Supplementary Appeal, Procuratorial Supervision and Requests in the Duoji Zhaxi Case, a Wrongful Conviction Directly Proven Innocent by Documentary Evidence and with Overwhelming Evidence

CPC Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the Tibet Autonomous Region：

It is common sense that a mortgage loan does not constitute a crime， yet part of a 1.5 million yuan loan secured by more than 16.09 million yuan in property belonging to the controlling company of Duoji Zhaxi became overdue， and he was sentenced to life imprisonment、 had all his personal property confiscated、 and was deprived of political rights for life。 His older sister Daojiji suffered a mental breakdown because of the case and left home for many years， and last year， when President Xi Jinping attended the celebration of the 60th anniversary of Tibet， his older sister Gong Baoji jumped from a building to protest judicial injustice and refused to meet her younger brother for many years。 Such a tragedy， and such a rare judicial miscarriage of justice in China， has attracted extensive attention domestically and internationally， seriously damaging not only Tibet’s image but also ethnic unity and national interests。

I、The Duoji Zhaxi case is one in which documentary evidence directly proves innocence， involving errors of common sense and logic, and errors in the trial procedure, determination of facts and application of law

Article 193 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China [Loan Fraud] provides that where， for the purpose of illegal possession， a person defrauds a bank or other financial institution of a relatively large loan under any of the following circumstances， the person shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years or criminal detention， and shall also be fined not less than 20,000 yuan but not more than 200,000 yuan； where the amount is huge or there are other serious circumstances， the person shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years but not more than 10 years， and shall also be fined not less than 50,000 yuan but not more than 500,000 yuan； where the amount is especially huge or there are other especially serious circumstances， the person shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years or life imprisonment， and shall also be fined not less than 50,000 yuan but not more than 500,000 yuan， or have property confiscated： (1) fabricating false reasons such as introducing funds or projects； (2) using false economic contracts； (3) using false supporting documents； (4) using false certificates of title as security or repeatedly providing security beyond the value of the collateral； or (5) defrauding loans by other means。

There was no loan fraud in this mortgage loan case： 1. there was no “purpose of illegal possession”； 2. there were no false or deceptive means； and 3. the collateral was not legally disposed of and caused the lending bank any economic loss。 Merely because more than 1.43 million yuan of the loan became overdue and the procedures for renewing the loan were not completed in time， the authorities unlawfully interfered across jurisdictions by criminal means in a lawful civil act and sentenced him to life imprisonment for loan fraud。 The indictment、 first-instance judgment and second-instance ruling clearly show that this case does not possess any of the three essential elements of the crime of loan fraud， and Duoji Zhaxi’s innocence is established at the documentary level。 Anyone with basic legal knowledge can clearly determine that the judgment is an error of common sense and logic， and that the trial procedure、 determination of facts and application of law were all erroneous。

II、The case used a series of direct and sufficient evidence of innocence and three unlawful administrative judgments as evidence for conviction, violating the principles of adjudication based on evidence and legality of crimes and punishments

The Lhasa Public Security Bureau criminally and unlawfully interfered in lawful civil conduct in Shigatse City， and the filing of the case、 prosecution、 first-instance judgment and second-instance ruling were fundamentally erroneous and unlawful， while a judgment by the Shigatse Intermediate People’s Court that violated the Land Law、 Administrative Reconsideration Law and Administrative Litigation Law and revoked the land certificate concerning Qinsangyuan Company was used as key evidence for conviction in the loan-fraud case。 The judgment was subsequently lawfully protested、 revoked and remanded for retrial， but no lawful trial has been conducted to this day。

Merely from the facts determined and corresponding evidence cited in the indictment、 first-instance judgment、 second-instance ruling and related administrative and civil judgments， the fundamental errors and contradictions in this case are fully proven， and they involve multiple negations：

1. On January 17, 2008， the Shigatse Intermediate People’s Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region issued Administrative Judgment [ (2008) Ri Zhong Xing Chu Zi No. 01 ]， violating the Land Law、 Administrative Reconsideration Law and Administrative Litigation Law by revoking the land certificate concerning Qinsangyuan Company， and the court unlawfully denied the land certificate lawfully issued by the land bureau。 This judgment was used as key evidence for conviction in the loan-fraud case。

2. On June 3, 2009， the Lhasa People’s Procuratorate indicted Duoji Zhaxi for loan fraud [La Jian Xing Er Su (2009) No. 06]， alleging that “the defendant Duoji Zhaxi instructed others to deceive the industrial and commercial registration authorities by means including false capital contributions and falsely reporting registered capital， established ‘Shigatse City Qinsangyuan Ecological Comprehensive Development Co., Ltd.’， fabricated a false project for introducing funds， used illegally obtained land-use rights as security with a bank， defrauded the bank of a loan， and used it to repay personal debts”， thereby denying both the company’s lawful registration and the objective legal fact that the company lawfully obtained the land certificate through a change of registration。

3. On May 17, 2010， the Lhasa Intermediate People’s Court issued its first-instance judgment: “The allegation in the indictment that the defendant Duoji Zhaxi first defrauded Xin Xianjun of the land-use rights and then defrauded the industrial and commercial registration authorities into registering and establishing the company is inconsistent with the objective facts of this case and is not supported in accordance with law.” Having rejected the criminal facts alleged in the indictment， the court should have acquitted him。 Instead， without factual or legal grounds， it held that the land involved was “wetland”， that “the government prohibited its transfer” and that “the fact that the land-use rights could be transferred was fabricated”， and concluded: “The defendant Duoji Zhaxi， for the purpose of illegally possessing bank loan funds， used the non-transferable land-use rights as security and applied to the bank for a mortgage loan， and after obtaining the loan funds used them to repay the debts of Shigatse Shenhu Hotel owned by him. The defendant Duoji Zhaxi diverted the loan obtained for other purposes， causing the loan to be unrecoverable. His conduct constituted loan fraud， and the amount was especially huge， so he should be punished in accordance with law.” He was sentenced to life imprisonment、 had all his personal property confiscated and was deprived of political rights for life。 The 137.97 mu of land-use rights were valued at more than 16.09 million yuan and used to secure a 1.5 million yuan loan， of which more than 1.43 million yuan became overdue。 After the second-instance proceedings， all principal and interest on the loan were repaid。 The land still belongs to Shigatse City Qinsangyuan Ecological Comprehensive Development Co., Ltd. and remains deserted in the urban area of Shigatse。

The evidence listed in the first-instance judgment includes the Land-Use Rights Transfer Contract、 Share Transfer Agreement、 the business license for the lawfully registered Shigatse City Qinsangyuan Ecological Development Co., Ltd.、 the land certificate、 and the fact that “the value of the land-use rights of the parcel used as security was 16.097305 million yuan.” The Loan Contract、 “Mortgage Contract、 Real Estate Mortgage List and Other-Property Rights Certificate establish” the fact that the company mortgaged the property to borrow 1.5 million yuan and “used it to repay the hotel’s bank loan.” This series of evidence proves that the mortgage loan was a genuine、 lawful and valid civil act。 This series of direct and sufficient evidence proving the legality of the mortgage loan was treated as evidence of guilt; relying on the erroneous grounds that there was no evidence whatsoever proving that the land involved was “wetland” or “prohibited from transfer,” and that this was not an act of Duoji Zhaxi, the court violated the legal boundary between civil acts and criminal offenses, convicted him of loan fraud and violated the principles of adjudication based on evidence and legality of crimes and punishments。

4. On July 26, 2010， the Tibet Autonomous Region Higher People’s Court issued Criminal Ruling [ (2010) Zang Fa Xing Er Zhong Zi No. 10 ]: “DuojI Zhaxi appealed, stating that the facts determined in the first-instance judgment were seriously inconsistent with the objective facts of this case and the facts reflected by abundant and sufficient evidence, and requesting that the first-instance judgment be revoked and the appellant be acquitted.” The court rejected the grounds for conviction in the first-instance judgment and dismissed the appeal on the false ground of “using a false certificate of title as security”。

5. On September 30, 2010， the People’s Procuratorate of the Tibet Autonomous Region lodged an administrative protest [Zang Jian Xing Kang Zi (2010) No. 01] against Administrative Judgment [ (2008) Ri Zhong Xing Chu Zi No. 01] of the Shigatse Intermediate People’s Court: “The administrative judgment violated procedural law， resulting in unclear findings of fact and incorrect citation of legal provisions.” The evidence and proof supporting the criminal conviction completely collapsed。

6. On October 18, 2010， the Tibet Autonomous Region Higher People’s Court issued Administrative Ruling [ (2010) Zang Fa Xing Kang Zi No. 1 ]: 1. The case was remanded to the Shigatse Intermediate People’s Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region for retrial by a separately constituted collegial panel。 2. Execution of the original judgment was suspended during the retrial。 The criminal conviction could not stand。

7. The People’s Procuratorate of the Tibet Autonomous Region withdrew its protest on the grounds of “maintaining the uniformity of the national legal system and maintaining the res judicata of the effective criminal judgment of the People’s Court” (Zang Jian Xing Che Kang Zi [2011] No. 01), that is, in order to maintain an erroneous criminal judgment and ruling。 However， the Tibet Higher People’s Court did not withdraw its ruling ordering a retrial of the administrative case。

8. The Shigatse Intermediate People’s Court of Tibet ruled in Administrative Ruling (2010) Ri Zhong Xing Zai Chu Zi No. 01: “1. Permission is granted for the People’s Procuratorate of the Tibet Autonomous Region to withdraw its protest; 2. The retrial proceedings are terminated and execution of the original judgment is resumed.” This ruling nevertheless negated the ruling of the Tibet Higher People’s Court， seriously violating the system of judicial levels and the principle of judicial subordination. It was manifestly unlawful、 ultra vires and invalid， and damaged the credibility of the administrative acts of the land-management authority as well as the unity of the national rule of law。

9. On December 7, 2010， in the financial loan-contract dispute brought by the Shigatse branch of the Shigatse branch of Agricultural Bank of China Limited (the “Shigatse Agricultural Bank branch”) against Qinsangyuan Company， the Shigatse Intermediate People’s Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region issued Civil Judgment (2009) Ri Zhong Min Er Chu Zi No. 04， recognizing the “genuine、 lawful and valid” nature of the mortgage contract、 loan contract and land title certificate。 This fundamentally conflicts with the “false mortgage and fraud” determined in the criminal judgment in terms of both facts and legal reasoning。

III、This case is an ironclad miscarriage of justice and presents seven circumstances in which the People’s Procuratorate should lodge a protest and eight circumstances in which the People’s Court should conduct a retrial

The mistakes of the first instance、 second instance、 multiple groups of appeal lawyers and Qinsangyuan Company included, among other things, failing to appeal the administrative and civil cases， failing to appeal the administrative ruling of the Shigatse Intermediate People’s Court， and failing to raise issues including the unlawful jurisdiction over the criminal case and the fact that the mortgage loan was genuine、 lawful and valid， resulting in Duoji Zhaxi’s continuing wrongful conviction to this day。

DuojI Zhaxi’s relatives commissioned a new legal team to study a series of legal avenues for breakthrough. The appeal contains new facts、 evidence and legal grounds， proving 15 procedural violations in the jurisdiction、 investigation、 prosecution and trial of the case， serious errors concerning 10 basic facts， and false grounds for conviction. Thirty-one reasons across seven major aspects jointly prove Duoji Zhaxi’s innocence、 and 50 new pieces of evidence warrant overturning this miscarriage of justice。

This is an ironclad miscarriage of justice：

Wrongful：As a deputy to the People’s Congress、 CPC member and private entrepreneur， Duoji Zhaxi loved his country and the Party， supported ethnic unity， engaged in charity and public welfare and was a “red model.” He openly supported the government， and his Shenhu Group made the largest donation after the government’s “3.14” incident， yet he was framed and falsely accused. After fatal torture-induced confessions failed to establish two charges， the genuine、 lawful、 valid and fully secured mortgage loan—an otherwise lawful civil act—of Qinsangyuan Company controlled by his company was clearly and erroneously characterized as the criminal offense of loan fraud。

False：The grounds for prosecution were false， the grounds for conviction at first instance were false， and the grounds for dismissing the appeal in the second-instance ruling were also false。

Erroneous：There were 15 errors in the trial procedure； 10 errors in the determination of facts； and errors in the application of law！

IV、The case has been widely criticized for involving ethnic discrimination, inequality and a lack of basic humanity

Among members of the relevant collegial panels in the same period， the Tibet Higher People’s Court reduced He Xingyou’s life sentence in a 53-million-yuan loan-fraud case to 15 years， and he was released early to enjoy the proceeds of the fraud。 This case involved an obvious acquittal as a matter of common sense but resulted in a life sentence。 After the second-instance proceedings， all loan principal and interest were repaid， yet he has served 18 years in prison and remains sentenced to life imprisonment。 Ethnic equality、racial discrimination and judicial corruption have been widely questioned。 After unlawful arrest and torture during interrogation， Duoji Zhaxi was also beaten three times in prison by several inmates。 His older sister Daojiji suffered a mental breakdown because of the case and has been away from home for many years。 His older sister Gong Baoji was beaten while seeking redress for his grievance and jumped from a building to protest judicial injustice while President Xi Jinping was in Tibet last year attending the 60th-anniversary celebration. She has refused to meet him for many years and fought with her life， a human tragedy。

V、Do the provisions of China’s Constitution and laws, and the requirements of the CPC Central Committee, State Council, Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate to respect and protect human rights and protect property rights and the lawful rights and interests of private entrepreneurs have no effect in Tibet？

The Constitution and laws of the state、 central policies and the relevant laws and regulations of the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate have in practice had no effect in Tibet in this case， causing Duoji Zhaxi and his relatives 18 years of unbearable suffering。 The Supreme People’s Procuratorate has successively issued the Opinions on Giving Full Play to Procuratorial Functions to Protect and Promote the Healthy Development of the Non-Public Economy in Accordance with the Law: “Those who knowingly violate the law or handle cases unlawfully shall be identified， dealt with and reported in each case， so that irregular judicial conduct is reflected in people、 matters and cases， and the lawful rights and interests of non-public enterprises are protected in accordance with the law.” The Opinions on Fully Performing Procuratorial Functions and Strengthening Judicial Protection of Property Rights: “The right of all types of property-rights holders to appeal during their imprisonment shall be protected in accordance with the law， preventing them from being restricted or deprived of their lawful right to obtain sentence reductions because of their appeals.” The Notice on Giving Full Play to Functional Roles to Create a Rule-of-Law Environment Protecting the Lawful Rights and Interests of Entrepreneurs and Supporting Entrepreneurial Innovation: “Strengthen supervision of criminal proceedings， promote impartial justice and protect the lawful rights and interests of entrepreneurs involved in cases in accordance with the law. Strengthen supervision of public powers including the power to investigate economic crimes， focusing on supervising and correcting the use of criminal means by investigative authorities to interfere in economic disputes， and intensify supervision over and correction of lax enforcement and judicial injustice, including failures to open cases that should be opened， opening cases that should not be opened and selective enforcement. Strictly prevent civil disputes from being handled as criminal cases. Implement systems for handling cases including the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence， explore and improve rules of evidence in litigation involving intellectual-property cases， and protect entrepreneurs’ innovation rights and interests in accordance with the law. Effectively perform the duty of reviewing the necessity of detention; where an entrepreneur suspected of a crime who has already been arrested is found not to need continued detention， release or a change in compulsory measures shall be recommended in accordance with the law. Focus on supervising cases in which effective judgments and rulings contain actual errors in determining facts， accepting evidence or applying the law， and lodge protests in accordance with the law when statutory conditions are met. Focus on supervising the enforcement of effective judgments and rulings in cases involving crimes by entrepreneurs; where, during enforcement of property penalties by a People’s Court, unlawful violations of property rights are found, such as failing to enforce property penalties that should be enforced， enforcing penalties that should not be enforced or unlawfully disposing of property belonging to the person subject to enforcement or a third party， corrective opinions shall be issued in accordance with the law to ensure that property penalties are fully enforced. Protect the right of entrepreneurs involved in cases to appeal during imprisonment in accordance with the law， prevent them from being restricted or deprived of their lawful right to obtain sentence reductions or parole because of their appeals， and protect their exercise of property rights and other civil rights during imprisonment in accordance with the law.” The Work Plan for the Special Action on Judicial Protection of Private Enterprises focuses on handling five types of petition-and-complaint cases involving private enterprises， including criminal cases involving private enterprises that have been delayed without resolution for a long time. The Supreme People’s Procuratorate has clearly set out 11 standards for law-enforcement and judicial handling of cases involving private enterprises; Article 6 is “preventing interference in economic disputes through criminal means by supervising the filing of cases.” None of these have been implemented in Tibet。

We have submitted formal appeals and applications for procuratorial supervision in accordance with the law, supported by sufficient new facts、 evidence、 reasons and legal grounds. From the reports and appeals beginning in July 2025 to the formal appeal and application for procuratorial supervision submitted at the end of last year, more than three and nine months have passed, and no lawful response has been provided to date。 The basic human rights of his wife and son to meet their husband and father, and of his older brother and older sister to meet their younger brother, have also been deprived, and to this day they do not know whether he is alive or dead。

Accordingly, we request that your procuratorate promptly perform its statutory obligations, including procedural obligations, in accordance with the law：

1. We request that your procuratorate accept and substantively examine this appeal and application for procuratorial supervision in accordance with the law；

2. We request that your procuratorate conduct procuratorial supervision in accordance with the law over the criminal investigation、 prosecution and trial of this case；

3. Your procuratorate lodged a protest against the administrative judgment of the Shigatse Intermediate People’s Court in order to uphold the rule of law. It should correct the manifest error of withdrawing the protest. The Shigatse Intermediate People’s Court’s ruling approving your procuratorate’s withdrawal of the protest and its ruling suspending the retrial violated the principles of judicial levels and judicial subordination; your procuratorate should also now safeguard its own rights；

4. We request that your procuratorate treat this case as a major wrongful-conviction case clue, report it level by level to the Supreme People’s Procuratorate for examination in accordance with the law, and recommend that the Supreme People’s Procuratorate lodge a protest with the Supreme People’s Court under the trial-supervision procedure；

5. Coordinate with the relevant authorities to grant Duoji Zhaxi a sentence reduction or parole in accordance with the law. Articles 78 and 80 of the Criminal Law provide that a person sentenced to life imprisonment must actually serve more than 13 years before sentence reduction or parole. Given that Duoji Zhaxi was criminally detained on July 11, 2008 and sentenced to life imprisonment on May 17, 2010, by May 16 this year the wrongfully convicted Duoji Zhaxi will have actually served 18 years in prison. From the perspective of basic humanity, the life sentence should also be reduced to 18 years or he should be granted parole, allowing him to return to his family and society and escape this suffering. At the same time, this would give the judicial authorities in Tibet or the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and Supreme People’s Court more time to handle the case lawfully and calmly, and to be responsible to the parties, the law, history and the people of Tibet；

6. We request that your procuratorate supervise the Tibet Autonomous Region prison in accordance with the law to protect Duoji Zhaxi’s relatives’ right to meet him, right to appeal and basic humane treatment；

7. If your procuratorate considers that this case does not meet the conditions for supervision, reporting up the chain or recommending a protest， please issue a written response in accordance with the law and state the reasons。

We believe that China has laws， and that Chinese society should be governed by basic justice。

Respectfully submitted to

People’s Procuratorate of the Tibet Autonomous Region

Lawyer Tang Yongquan, Guangdong Jieti Law Firm

Telephone：17877009528

Address：Room 901, Building A, No. 4545 Songbai Road, Hewan Community, Matian Subdistrict, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province Postal code: 518106。

Appellants：Daojiji、Gong Baoji、DuojI Cidan

Appellants’ representatives：Chen Bing、Tang Yongquan、Mao Weidong

April 26, 2026