, incomplete information, errors in reasoning or judgment, and other causes. Such information is generated through miscommunication or misunderstanding. No matter where it is disseminated, it does not constitute a crime.

First, the words “fabricate” and “fabricated” have the attributes of “creating something out of nothing, inventing out of thin air, and making things up.” This is the subjective attribute of the formation of false information. Fabricated false information is a factual description deliberately “fabricated” by the actor that is inconsistent with objective facts; it is an objective fact fabricated for the purpose of deceiving or harming others.

(3) Merely fabricating false information without disseminating the fabricated false information on an information network does not constitute a crime.

(4) Fabricated false information disseminated on an information network may have been fabricated by the disseminator or by another person. However, when disseminating false information fabricated by another person, the disseminator must subjectively “know that it is fabricated false information.”

 

(5) The disseminator may disseminate the information directly on an information network, or may organize or direct others to disseminate it;

(6) After disseminating fabricated false information, the disseminator must also carry out an act of “causing a disturbance” on the same information network, and it must be carried out by the disseminator personally, because the provision does not state “or organize or direct others to cause a disturbance.”

3.Difference from Article 291-1 of the Criminal Law:

Article 291-1 of the Criminal Law does not require the subsequent commission of an act of “causing a disturbance” after dissemination.

    Article 291-1, paragraph 1: [Crime of placing false dangerous substances] [Crime of fabricating and intentionally disseminating false terrorist information] Whoever places false explosive, toxic, radioactive, or infectious-disease-pathogen substances, or fabricates terrorist information such as bomb threats, biological or chemical threats, or radiation threats, or knowingly disseminates fabricated terrorist information intentionally, seriously disrupting social order, shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than five years, criminal detention, or public surveillance; if serious consequences are caused, the punishment shall be imprisonment of not less than five years.

Article 291-1, paragraph 2: [Crime of fabricating and intentionally disseminating false information] Whoever fabricates false information concerning dangerous situations, epidemics, disasters, or police situations and disseminates it on an information network or other media, or knowingly disseminates such false information intentionally on an information network or other media, seriously disrupting social order, shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, or public surveillance; if serious consequences are caused, the punishment shall be imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years.

It can therefore be seen that the “fabricated false information” referred to in Article 5, paragraph 2 of Judicial Interpretation [2013] No. 21 means false information other than that covered by Article 291-1 of the Criminal Law—that is, information other than “terrorist information” and “dangerous situations, epidemics, disasters, or police situations.” Compared with those categories, such information is less harmful. Merely disseminating it on an information network does not create social harm; only the commission of an act of “causing a disturbance” after dissemination can potentially result in “causing serious disorder in public order,” the standard for filing a case and initiating prosecution.

(7) The legally prescribed cause of “causing serious disorder in public order” must be the act of “causing a disturbance.” If there is no act of “causing a disturbance,” there necessarily cannot be a harmful result of “causing serious disorder in public order.”

(8) “Causing serious disorder in public order” must be proven by evidence. Whether it concerns the online virtual space or the real physical space, “serious disorder in public order” must be proven by objective evidence; otherwise, the standard for filing a case and initiating prosecution is not met.

(9) The eligible criminal subject must be a person who successively carried out “two acts”: first, “disseminating” fabricated false information on an information network, and then carrying out an act of “causing a disturbance” on that information network. If there was no act of dissemination, or if the person merely disseminated the information but did not carry out an act of “causing a disturbance,” no crime is constituted, and there necessarily cannot be the harmful consequence required for filing a case and initiating prosecution—“causing serious disorder in public order.”

II. The facts established in this case are erroneous and the evidence is insufficient. Conduct that clearly does not constitute the crime of creating a disturbance was deliberately and unlawfully characterized as criminal conduct, and an unjust case was deliberately fabricated to persecute the appellant through abuse of power.

Criminal facts alleged in this case: Between 2019 and 2021, defendant Shen Aibin fabricated false information that he had been framed and persecuted, that his daughter had suffered retaliatory persecution because of him, and that he had suffered persecution through electromagnetic radiation, and extensively disseminated it on multiple information-network platforms, including The Epoch Times, I Love China, and Rights Defense Network, thereby causing serious disorder in public order.

Explanation:

The “networks involved in the case” referred to in this petition means the overseas online network media (websites) mentioned in the criminal facts alleged by the public prosecution organs, including The Epoch Times, I Love China, and Rights Defense Network, where the false information involved in the case was disseminated.

The “information involved in the case” referred to in this petition means the “fabricated false information” alleged by the public prosecution organs—namely, “information that he had been framed and persecuted, that his daughter had suffered retaliatory persecution because of him, and that he had suffered persecution through electromagnetic radiation.”

(1) The evidence is insufficient for the judicial documents to establish that the information involved in the case on the overseas information networks was disseminated by the appellant. The appellant is not the eligible criminal subject in this case and should be acquitted in accordance with the law.

During the trial, public prosecutor Wang Lei expressly stated: “We know that the defendant did not have the ability to post this information on those overseas websites.”

Presiding judge Wu Wei expressly stated during the trial: “Based on the identity determination made by the public security organs by comparing the electronic data in the computer with the photographs, audio, video, and other materials used in overseas reports, the relevant reports objectively have an identity and connection with Shen Aibin. This evidence proves the connection between the relevant overseas reports and Shen Aibin; it does not prove that you posted them. It proves the identity of the images, video, and audio” (recorded on page 18, ninth line from the bottom, of the trial transcript). “The prosecutor’s position is clear: you could not have posted it on an overseas network, but the source was your computer” (recorded on page 46, eighth line from the bottom, of the trial transcript).

Under the provision of law on which the judicial documents relied to establish guilt, the eligible criminal subject in this case must be the person who disseminated the information involved on the overseas information networks involved in the case.

The first-instance prosecutor and presiding judge both acknowledged during the trial that the information involved on the overseas online media was not posted by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is not the eligible criminal subject in this case and should be acquitted in accordance with the law.

(2) The judicial documents provide no evidence that the appellant carried out an act of “causing a disturbance” on the overseas websites where the information involved was disseminated.

It was not until he received the indictment that the appellant learned that information concerning his experiences had been posted on these overseas online media (websites). Before then, the appellant knew nothing about it and had never carried out any act of “causing a disturbance” on these online media. Nor do the judicial documents contain evidence that he did so.

The second-instance ruling abused the statutory provision by characterizing the appellant’s communications with others on WeChat as “causing a disturbance.” This was an erroneous finding of fact and an erroneous application of the law. Even if there had been an act of “causing a disturbance” on WeChat, it could not be regarded as the “causing a disturbance” stipulated in Article 5, paragraph 2 of Judicial Interpretation [2013] No. 21. The act stipulated in that provision must have been carried out on the information network where the fabricated false information was disseminated.

(3) The evidence is insufficient for the judicial documents to establish that the information involved in the case disseminated on the information networks caused the harmful consequence of “serious disorder in public order.” It therefore does not meet the statutory standard for filing a case and initiating prosecution and does not constitute a crime.

First, the legally prescribed cause of “causing serious disorder in public order” is the act of “causing a disturbance.” Since no one carried out an act of “causing a disturbance” on the information networks involved, it necessarily follows that there could not have been the harmful consequence of “causing serious disorder in public order.”

The criminal conduct established under Article 293, paragraph 1, item 4 of the Criminal Law is “causing a disturbance” in a public place. Article 5, paragraph 2 of Judicial Interpretation [2013] No. 21 extends the act of “causing a disturbance” in physical space under Article 293, paragraph 1, item 4 of the Criminal Law to online virtual space. Therefore, the criminal conduct in information-network space must also be “causing a disturbance.”

The difference between Article 5, paragraph 2 of Judicial Interpretation [2013] No. 21 and Article 291-1 of the Criminal Law shows that the criminal conduct punished under Article 5, paragraph 2 of Judicial Interpretation [2013] No. 21 must be “causing a disturbance.”

Second, the judicial documents contain no evidence that the overseas information networks involved suffered “serious disorder in public order” because the information involved was disseminated there.

According to the meaning of the law, “serious disorder in public order” includes serious disorder in online virtual space and in real physical space.

The judicial documents contain neither evidence that the online virtual space—that is, the overseas online media involved—experienced serious disorder in its underlying technical order or system functions because the information involved was disseminated there, such as server crashes, data congestion, or inability to access the site, nor evidence that the real physical space experienced panic, flight, or large-scale gatherings among the public because someone disseminated the information involved on the online network, resulting in the loss of control of social-management order and social-life order, such as widespread traffic paralysis, loss of function at large venues, mass incidents and panic (crowd disturbances, panic and stampedes, or illegal gatherings), obstruction of important activities and facilities, or waste of government resources.

Furthermore, all the information networks involved in this case are overseas online media (websites). Investigative organs have no authority to determine whether order on an overseas website was seriously disrupted unless they obtain certificates and evidence issued by the overseas online media.

The judicial documents even treated the number of clicks and forwards of the information involved on overseas networks as the standard for determining that “serious disorder in public order” had been caused. This constitutes an erroneous application of the law.

    The numbers of clicks and views and the numbers of forwards are among the circumstances for determining “serious circumstances” under Article 2, item 1 of Judicial Interpretation [2013] No. 21 for the crimes of insult and defamation stipulated in Article 246, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law. Moreover, click-through rates should be “deduplicated”—that is, calculated as “unique visitors” (UV)—rather than statistically calculated according to page views (PV).

In this case, the investigative organs, public prosecution organs, and trial organs did not perform deduplicated calculations of the number of clicks on the information involved on overseas networks, which the investigative organs had obtained unlawfully.

 

(4) The evidence is insufficient for the judicial documents to establish that the information involved on the information networks came “from the appellant’s computer.”

The judicial documents stated that some of the images and text, as well as a video clip, among the information involved posted on overseas networks were identified by the Wuxi Public Security Bureau Forensic Evidence Appraisal Institute as being identical to materials stored on the appellant’s home computer. They therefore concluded that the information involved on the information networks came “from the appellant’s computer.”

First, during the trial, the appellant repeatedly emphasized: “Although I do not know where the information involved on the networks came from, the images and text on my computer were written and produced by someone else and posted in WeChat groups. I thought they were good, so I downloaded and saved them from the WeChat groups. I filmed the video myself and saved it to my computer, but after filming it I posted it to all the WeChat groups.” This proves that the source of the images and text was the WeChat groups, and that the video had already circulated in the various groups. The images, text, and video had therefore been disseminated to and spread among unspecified persons, and the appellant was not the only person who obtained and saved them.

Second, the images and text were downloaded and saved by the appellant from WeChat groups. Their actual source was the group members, who may themselves have obtained them from members of other WeChat groups. The same text and images circulated in various groups, and their data characteristics did not change after group members downloaded and saved them. Thus, it was not only the appellant’s computer that contained images and text whose characteristics were completely identical to those in the information involved on the networks. If any group member saved the images and text, they would likewise be completely identical in their data characteristics to the images and text in the information involved on the networks. Therefore, concluding solely from the complete identity between the images and text on the appellant’s computer and those in the information involved that the images and text came from the appellant’s computer is not supported by reliable or sufficient evidence, does not exclude reasonable doubt, and is neither unique nor certain.

Third, although the appellant filmed the video himself, he posted it to the various groups immediately afterward. It cannot be excluded that group members forwarded, collected, downloaded, and saved it. Although the Wuxi Public Security Bureau Forensic Evidence Appraisal Institute confirmed that the video in the information involved was completely identical to the video on the appellant’s computer, it would likewise be completely identical to the video collected, downloaded, and saved by any group member. Therefore, the fact that the video in the information involved was completely identical to the video on the appellant’s computer cannot alone establish that the information involved on the networks came from the appellant’s computer. Such a conclusion does not exclude reasonable doubt, is not uniquely certain, and is not supported by reliable or sufficient appraisal evidence.

(5) The evidence is insufficient for the judicial documents to establish that the information involved was fabricated by the appellant.

During the trial, the appellant repeatedly emphasized: “Although my computer contained material that was the same as or similar to the content of the information involved, it was all material that I had posted in various WeChat groups concerning the case. Group members (including public-security, procuratorial, and judicial personnel, lawyers, legal workers, and rights defenders) reached conclusions after conducting comprehensive analyses based on the judgments and evidentiary materials. They concluded that the case in which I was convicted of intentional destruction of property was a case of bending the law for personal ends, judicial corruption, and abusive persecution deliberately fabricated by Wuxi’s judicial scoundrels through distortion of the facts and abuse of the law; that the second case was an unjust case fabricated through the coordinated bending of the law by the public security, procuratorate, and court authorities in Huishan, and was a typical case of judicial corruption and abusive persecution; and that the information about my underage daughter’s conviction as a result of retaliatory persecution was also a conclusion reached by group members after comprehensively analyzing the case materials. I thought their analysis made sense, so I accepted and adopted it and saved their analytical process and results to my computer.”

The judicial documents concluded, solely because the appellant’s computer contained material identical or similar to the information involved, that the information involved on the networks came from his computer. This conclusion is inconsistent with common sense and logic and cannot exclude the possibility that other group members disseminated it.

Although the appellant accepted the group members’ analytical conclusions and used them in his appeals and complaints, the material did not originate with him; it originated from the collective analytical conclusions of the group members. Therefore, the judicial documents’ conclusion that the appellant fabricated the information involved is not supported by reliable or sufficient evidence, and the conclusion is not uniquely certain.

(6) The judicial documents’ characterization of the information involved as “fabricated false information” is an erroneous finding of fact and an erroneous characterization, treating “subjective cognition” as “false facts.”

    Although the judicial documents concluded that the information involved on the networks was fabricated by the appellant and that the evidence that it came from him was insufficient, the content alleged against him—namely, the characterization of the information involved as “fabricated false information”—is, with respect to the appellant, an erroneous finding of fact and an erroneous characterization. It is in fact a deliberate distortion of the facts and abuse of the law intended to retaliate against and persecute the appellant. 

1. Objective facts that the appellant experienced

For the appellant, he personally experienced the following objective facts:

(1) The appellant himself had already been convicted twice: the first time, the Binhu Court convicted him of intentional destruction of property; the second time, the Huishan Court convicted him of creating a disturbance;

(2) The appellant’s underage daughter had already been convicted;

(3) Excessive electromagnetic radiation and high-frequency sound waves appeared in the appellant’s home;

(4) In addition to being convicted twice, the appellant had also been subject to two criminal case filings. The first was on July 30, 2015 (on the eve of Army Day), when a case was filed against him on suspicion of obstructing official duties. The second was on September 3, 2019 (on the eve of the 70th anniversary of National Day), when a case was filed against him on suspicion of creating a disturbance. Both cases were filed for political-stability purposes and both ultimately came to nothing;

(5) Since his release after his first conviction on March 12, 2015, the appellant’s movements and communications have been tracked and monitored 24 hours a day; friends around him have been threatened and intimidated by the public security authorities; his finances have been blocked; and the company he registered was also intimidated, harassed, and forced to cancel its registration;

2. The appellant expressed subjective evaluations based on the objective facts of his experiences and feelings—that is, he expressed his understanding, evaluation, or judgment of those experiences.

Even if the information involved was published by the appellant, it was his subjective understanding and evaluation of his own experiences. Based on his own understanding and judgment, the appellant stated that his two convictions were cases of judicial corruption, framing and persecution, and abusive persecution carefully plotted and fabricated by Wuxi’s judicial scoundrels; that his underage daughter had suffered retaliatory persecution because of him; and that the excessive electromagnetic radiation appearing in his home was intended to harm him.

These statements constituted both the exercise of the freedom of speech granted to citizens by Article 35 of the Constitution and the exercise of the rights of criticism, recommendation, and supervision granted to citizens by Article 41 of the Constitution.

3. The judicial documents’ characterization of the appellant’s subjective evaluations of his own experiences as fabricated false information is an erroneous characterization.

Objective facts: events that actually occurred and require evidentiary support;

Subjective cognition: an understanding, evaluation, or judgment of an event based on a party’s own experiences and feelings. It is a subjective evaluation or expression of opinion, to which right and wrong apply, but not truth and falsity.

Fabricating false information: inventing facts that do not exist at all, with the purpose of deceiving others or disrupting order; it generally requires proof that the party knew the information was false but disseminated it intentionally.

Cognitive evaluation: the subjective feelings generated by a party’s real experiences and the party’s interpretation of what happened to him or her. Such feelings fall within the scope of freedom of speech or the rights of appeal and supervision. Even if the language is forceful, so long as the evaluation is based on facts, it does not constitute “fabrication.”

Combining this with an understanding of “fabricated false information” in Article 5, paragraph 2 of Judicial Interpretation [2013] No. 21, it is immediately apparent that the error in the judicial documents is that they directly characterized the appellant’s subjective evaluation arising from real events in his own experiences as false facts fabricated out of thin air. This confuses “facts” and “opinions,” or “factual statements” and “expressions of opinion,” and constitutes a typical erroneous finding of fact.

4. The judicial documents’ grounds for characterizing the information involved as “fabricated false information” are absurd and their logic is malicious. 

(1) The reason given by the judicial documents for determining that “the appellant was framed and persecuted and his daughter suffered retaliatory persecution because of him” was fabricated false information was that “the three cases” (meaning the appellant’s two convictions and his daughter’s one conviction, three in total) had all been appealed and had resulted in final, effective rulings by the Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court.

Presiding judge Wu Wei stated during the trial: “‘The three cases’ have all taken legal effect. Your belief that there were errors is your subjective understanding. The judgments in the three cases have taken effect, and under the law, an effective judgment is correct” (recorded on page 34, sixth line from the bottom, of the trial transcript).

Presiding judge Wu Wei also stated during the trial: “According to the provisions, facts confirmed by an effective judgment of a people’s court do not need to be proven by evidence.”

That is indeed the case: what an effective judgment confirms does not require evidence to prove its legality and impartiality. But does the fact that a party raises doubts about an effective judgment and questions and expresses subjective evaluations of the legality and impartiality of its decision constitute fabricating false information?

How evil is this? How evil are the legal principles and logic involved?

Indeed, under the law, an effective judgment is correct. However, the law does not prohibit a party from questioning the legality and impartiality of an effective judgment or exercising the right to express subjective evaluations of it. On the contrary, as a matter of legal principle, effective judgments are not necessarily all legal and impartial. If all effective judgments were legal and impartial, why would the law establish an “adjudication supervision procedure,” and why would it grant parties the right to appeal against a judgment that has already taken effect? 

(2) The reason given by the judicial documents for determining that “he suffered persecution through electromagnetic radiation” was fabricated false information was that “without ruling out other possibilities, he said that someone had used electromagnetic radiation against him and even put the hat on the authorities.”

The trial transcript expressly records prosecutor Wang Lei as stating: “Shen Aibin failed to identify where the false information was. The false information alleged by the prosecutor was Shen Aibin’s statement that he had suffered persecution through electromagnetic radiation. The key point is ‘persecution.’ Without ruling out other possibilities, he said that someone had used electromagnetic radiation against him and even put the hat on the authorities.”

Under the Criminal Procedure Law and the Criminal Procedure Rules of the People’s Procuratorates, the burden of proof in a public prosecution case lies with the public prosecution organ. Since the prosecutor determined that “the appellant suffered persecution through electromagnetic radiation” was false information, the prosecutor had a duty to prove that the appellant had not suffered electromagnetic radiation, or that although he had suffered electromagnetic radiation, it was not caused by public power and was not persecution. This is a statutory obligation. Yet the prosecutor shifted the burden of proof to the appellant and even required him to “rule out other possibilities.”

Statement: To date, no public authority has intervened to investigate the electromagnetic radiation appearing in the appellant’s home. To evade responsibility, the judicial scoundrels directed the Wuxi Municipal Ecology and Environment Bureau and the Liangxi District Ecology and Environment Bureau to issue false certificates, and directed the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau to issue false police-incident records. None of this can escape investigation and accountability.

    Since no public authority investigated the electromagnetic radiation appearing in the appellant’s home, what was the basis for the prosecutor’s determination that “the appellant suffered persecution through electromagnetic radiation”? (Moreover, the appellant did not see the expression “persecution through electromagnetic radiation” online; there was only a reference to an attempt to harm him.) This determination lacks a factual and legal basis.

5. The “fabricated false information” identified in the judicial documents was actually objective fact, not false information and certainly not fabricated. The appellant has conclusive evidence.

The appellant has sufficient facts and grounds to prove that his first conviction by the Binhu Court was not only an unlawful judgment but also a judicial-corruption and abusive-persecution case carefully and deliberately fabricated by human actors. The Wuxi Intermediate Court informed the appellant that the case was an “internal request-for-instructions case.” The essence of the case was the unlawful characterization of the appellant’s acts of emergency avoidance and bravery in helping others as intentional destruction of property. No power or influence can conceal this; the case files are irrefutable evidence.

The appellant also has evidence proving that his second conviction by the Huishan Court was a blatant case of bending the law for personal ends, fabricated through collusion between the State Security Brigade of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau and former petitioner Ding Hongfen, on the basis of false accusations and persecution by State Security police officer Deng Yongfeng, through the manufacture of illegal evidence, a false “consultation opinion,” and a false appraisal opinion, and finally through an unlawful judgment. It was an abusive-persecution case carefully planned and fabricated by human actors. I have conclusive evidence; however, at present Wuxi’s criminal public authorities are buying off officials everywhere, secretly defaming, slandering, and maligning me, and luring and corrupting some senior officials through financial inducements, causing me to remain unable to successfully appeal.

The conviction of the appellant’s underage daughter was even more clearly a case of retaliatory persecution. A series of circumstances—including the unlawful filing of the case, unlawful submission for approval of arrest, and unlawful determination of the facts—as well as a letter issued by the Liangxi District Justice Bureau to the investigative organ titled “Letter Concerning Strict Confidentiality of the Investigation and Assessment Opinion on Shen Jiayi,” further prove that the case was initiated because of the appellant. Because of the appellant, the investigative organs transformed—or engineered—a normal civil dispute into a criminal case. The case files are also irrefutable evidence, which no power or influence can conceal or change. 

III. Violations of litigation procedure seriously affecting a fair trial

(1) Serious violations of the investigative procedure

1. The criminal facts identified in the judicial documents were never “filed” or investigated by the investigative organs

On May 14, 2020, the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau filed a case for creating a disturbance based on the appellant’s alleged criminal fact of “posting information on mobile WeChat inciting others to petition,” and imposed residential surveillance as a coercive measure. On November 16 of the same year, this was changed to release on bail pending trial.

On June 25, 2021, the appellant was again criminally detained for 30 days, and on July 24 he was again placed under release on bail pending trial.

On March 6, 2022, the appellant was again criminally detained for 30 days. To subject him to closed detention, certain judicial scoundrels in the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau unlawfully designated the case to the jurisdiction of the Yixing Municipal Public Security Bureau. When he was released from the Wuxi Detention Center on April 5, he was taken directly to the “Fontainebleau Villa” in Dingshan Town, Yixing City, to undergo residential surveillance at a designated location. The purpose was to exploit the fact that the appellant had no fixed residence in Yixing and impose residential surveillance at a designated location, thereby detaining, tormenting, abusing, and beating him.

On September 26, 2022, the Yixing Municipal Public Security Bureau suddenly transferred the case to the Yixing Municipal Procuratorate for review and prosecution based on the alleged criminal fact that the appellant had “disseminated fabricated false information on an information network.” Before this, no one had ever investigated the appellant’s alleged conduct of “disseminating fabricated false information on an information network.”

2. The case was unlawfully designated to the jurisdiction of the Yixing Municipal Public Security Bureau

Under Article 22 of the Provisions on Procedures for Handling Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs, designation of jurisdiction requires the existence of circumstances in which “jurisdiction is unclear or disputed” or the “circumstances are special.” None of those statutory circumstances existed in this case. The Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau exceeded the scope of its discretionary authority under the law by designating the case to the jurisdiction of the Yixing Municipal Public Security Bureau; the legal requirements were absent, and the procedure was unlawful.

The document designating jurisdiction presented at trial also failed to state the reason for the designation as required by law.

3. After the case was designated to the jurisdiction of the Yixing Municipal Public Security Bureau, it was instead handled by a “special case team” of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau. Therefore, all appraisal opinions issued by the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau Forensic Evidence Appraisal Institute were obtained through an unlawful appraisal procedure and may not be used as evidence under the law.

The case was initially filed by the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau. To detain the appellant in closed conditions, the case was unlawfully designated to Yixing. However, under the Provisions on Procedures for Handling Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs, after the case was designated to Yixing, the original Liangxi Public Security Branch could no longer participate in it.

Nevertheless, the Liangxi Branch continued to participate throughout. Late at night on April 5, 2022, it took the appellant from the Wuxi Detention Center to Yixing to carry out residential surveillance at a designated location. On April 25, Yang Hua, head of the Criminal Police Brigade of the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Municipal Bureau, and Wang Xiaoming, a police officer from the Guangyi Police Station, came to the designated residence and said they wanted to “resolve the channel issue” for the appellant. When the appellant questioned the legality of their presence at the designated residence, Yang Hua told him: “This case is now under the jurisdiction of the ‘special case team’ established by the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau. The team leader is Director Zhang Zhen. If you object to the designation of jurisdiction, you can report it to Team Leader Zhang (Zhen). We are only responsible for talking with you.” Police officers from the Guangyi Police Station also took turns guarding the residential-surveillance site, while special police were assigned by the special-police brigade of the Liangxi Branch.

    Because the case was under the jurisdiction of the “special case team” of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau, none of the appraisal opinions issued by the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau Forensic Evidence Appraisal Institute may be used as evidence. The evidence violated the principle of impartiality, and the organ handling a case may not itself examine and accept evidence that it created.

4. All information and other evidence concerning the overseas networks involved that were collected by the investigative organs through illegal means constitute illegal evidence and may not be accepted under the law.

The investigative organs collected the information involved on overseas networks through illegal means. During the trial, when the prosecutor read out the source of the information concerning the overseas networks obtained by the investigative organs, the prosecutor said that “the investigative organs used bridge technology to collect it.” This collection method is an illegal act expressly prohibited by the state and violates Article 6 of the Measures for Security Protection Administration of the International Networking of Computer Information Networks of the People’s Republic of China. It should be investigated and handled under Article 14 of those Measures. Therefore, evidence obtained through this illegal method should be excluded under the law.

5. The investigative organs altered and falsified the Interrogation Transcripts

After the appellant was placed under residential surveillance at a designated location in Yixing, Yang Hua separately brought Wang Xiaoming, Shao Xuefeng, and Zhu Chuang to Yixing to interrogate him. However, in the subsequent transcripts, the interrogators were all altered and replaced with people the appellant did not know. This had three purposes: first, to conceal the Liangxi Branch’s continued illegal participation in the case; second, to conceal the fact that the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau had established a “special case team” to handle the case; and third, to conceal the serious violations of the investigative procedure.

    The falsified transcripts covered the period from April 25 to September 25, 2022, comprising 14 transcripts. Only four were genuine: the interrogation transcripts by Shao Xuefeng and Lü Da on May 9 and 11, 2022, and the two interrogations by Yang Hua and Zhu Chuang on September 24 and 25. These were also the final two interrogations and are sufficient to prove that I was interrogated by the “special case team” of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau; otherwise, Yang Hua and Zhu Chuang had no authority to interrogate me. The transcripts also mentioned the “special case team.” The other 10 transcripts were all altered fabrications.

(2) The three judges on the second-instance collegiate panel had significant interests in the case and should have recused themselves under the law, but refused to do so.

The information involved in the case—that is, the alleged “fabricated false information”—referred to statements that the appellant’s first conviction by the Binhu Court for intentional destruction of property was abusive persecution; that his second conviction by the Huishan Court for creating a disturbance was the result of framing and persecution; that his underage daughter’s conviction by the Liangxi Court for forcible indecency was retaliatory persecution; and that the information concerning the “three cases,” as well as information that the appellant had been targeted for harm through electromagnetic radiation, was fabricated false information.

The core issue in this case should have been whether the “fabricated false information” alleged by the public prosecution organ was in fact fabricated false information—namely, whether the Binhu Court’s and Huishan Court’s judgments against the appellant were fair and objective, and whether they constituted abusive persecution and framing and persecution; and whether the judgment against the appellant’s underage daughter constituted retaliatory persecution. The answer to these questions directly concerned whether the three second-instance judges had engaged in bending the law for personal ends.

    The members of the second-instance collegiate panel—Gu Rongrong, Xu Haihong, and Yang Liu—were all first- or second-instance judges in the “three cases.” Gu Rongrong was a collegiate-panel judge in the Huishan Court case in which the appellant was convicted of creating a disturbance. Xu Haihong and Yang Liu were collegiate-panel judges at the Wuxi Intermediate Court in the second-instance proceedings concerning the appellant and his daughter. Therefore, all members of the collegiate panel had significant interests in this case and were directly connected to the disputed issues.

    During the second-instance proceedings, the appellant submitted an Application for Recusal, but the judges refused to recuse themselves. Under the Criminal Procedure Law and the Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the second-instance judges should have recused themselves under the law. Their failure to do so created suspicion of favoritism, malpractice, or an unlawful judgment.

The second-instance trial procedure seriously violated the law and deprived or restricted the appellant’s statutory litigation rights. The ruling issued by the court therefore lost legal effect. Under Article 29 of the Criminal Procedure Law, failure to recuse when recusal is required constitutes the serious procedural violation of “violating the recusal system” stipulated in Article 238 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Under Article 463 of the Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the case should also be retried.

IV. This case is a judicial-corruption and abusive-persecution case carefully planned and fabricated by Wuxi’s judicial scoundrels to retaliate against the appellant, as well as a case of bending the law for personal ends. It is a blatant unlawful judgment. Details follow:

(1) They knew that the information involved on the overseas networks was not disseminated by the appellant.

    The indictment issued by the public prosecution organ expressly stated that the information involved was “disseminated” on online media such as The Epoch Times, showing that it subjectively knew the information on the overseas networks was not disseminated by the appellant. During the trial, the prosecutor and presiding judge also confirmed that it was not disseminated by him. Yet the legally eligible criminal subject must be the person who disseminated the information involved on the overseas information networks;

(2) They knew that the appellant had not carried out an act of “causing a disturbance” on the overseas information networks involved;

(3) They knew that the information involved on the overseas information networks had not caused the harmful result required for filing a case and initiating prosecution—“serious disorder in public order”;

(4) They knew that the information involved did not legally constitute “fabricated false information”;

(5) They knew that the images, text, and video saved on the appellant’s computer could not alone establish that the images, text, and video used in the information involved had been supplied by the appellant merely because their data characteristics were identical;

(6) They knew that the appellant had not caused a disturbance, yet characterized his conduct of contacting and communicating with others on WeChat as “causing a disturbance” (as stated in the second-instance ruling);

(7) They knew that the information involved on the networks was not disseminated by the appellant, but in order to maliciously frame him, they relied on his admission during the trial that he had “previously posted content on WeChat that was the same as or similar to the information involved” to conclude that the information on the networks had been disseminated by him. Yet they provided no evidence of when, on which WeChat account, or what content he had posted, or when and by whom that content had been forwarded to the information networks involved. Their intentions were truly elaborate;

In summary, it can be seen that the public prosecutor and the first- and second-instance judicial personnel in this case knew that the alleged “criminal facts” were not legally the criminal facts of creating a disturbance. Nevertheless, in order to persecute the appellant through abuse of power, they openly abused their authority, deliberately distorted the facts, and abused the law. They first unlawfully characterized conduct that did not constitute the crime of creating a disturbance as criminal conduct, then used malicious logic to frame the appellant for this “criminal conduct unlawfully established by them.” The baseness of their methods, the viciousness of their intentions, and the maliciousness of their logic are obvious. These criminal judicial scoundrels deserve even extermination of their nine familial relations! The case files are irrefutable evidence, and no power or influence can conceal it!

This case is a typical abusive-persecution case, with the following unlawful circumstances:

1. The judgment misstated the facts and misapplied the law;

2. The evidence on which the case was decided was unreliable and insufficient;

3. The litigation procedures violated statutory provisions and seriously affected a fair trial;

4. The judicial personnel engaged in unlawful adjudication while hearing the case.

Under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, the Criminal Procedure Rules of the People’s Procuratorates, and the Provisions on the Handling of Criminal Appeals by the People’s Procuratorates, the Wuxi Municipal People’s Procuratorate is requested to follow the principles governing the handling of criminal appeals, conduct a comprehensive, objective, and impartial reconsideration in accordance with the law, hear the appellant’s opinions in accordance with the law, organize a public hearing, expose and correct this case of bending the law for personal ends carefully planned and fabricated by certain judicial scoundrels in Wuxi, file a protest in accordance with the law, safeguard judicial impartiality, defend the dignity of the law, protect the appellant’s lawful rights and interests, and support the central authorities’ rule of law. At the same time, please transfer to the relevant authorities for handling any conduct discovered in the course of handling this criminal appeal in which relevant personnel abused their authority, deliberately violated the facts, and unlawfully issued an unlawful judgment while bending the law for personal ends.

List of wrongdoers who bent the law for personal ends in this case: 

Zhang Qin, Wang Lei, and Li Tongyuan were the public prosecutors appearing in court for the Liangxi District People’s Procuratorate of Wuxi;

Wu Wei, Li Peng, and Xia Yan were the collegiate-panel judges of the Liangxi District People’s Court in the first instance;

Gu Rongrong, Xu Haihong, and Yang Liu were the collegiate-panel judges of the Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court in the second instance;

Niu Zhaoxiang, Li Hailin, and Guo Jiguang were the collegiate-panel judges of the Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court in the retrial.

Respectfully submitted to

Wuxi Municipal People’s Procuratorate

Appellant:       Date:

Attachments: 1. One copy of the first-instance judgment; 2. One copy of the Wuxi Intermediate Court’s Notice of Rejection of Appeal; 3. One copy of the appellant’s identity card. Note: The second-instance ruling cannot be provided because it was abusively withheld by the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau. Please obtain the complete case materials in accordance with the law.