Supplementary Petition Opinions on the Doji Tashi Case: Documentary Evidence Proves Innocence in an Irrefutable Wrongful Conviction

Tibet Autonomous Region High People's Court:

Shigatse People's Congress representative Doji Tashi was criminally detained without authorization and subjected to torture to extract a confession. Because a loan of 1.5 million yuan secured by more than 16.09 million yuan in assets belonging to a company he controlled became partially overdue, he was sentenced to life imprisonment, had all his personal property confiscated, and was deprived of political rights for life. His elder sister Daojiji developed a mental disorder because of the case and left home for many years. Last year, when President Xi Jinping attended celebrations marking the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Tibet Autonomous Region, his elder sister Gongboji jumped from a building to protest judicial injustice and has refused to meet her younger brother for many years. Such a tragedy, and such a rare judicial miscarriage of justice in China, has attracted widespread attention domestically and internationally. It has not only seriously damaged Tibet's image, but also harmed ethnic unity and national interests.

I. The Doji Tashi case is one in which documentary evidence directly proves innocence; it involves errors of common sense and logic, and errors in the trial procedure, the determination of facts, and the application of law

Article 193 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China [Loan Fraud] provides: Whoever, for the purpose of illegal possession, defrauds a bank or other financial institution of a loan under any of the following circumstances, where the amount is relatively large, shall be sentenced to not more than five years' imprisonment 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 offender shall be sentenced to not less than five years but not more than 10 years' imprisonment, 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 offender shall be sentenced to not less than 10 years' imprisonment 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 certification documents; (4) using false certificates of title as security, or repeatedly providing security beyond the value of the collateral; or (5) defrauding a loan by other means.

The secured loan in this case involved none of the following: 1. “the purpose of illegal possession”; 2. any falsehood or deception; or 3. any economic loss to the lending bank caused by the collateral being handled in accordance with the law. The loan was merely more than 1.43 million yuan overdue because the renewal procedures were not completed in time. Yet the authorities unlawfully intervened from another locality through criminal means in a lawful civil act and sentenced him to life imprisonment for loan fraud. The indictment, the first-instance judgment, and the second-instance ruling clearly show that this case does not satisfy any of the three essential elements of the crime of loan fraud. Doji Tashi is demonstrably innocent on the face of the documents. Anyone with basic legal knowledge can clearly determine that this judgment contains errors of common sense and logic, and that the trial procedure, fact-finding, and application of law were all erroneous.

II. This case used a series of direct and sufficient items of evidence of innocence, together with three unlawful administrative judgments, as evidence for conviction, violating the principle of adjudication based on evidence and the principle of legality

Lhasa Public Security Bureau criminally and unlawfully interfered in lawful civil activity in Shigatse City. The filing of the case, prosecution, first-instance judgment, and second-instance ruling were fundamentally erroneous and unlawful. The authorities also used as key evidence for convicting him of loan fraud a Shigatse Intermediate People's Court judgment that violated the Land Law, the Administrative Reconsideration Law, and the Administrative Litigation Law by revoking the land certificate concerning Qinsangyuan Company. That judgment was subsequently challenged by a lawful procuratorial protest, revoked, and remanded for retrial; however, it has still not been lawfully adjudicated.

Merely from the facts determined and the corresponding evidence set out in the indictment, the first-instance judgment, the second-instance ruling, and the relevant administrative and civil judgments, the fundamental errors and contradictions in this case are fully demonstrated, and they involve multiple layers of negation:

1. On January 17, 2008, the Administrative Judgment of the Shigatse Prefecture Intermediate People's Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region [(2008) Ri Zhong Xing Chu Zi No. 01] violated the Land Law, the Administrative Reconsideration Law, and the Administrative Litigation Law by revoking the land certificate concerning Qinsangyuan Company. The court unlawfully denied the land certificate lawfully issued by the land bureau. That judgment was used as key evidence for convicting him of loan fraud.

2. On June 3, 2009, the Lhasa People's Procuratorate indicted him for loan fraud [La Jian Xing Er Su [2009] No. 06], alleging: “The defendant, Doji Tashi, instructed others to use methods including false capital contributions and falsely reported registered capital to deceive the administrative authority for industry and commerce registration and establish ‘Shigatse Qinsangyuan Ecological Comprehensive Development Co., Ltd.’; fabricated a false capital-introduction project; used illegally obtained land-use rights as security with a bank; defrauded the bank of a loan; and used it to repay personal debts.” This both denied the company's lawful registration and denied the objective legal fact that the company's land certificate had been lawfully changed and obtained.

3. On May 17, 2010, the Lhasa Intermediate People's Court's first-instance judgment stated: “The allegation in the indictment that the defendant, Doji Tashi, defrauded Xin Xianjun of land-use rights and then defrauded the industry and commerce registration authority into registering and establishing the company is inconsistent with the objective facts of this case and is not supported in accordance with the law.” Having denied the criminal facts alleged in the indictment, the court should have acquitted him. Instead, without any factual or legal basis, it found that the land at issue was “wetland,” that “the government prohibited its transfer,” and that “the fact that the land-use rights could be transferred was fabricated.” It further found that “the defendant, Doji Tashi, for the purpose of illegally possessing bank loan funds, pledged the land-use rights, which could not be transferred, and applied to the bank for a secured loan. After obtaining the loan funds, he used them to repay the debts of the Shigatse Shenhu Hotel that he owned. The defendant, Doji Tashi, diverted the loan proceeds for other purposes, resulting in the loan being unrecoverable. His conduct constituted the crime of loan fraud, and the amount was especially huge; he should therefore be punished in accordance with the law.” He was sentenced to life imprisonment, had all his personal property confiscated, and was deprived of political rights for life. The land-use rights to 137.97 mu, assessed at more than 16.09 million yuan, were used to secure a loan of 1.5 million yuan, 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 Qinsangyuan Ecological Comprehensive Development Co., Ltd. and remains undeveloped in the urban area of Shigatse.

The evidence listed in the first-instance judgment in this case included the Land-Use Rights Transfer Contract, the Share Transfer Agreement, the business license of the lawfully registered and established Shigatse Qinsangyuan Ecological Development Co., Ltd., the land certificate, and the fact that “the value of the land-use rights was 16.097305 million yuan.” The Loan Contract, “the Mortgage Contract, the Real Estate Mortgage List, and the Certificate of Other Rights” established the fact that the company secured a loan of 1.5 million yuan and “used it to repay the hotel’s bank loan.” This series of items of evidence proves that the secured loan was a real, lawful, and valid civil act. These direct and sufficient items of evidence proving that the secured loan was real and lawful were treated as evidence of guilt. On the erroneous grounds that there was no evidence whatsoever proving that the land at issue was “wetland” or “prohibited from transfer,” and that this was not an act of Doji Tashi, the court violated the statutory boundary between civil acts and criminal offenses, convicted him of loan fraud, and violated the principles of adjudication based on evidence and legality.

4. On July 26, 2010, the Criminal Ruling of the Tibet Autonomous Region High People's Court [(2010) Zang Fa Xing Er Zhong Zi No. 10] stated: “Doji Tashi appealed, asserting that the facts determined in the first-instance judgment were seriously inconsistent with the objective facts of this case and the facts reflected by the large amount of ample evidence, and requesting that the first-instance judgment be revoked and that the appellant be acquitted.” The ruling also rejected the first-instance court's grounds for conviction and dismissed the appeal on the false ground that he had “used a false certificate of title as security.”

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

6. On October 18, 2010, the Administrative Ruling of the Tibet Autonomous Region High People's Court [(2010) Zang Fa Xing Kang Zi No. 1] provided: “1. This case is directed to the Shigatse Prefecture Intermediate People's Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region for retrial by a newly constituted collegial panel. 2. During the retrial, enforcement of the original judgment shall be suspended.” The criminal conviction could not stand.

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

8. The Shigatse Prefecture Intermediate People's Court of Tibet ruled in Administrative Ruling [(2010) Ri Zhong Xing Zai Chu Zi No. 01]: “1. The withdrawal of the protest by the People's Procuratorate of the Tibet Autonomous Region is permitted; 2. The retrial proceedings are terminated and enforcement of the original judgment is resumed.” This ruling nevertheless overturned the ruling of the Tibet High Court, seriously violating the system of judicial levels and the principle of judicial subordination. It was plainly unlawful, ultra vires, and invalid, and damaged the credibility of the administrative act of the land-management authority as well as the uniformity of the national rule of law.

9. On December 7, 2010, in the financial loan contract dispute case brought by the Shigatse branch of the Shigatse sub-branch of the Agricultural Bank of China Co., Ltd. (the “Shigatse Agricultural Bank”) against Qinsangyuan Company, the Shigatse Prefecture Intermediate People's Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region issued Civil Judgment [(2009) Ri Zhong Min Er Chu Zi No. 04], recognizing the “authenticity, legality, and validity” of the mortgage contract, loan contract, and land title certificate. This fundamentally conflicts, in fact and law, with the criminal judgment's finding of a “false mortgage” and “fraud.”

III. This case is an irrefutable miscarriage of justice, involving seven circumstances in which the People's Procuratorate should file a protest and eight circumstances in which the People's Court should order a retrial

The mistakes of the first-instance court, the second-instance court, successive petitioning 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 such issues as the unlawful jurisdiction over the criminal case and the fact that the secured loan was real, lawful, and valid. These failures have left Doji Tashi wronged to this day.

Doji Tashi's relatives commissioned a new legal team, which studied a series of legal breakthroughs. The petition 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. Seven major dimensions and 31 grounds jointly prove Doji Tashi's innocence, while 50 new items of evidence warrant a ruling overturning this miscarriage of justice.

This is an irrefutable miscarriage of justice:

Wronged: Doji Tashi, a People's Congress representative, Communist Party member, and private entrepreneur who loved his country and the Party, supported ethnic unity, engaged in charitable public welfare, and was a “red model,” openly supported the government. His Shenhu Group made the largest donation after the government's “3.14” incident, yet he was falsely accused and framed. Two charges resulting from fatal torture to extract a confession failed, and the genuinely lawful, valid, and fully secured loan civil act of Qinsangyuan Company, controlled by his company, was then manifestly erroneously characterized as the criminal offense of loan fraud.

False: The grounds for the prosecution were false, the grounds for conviction at first instance were false, and the grounds for rejecting 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. This case has been widely criticized for ethnic discrimination, inequality, and a lack of basic humanity

In the same year, involving basically the same collegial-panel personnel, the Tibet High Court changed He Xingyou's life sentence in a 53-million-yuan loan-fraud case to 15 years, allowing him to leave prison early and enjoy the proceeds of fraud. This case, plainly one of innocence by common sense, resulted in a life sentence. After the second-instance proceedings, all principal and interest on the loan were repaid, yet he has served 18 years in prison and still remains under a life sentence. Ethnic equality, racial discrimination, and judicial corruption have been widely questioned. After being unlawfully arrested and tortured to extract a confession, Doji Tashi was also beaten three times in prison by multiple inmates. His elder sister Daojiji developed a mental disorder as a result of the case and has been away for many years. His elder sister Gongboji was beaten while seeking redress for his grievances and, during President Xi Jinping's visit to Tibet last year to attend celebrations marking the 60th anniversary, jumped from a building to protest judicial injustice. She has refused to meet him for many years, resisting with her life—a human tragedy.

V. Do the provisions of China's Constitution and laws, and the requirements of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, the State Council, the Supreme People's Court, and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on respecting and protecting human rights and legally protecting property rights and the lawful rights and interests of private entrepreneurs have no force in Tibet?

President Xi Jinping emphasized, “effectively protect in accordance with the law the lawful rights and interests of private enterprises and private entrepreneurs,” and regards the private economy as an important force driving the country's modernization.

National respect for and protection of human rights—the Constitution of the People's Republic of China

The Law of the People's Republic of China on the Promotion of the Private Economy: It clarifies the principles of “equal treatment, fair competition, equal protection, and common development,” and aims to improve the development environment for the private economy and promote its healthy development.

Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Strengthening Adjudication Work in the New Era (February 8, 2025)

“Party committees at all levels must strengthen leadership over adjudication work, regularly hear work reports, study and resolve major issues, and ensure the implementation of the principles, policies, decisions, and arrangements of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China concerning adjudication work.”

“Prevent and correct the use of administrative or criminal means to interfere in economic disputes, apply property-preservation and judicial compulsory measures in accordance with the law, and avoid adverse effects on lawful production and business operations.”

“Establish sound mechanisms for effectively preventing, legally identifying, and correcting wrongful cases involving enterprises.”

Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on Promoting the Growth and Development of the Private Economy (July 14, 2023)

“Protect the property rights of private enterprises and the rights and interests of entrepreneurs in accordance with the law. Prevent and correct the use of administrative or criminal means to interfere in economic disputes, as well as local protectionism in law enforcement and the administration of justice.” “Improve mechanisms for petitions and retrials in cases involving enterprises, and establish sound mechanisms for effectively preventing and routinely correcting wrongful cases.”

Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on Creating a Healthy Environment for Entrepreneurs' Growth, Promoting Excellent Entrepreneurial Spirit, and Better Leveraging the Role of Entrepreneurs (September 8, 2017)

Protect entrepreneurs' property rights in accordance with the law. Fully implement the opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on improving the property-rights protection system and protecting property rights in accordance with the law; earnestly resolve prominent problems in property-rights protection; promptly identify and correct petition cases involving property-rights disputes that have generated strong public concern; analyze cases of infringement of property rights; and summarize and promote good practices, experience, and cases involving the effective protection of property rights in accordance with the law.

Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on Improving the Property-Rights Protection System and Protecting Property Rights in Accordance with the Law (November 4, 2016)

Adhere to the principle that every error must be corrected, and promptly identify and correct a number of petition cases involving property-rights disputes that have generated strong public concern, while analyzing a number of cases involving infringement of property rights. Petition cases involving property-rights disputes over major disposals of property, and petitions alleging violations by private enterprises and investors, shall be legally identified. Where a wrongful case is indeed unclear in its facts, insufficient in evidence, or erroneous in the application of law, it shall be corrected in accordance with the law and the parties' losses shall be compensated.

Guiding Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Implementing the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Promotion of the Private Economy, Fa Fa [2025] No. 15: Lawfully order retrials to correct wrongful cases involving enterprises, and conduct strict reviews of whether measures restricting personal freedom comply with statutory authority, conditions, and procedures. Promptly publish typical cases involving retrial corrections, and resolutely ensure that every error is corrected and corrected in accordance with the law.

Guiding Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Optimizing the Rule-of-Law Environment and Promoting the Growth and Development of the Private Economy, Fa Fa [2023] No. 15: Strengthen petitions and retrials in enterprise-related property-rights cases, and improve mechanisms for effectively preventing and legally identifying and correcting wrongful cases.

Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Giving Full Play to the Adjudicatory Function to Create a Sound Rule-of-Law Environment for Entrepreneurs to Innovate and Start Businesses, Fa [2018] No. 1

Protect entrepreneurs' personal freedom and property rights in accordance with the law. Strictly implement criminal laws and judicial interpretations, and resolutely prevent the use of criminal means to interfere in economic disputes. Adhere to the principle of legality. Entrepreneurs' innovative and entrepreneurial activities in production, operations, and financing shall not be treated as criminal offenses so long as they do not violate the provisions of criminal law. Strictly apply the constituent elements of the crimes of illegal business operations and contract fraud, and prevent their arbitrary expansion. Civil disputes arising during the conclusion or performance of contracts shall not be handled as criminal cases unless there is solid and sufficient evidence proving that the elements of a crime are satisfied.”

Effectively correct wrongful property-rights cases involving entrepreneurs. Further intensify efforts to identify and correct wrongful property-rights cases involving entrepreneurs. Wrongful cases involving entrepreneurs' property rights shall be retried promptly in accordance with the law and corrected as soon as possible.

Opinions of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Fully Performing Procuratorial Functions and Strengthening Judicial Protection of Property Rights (January 6, 2017)

Adhere to the principle that subjective and objective factors must be consistent, and avoid objective imputation. Economic conduct by private enterprises involving production, operations, financing, and other activities shall not be treated as illegal or criminal except where expressly prohibited by laws or administrative regulations. For criminal cases involving property rights that are being handled, where the law and judicial interpretations are unclear, the legal boundaries are unclear, or the boundary between crime and non-crime is unclear, the conduct shall not be treated as a crime.

Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Giving Full Play to the Adjudicatory Function and Effectively Strengthening Judicial Protection of Property Rights, Fa Fa [2016] No. 27

People's courts at all levels must uphold politics and the overall situation, earnestly unify their thinking and actions with the decisions and arrangements of the Central Committee, enhance their sense of responsibility and mission from the perspective of coordinating the advancement of the “five-sphere integrated plan” and the “four-pronged comprehensive strategy,” fully perform their adjudicatory functions with a spirit of accountability and the courage to overcome difficulties, and resolutely complete this major political task.

Handle property-rights petition cases formed by historical circumstances in accordance with the law, and resolutely implement the requirement that every error must be corrected. Establish special working mechanisms and promptly identify and correct a number of petition cases involving property-rights disputes that have generated strong public concern. Petition cases involving property-rights disputes over major disposals of property and petitions alleging crimes by private enterprises and investors shall be promptly corrected and the parties' losses compensated in accordance with the law where review confirms that the facts are unclear, the evidence insufficient, or the law has been incorrectly applied.” “Strictly implement the judicial responsibility system, seriously investigate and pursue responsibility in accordance with law and discipline where unlawful adjudication has occurred, and at the same time improve adjudication management to effectively prevent the occurrence of wrongful cases at the source and institutionally.

The Central Committee has made “legally identifying and promptly correcting enterprise-related property-rights petition cases” an important political requirement for safeguarding the overall national situation and social stability.

We have new facts, evidence, reasons, and grounds sufficient to submit a formal petition in accordance with the law and an application for procuratorial supervision. From the reports and petitions initiated in July 2025, to the formal petition and application for procuratorial supervision submitted at the end of last year, more than three or nine months have now passed, and there has still been no lawful response. The basic human rights of his wife and son to meet their husband and father, and of his sisters to meet their younger brother, have also been deprived; to this day, they do not know whether he is alive or dead.

Before this year's two sessions of the Tibet Autonomous Region, we wrote to hundreds of autonomous-region People's Congress representatives, asking them to pay attention to and supervise this case. We therefore once again request that the Tibet High Court perform its duties in accordance with the law:

1. Investigate and handle the responsibility of those responsible for unlawful acts in the trial of the Doji Tashi case;

2. Order a retrial of this case in accordance with the law;

3. Coordinate with the relevant authorities to lawfully grant Doji Tashi a commutation of sentence or parole. Articles 78 and 80 of the Criminal Law provide that a person sentenced to life imprisonment must actually serve more than 13 years before commutation or parole. In view of the fact that Doji Tashi was criminally detained on July 11, 2008, and sentenced to life imprisonment on May 17, 2010, by May 16 this year, the wronged Doji Tashi will have actually served 18 years in prison. From the perspective of basic humanity, the life sentence should also be commuted to 18 years or he should be granted parole, allowing him to return to his family and society and escape his suffering. At the same time, this would give Tibet's judicial authorities, or the Supreme People's Procuratorate and Supreme People's Court, more time to handle the case lawfully and without haste, and to be responsible to the parties, the law, history, and the people of Tibet;

4. Alternatively, we request that the petition be rejected in accordance with the law and that the reasons be explained in writing.

We believe that China has laws and that Chinese society should be based on basic justice.

Respectfully submitted to

Tibet Autonomous Region High People's Court

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.

Petitioners: Daojiji, Gongboji, Doji Tseden

Petition representatives: Chen Bing, Tang Yongquan, Mao Weidong

April 26, 2026