Report on the Hearing in Wuxi Shen Aibin’s Lawsuit Against the Liangxi Public Security Sub-Bureau for Illegal Detention and the Administrative Reconsideration Case

(Rights Defense Network Information Center report) On May 22, 2026, this outlet learned that at 1:15 p.m. on May 21, 2026, the case brought by Wuxi resident Shen Aibin against the Liangxi Public Security Sub-Bureau over illegal detention, together with the administrative reconsideration case against the Liangxi District government, was heard in Courtroom No. 12 of the Binhu District People’s Court.

Cause of the case: At around 7 a.m. on September 23, 2025, Wuxi resident Shen Aibin went to the Jingxi Hotel in Nanjing, preparing to report to the central government’s Fifth Inspection Group that, because he had provided legal consultation and assistance to petitioners from Wuxi, he had suffered inhumane violence at the hands of Wuxi’s black-and-evil judicial scoundrels. This included being subjected to three wrongful convictions carefully schemed and manufactured by Wuxi judicial scoundrels; his minor daughter also being implicated, persecuted and sentenced; his entire family being attacked and harmed by extremely strong electromagnetic radiation and high-frequency sound waves; his communications and whereabouts being subjected to abusive surveillance and tracking for many years; criminal measures being abused for many years in the name of maintaining stability; his social contacts being illegally monitored, harassed, threatened and isolated; and his finances being blockaded, among other things.

When Shen Aibin reached the entrance to the passageway of the Jingxi Hotel, a police officer was standing there. Seeing that he was holding a mobile phone, the officer shouted at him aggressively, “Taking mobile phones is not allowed!” Shen Aibin immediately replied, “The wall inside the passageway only says ‘No photography’; it doesn’t say ‘No mobile phones,’ does it?” This enraged the police officer. The officer then inspected the photo album on Shen Aibin’s phone. After discovering that Shen Aibin had indeed taken no photographs that day, he continued looking through older content in the photo album. After Shen Aibin’s attempts to stop him were unsuccessful, Shen Aibin took back his phone. The officer immediately called more than a dozen police officers, who forcibly took Shen Aibin to a small room across the road.

Once inside the small room, the group of police officers first surrounded and shoved Shen Aibin and forcibly demanded that he sit down. They then forcibly searched his belongings and again inspected his phone, discovering that he had indeed taken no photographs or videos. The group of police officers said that Shen Aibin had not committed any illegal act and would not be summoned, but they nevertheless would not let him leave. Shen Aibin consequently argued with them. A short while later, after a deputy director of the Gulou Sub-Bureau checked Shen Aibin’s identity card, he forcibly handed Shen Aibin over to a minibus belonging to the Guangyi Police Station of the Liangxi Public Security Sub-Bureau of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau, which had been waiting outside. Shen Aibin was taken back to the case-handling center of the Liangxi Sub-Bureau. On September 24, the Liangxi Sub-Bureau imposed a 10-day administrative detention penalty on Shen Aibin for the illegal act of “obstructing the performance of official duties through persistent entanglement.”

Shen Aibin, dissatisfied with the penalty decision, applied to the Liangxi District People’s Government for administrative reconsideration. After the Liangxi District government issued a reconsideration decision upholding the penalty, Shen Aibin filed a lawsuit.

This is an administrative dispute arising from the Liangxi Public Security Sub-Bureau’s abuse of power to crack down on, retaliate against and frame Shen Aibin for his lawful rights-defense activities. The Liangxi Public Security Sub-Bureau’s administrative penalty involved the following violations of law:

First, the Nanjing Gulou police officers’ “performance of official duties” had no basis in law. In other words, the “No photography” rule posted on the wall in the passageway of the Jingxi Hotel infringed citizens’ rights and was not a law or regulation, and therefore could not serve as the legal basis for the Gulou police to inspect Shen Aibin’s phone; neither the Jingxi Hotel, Nanjing Public Security, nor the Nanjing Municipal Government had the authority to impose a “No photography” rule on citizens.

Second, the Gulou police officers’ inspection of the photo album on Shen Aibin’s phone pursuant to the “No photography” rule did not constitute “lawful performance of official duties.” Therefore, the legal prerequisite for obstructing the performance of official duties was absent—in other words, the legality of the “performance of official duties” was absent.

Third, the Gulou police lacked the statutory prerequisites and grounds for inspecting Shen Aibin’s phone, and the procedure for inspecting the phone seriously violated the law.

Fourth, the Wuxi Liangxi Public Security Sub-Bureau did not obtain the case-transfer procedures from the Nanjing police in accordance with the law, and had no jurisdiction over a case that occurred in Nanjing. It therefore imposed the administrative penalty by exceeding and abusing its authority.

The hearing ended without a verdict. It is hoped that the Binhu District People’s Court will exclude interference and adjudicate the case fairly and in accordance with the law.

Attachments: “Administrative Penalty Decision” and “Summons”