Account of Lawyer Chang Boyang’s Expulsion from Gushi County Court

Author: Relatives of Li Jianwei

01

“I object!”

Lawyer Chang Boyang said this to Judge Wu Zhangke, the presiding judge, from the public gallery of Gushi County Court on the morning of April 22, 2026.

On the afternoon of April 21, 2026, commissioned by Henan Aimingyi Technology Co., Ltd., Lawyer Chang Boyang went to the First Courtroom of Gushi County Court to submit the paperwork as the litigation representative for the victim in the case involving Li Jianwei and Zhu Li, who are suspected of occupational embezzlement.

Before the hearing began on the morning of April 22, the next day, the victim’s seats in the trial area of the First Courtroom had unexpectedly disappeared (as shown in the image). Judge Wu Zhangke, the presiding judge in the case, ordered judicial police to intercept Lawyer Chang Boyang and prevent him from entering the trial area.

In hearing the case involving Zhu Li and Li Jianwei, who are suspected of occupational embezzlement, Judge Wu Zhangke of Gushi County Court abused his judicial authority and unlawfully deprived the lawyer commissioned by the victim, Henan Aimingyi Technology Co., Ltd., of the right to appear in court.

Moreover, on the day after Lawyer Chang Boyang was expelled, April 23, 2026, Wu Zhangke allowed a person who should have appeared in court to testify—the company supervisor—to act as the victim’s representative, and allowed the lawyer commissioned by that person to appear in court.

On the morning of April 22, 2026, the seats for the victim’s litigation representative were removed from the First Courtroom of Gushi County Court

02

Such a serious judicial incident is regarded as rare in the history of the judiciary! This story, which took place in Gushi, has its origins in an earlier dispute.

Henan Aimingyi Technology Co., Ltd. was established in 2018, with Li Jianwei as its legal representative. On March 25, 2024, and November 15, 2024, the company’s financial officer, Zhu Li, and Li Jianwei were respectively placed under investigation and prosecuted by Gushi County Public Security Bureau on suspicion of occupational embezzlement.

On September 23 and 25, 2025, Zhu Li and Li Jianwei were respectively indicted by the Gushi County Procuratorate in the Gushi County People’s Court. The two cases are currently being heard together, with Judge Wu Zhangke, the person against whom the complaint was filed, serving as presiding judge.

As stated above, during the trial, after Judge Wu Zhangke drove Lawyer Chang Boyang out of the trial area and unjustifiably deprived him of his representative status, Wu Zhangke nevertheless confirmed in court that the lawyer commissioned by Bai Tao, the supervisor of Henan Aimingyi Technology Co., Ltd., would serve as the victim’s litigation representative.

Article 62 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that “anyone who knows the circumstances of a case has the duty to testify,” thereby establishing the principle of priority for witnesses. Because witnesses have the characteristics of priority and irreplaceability, Article 29 of the Criminal Procedure Law and Articles 38 and 39 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law provide that anyone who knows the circumstances of a case and concurrently holds the status of judge, procurator, investigator, defense counsel, expert appraiser, interpreter or otherwise must first serve as a witness and may no longer participate in the proceedings of the case in their original capacity. The Chinese Lawyers Association’s Rules on Lawyers’ Professional Conduct also incorporates and refers to the above legal provisions. Article 64 requires that “a lawyer who appears in court to testify as a witness may not thereafter accept an engagement to appear in the case as defense counsel or litigation representative.”

Bai Tao is the complainant in the case involving Zhu Li and Li Jianwei, who are suspected of occupational embezzlement. Bai Tao initiated the complaint with the public security authorities, provided evidentiary materials, and was questioned by the public security authorities on multiple occasions, resulting in multiple records of questioning. Bai Tao is prominently listed among the witnesses on the list of persons appearing in court for the Gushi County Procuratorate, the public prosecution authority in this case. Bai Tao is a witness in this case and, under the law, cannot serve as the victim’s representative or participate in the proceedings as a litigation participant. The act of commissioning a litigation representative is likewise unlawful and invalid. Judge Wu Zhangke’s designation of Bai Tao, a witness in this case, as the victim’s litigation representative violated the principle of priority for witnesses.

Lawyer Chang Boyang (left)

03

Upon reviewing the power of attorney signed by Bai Tao, it fails even formally to meet the basic requirements for a power of attorney: at the beginning of the document, the “principal” is unexpectedly listed as two parties: “Bai Tao and Henan Aimingyi Technology Co., Ltd.” The victim in this case is Henan Aimingyi Technology Co., Ltd.; Bai Tao is not the victim. At the signature section for the principal at the end of the power of attorney, Bai Tao’s handwritten signature is clearly inconsistent with the handwritten signature of Henan Aimingyi Technology Co., Ltd., while “Henan Aimingyi Technology Co., Ltd.” was unexpectedly written as “Henan Aimingyi Medical Technology Co., Ltd.” It is truly incomprehensible that Wu Zhangke confirmed the representative’s eligibility on the basis of this power of attorney, which is riddled with formal defects!

Article 46 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China expressly provides that, from the date a public prosecution case is transferred for examination and prosecution, the victim and the victim’s legal representative have the right to entrust a litigation representative to participate in the proceedings. In an occupational embezzlement case, Henan Aimingyi Technology Co., Ltd., as the victim entity identified by the public prosecution authority, enjoys complete procedural rights as a party under the law. Having its commissioned lawyer appear in court as its litigation representative is an unequivocal right directly granted by law; no authority or individual has the right unlawfully to deprive, restrict or obstruct that right.

Using the so-called “illegality of Lawyer Chang Boyang’s paperwork” as an excuse, Wu Zhangke arbitrarily rejected the genuine expression of will of the company’s legal representative and seriously infringed the procedural rights of the victim and the representative lawyer. Even more egregiously, the true reason why Wu Zhangke, the person against whom the complaint was filed, refused to allow Lawyer Chang Boyang to appear in court was not insufficient legal grounds, but evident judicial prejudice and procedural manipulation. Wu Zhangke merely anticipated that the victim entity’s appearance in court and expression of its views might benefit defendant Li Jianwei, and therefore used his judicial authority in advance to exclude the entity from participating in the trial, casting judicial neutrality aside and turning the courtroom into a “going through the motions” designed to produce a predetermined result and force through a conviction. Such conduct, which is oriented toward the outcome of the trial and unlawfully deprives a key party of the right to participate, is in essence deciding the case first and trying it afterward, an abuse of judicial power that completely departs from the principle of judicial neutrality and reduces the trial to a formal farce devoid of any fairness!