Wuxi's Shen Aibin v. Liangxi Police case over unlawful punishment goes to trial; citizens attending the hearing intercepted by the Chinese Communist authorities in Wuxi through detention, kidnapping and other means

On April 11, 2026, this outlet learned that the case brought by Wuxi's Shen Aibin against the Liangxi police over unlawful punishment went to trial, while citizens attending the hearing were intercepted by the Chinese Communist authorities in Wuxi through violent means including detention and kidnapping.

On July 3, 2025, the defendant, the Liangxi Public Security Branch, tricked Shen Aibin into returning from Nanjing and then took him directly to the case-handling center for questioning. On July 4, it issued an administrative punishment decision detaining him for 15 days for the offense of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. Shen Aibin disagreed and applied to the Liangxi District government for administrative reconsideration, which upheld the decision, after which he filed a lawsuit.

At 1:30 p.m. on April 9, 2026, the case brought by Wuxi's Shen Aibin against the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau over its administrative punishment decision imposing 15 days of administrative detention for public security was heard at the Binhu District People's Court in Wuxi.

The defendant Liangxi Public Security Branch's punishment decision determined that Shen Aibin had committed two acts of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. The first was his act of holding a banner outside the Jiangsu Provincial People's Procuratorate on June 30, 2025. The banner read, “Where are the rule of law and judicial justice?!” and “Seeking public authority that acts in accordance with the law!” The second was that on July 1, 2025, Shen Aibin recorded a selfie video in Nanjing and posted it to WeChat. The video stated, “I have encountered three wrongful prison sentences imposed by the black and vicious judicial scum in Wuxi; my underage daughter has been implicated, persecuted and sentenced; I have been harmed by ultra-strong electromagnetic radiation and sonic-wave attacks.” The defendant determined that Shen Aibin had “fabricated and disseminated false information.”

Shen Aibin believes that the administrative punishment contains the following violations of law: 1. The punishment was imposed by an unlawful authority and exceeded its powers. The alleged unlawful acts identified by the defendant were committed by Shen Aibin in Nanjing. Without lawfully obtaining a transfer of the case from the Nanjing police, the defendant had no jurisdiction over acts occurring in Nanjing; 2. The punishment's factual findings were erroneous. Under the law, the acts identified by the defendant do not constitute picking quarrels and provoking trouble. They were deliberate distortions of fact and an abuse of the law, and constituted retaliatory punishment intended to cover up the inhuman atrocities committed against him by the black and vicious judicial scum in Wuxi. The plaintiff's acts constituted lawful and legitimate efforts to protect his rights, as well as subjective evaluations expressed about what he had experienced. They were neither “false information” nor, still less, false information that had been “fabricated.” They constituted an exercise of the freedom of speech granted to citizens by Article 35 of the Constitution, as well as an exercise of the rights to criticize, make suggestions, petition, file complaints and report wrongdoing granted to citizens by Article 41 of the Constitution. They were also intended to expose the atrocities of the black and vicious judicial scum in Wuxi in order to draw official attention and obtain redress for his unjust case. Moreover, subjectively, he had no motive of picking quarrels and provoking trouble in order to seek excitement, vent emotions, show off his strength or act arrogantly. His acts were not troublemaking without cause, but were undertaken as a last resort in seeking redress. Objectively, they also caused no consequences that disrupted social order; 3. The personnel handling the case and imposing the administrative punishment had not lawfully obtained the legally required qualifications, and the punishment decision was not reviewed in accordance with the legally prescribed procedure and submitted to the branch by personnel with the legally required review qualifications; 4. The plaintiff was deprived of his right to make statements and defenses; 5. Evidence was forged and destroyed. The notification record in which the plaintiff had written “I request to make statements and defenses” was destroyed, and a notification record was forged bearing the signatures of two police officers and stating, “The party concerned, Shen Aibin, refused to sign; the police read it aloud in full at the scene,” thereby concealing the fact that the plaintiff had been deprived of his right to make statements and defenses; 6. The questioning lasted more than 24 hours; 7. The defendant refused to provide the plaintiff with evidence proving the legality of major procedural and substantive aspects of the case, citing the reason that it was “provided only for the court's review,” and refused to present it in court for examination and cross-examination. The legal consequence is that none of this evidence may lawfully serve as a basis for deciding the case, leaving the defendant unable to prove the legality of the substance and procedure of its punishment; 8. The defendant Liangxi District government turned a blind eye to the Liangxi police's obvious unlawful conduct in its administrative reconsideration decision and completely acted as a protective umbrella for the Liangxi police's unlawful administrative punishment; 9. The defendant Liangxi District government unlawfully used public funds to commission lawyers from a law firm to appear in court to respond to the lawsuit.

Personnel appearing in court for the defendant Liangxi Public Security Branch: Deputy Director Wu Yu, and staff members Shen Binfei and Liu Hao

Personnel appearing in court for the defendant Liangxi District government: Chen Chao, a female case officer from the Administrative Reconsideration Office of the Justice Bureau, and female lawyer Bian Yuting of Wuxi Ruilai Law Firm

On the day of the hearing, people from Wuxi and elsewhere who went to attend the hearing were all subjected to brutal and violent interception by the Chinese Communist authorities in Wuxi.

People from Suzhou, Changzhou, Zhenjiang, Nantong and other places reached the Binhu Court, but were all intercepted and placed under control by plainclothes officers and auxiliary police who had long been deployed around the court, preventing them from passing security checks and entering the court.

Local people in Wuxi were intercepted by the black and vicious authorities of the Chinese Communist Party in Wuxi through despicable and extremely brutal means. On April 8, all petitioners across the city were visited at home by police officers from their local police stations and warned, “You must not go to attend the hearing tomorrow.” On the morning of April 9, all petitioners were closely monitored by police officers and special-duty personnel from their local police stations. Those who could not be kept under control were either “taken on a trip” or “invited for a talk” under the pretext of helping resolve their appeals. Even worse, if the authorities believed that a person could not be controlled at all, they used thoroughly black and vicious methods, arranging for personnel to block the entrance to the person's home so that family members could not leave, or directly kidnapping the person to a police station. Those who slipped through the net and reached the court without being spotted by local public security and village committee personnel were all placed under police control opposite the main gate of the court. The police then notified the local police station and subdistrict to come and kidnap them and take them back. Some people resisted, however, and remained there until Shen Aibin's hearing ended. Although the police used a minibus to block them in an attempt to obstruct their view, they could still see Shen Aibin entering and leaving the court.

Shen Aibin was formerly a military-to-civilian transferred civil servant in Wuxi's urban management system. Simply because he provided legal consultation and assistance to people defending their rights, exposed Wuxi's “three black” phenomena—black demolitions, black justice and black prisons—and repeatedly led petitioners to rescue other petitioners whom the Chinese Communist Party's Wuxi Three-Level Joint Conference Office (temporary bodies of Party committees at various levels that do not belong to the administrative hierarchy) had illegally detained under the name of holding “legal education and study classes for petitioners” (black prisons), he became a thorn in the side of, and a target for, corrupt Chinese Communist officials and judicial scum in Wuxi. He was subsequently subjected to three carefully plotted and planned wrongful prison sentences imposed by the black and vicious judicial scum of the Chinese Communist Party in Wuxi, totaling seven years in prison. His underage daughter was also implicated, persecuted and sentenced, and he was subjected to a series of black and vicious acts of abuse of power and persecution, including attempts to harm him through ultra-strong electromagnetic radiation and high-frequency sonic-wave attacks.

To cover up the inhuman black and vicious atrocities committed against Shen Aibin, the black and vicious judicial scum of the Chinese Communist Party in Wuxi have, on the one hand, used naked abuses of power to suppress and persecute Shen Aibin's lawful and legitimate efforts to protect his rights—the present hearing being one such instance—in order to prevent him from exposing the black and vicious crimes of Wuxi's judicial scum, in an attempt to cover up the truth and evade accountability. On the other hand, Wuxi's judicial scum have secretly and recklessly smeared, vilified and defamed Shen Aibin by sending “confidential letters” to leaders of higher-level Party, government and judicial organs, blackening and demonizing him in every possible way in order to seek those leaders' understanding of and protection for their black and vicious atrocities, and to win over and corrupt higher-level leaders so that they would act as protective umbrellas for their inhuman atrocities. As a result, Shen Aibin mailed nearly 2,000 letters to Beijing and Nanjing, but received no response whatsoever.

Because Shen Aibin cares about ordinary people and sincerely serves them, has strong knowledge and abilities, works efficiently and maintains close ties with the grassroots, he has won recognition and affection from people in Wuxi and surrounding areas and has considerable influence. Moreover, Shen Aibin cannot be swayed by personal gain; he only wants to serve ordinary people, and does not need annual qualification renewals like a lawyer's license. Corrupt officials are completely unable to control him. This is the real reason Shen Aibin has repeatedly been persecuted by the Chinese Communist authorities in Wuxi.

This outlet will continue to follow and report on Shen Aibin's current situation and the details of the case.

The following six images reflect how people in Wuxi view Shen Aibin, as well as circumstances including the Chinese Communist authorities in Wuxi blocking people who intended to attend the hearing inside their homes.