【Series Report (1)】The Truth Behind Wuxi Human Rights Defender Shen Aibin’s First Prison Sentence: Wrongful Conviction Despite Acting in Necessity and Righteously Coming to Others’ Aid

On November 27, 2014, the Binhu District People’s Court of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province, issued Criminal Judgment No. (2014) Xi Bin Criminal-Second Trial Initial No. 0118 (see Attachment1), sentencing Shen Aibin to one year and six months in prison for the crime of intentionally damaging property. Shen Aibin appealed. On February 5, 2015, the Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court issued Criminal Ruling No. (2014) Xi Criminal-Second Trial Final No. 00140, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment.

This case was a wrongful judgment deliberately plotted and manufactured by Jiang Hongliang, then secretary of the Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the Communist Party of China’s Wuxi Municipal Committee (now deceased after jumping from a building), who instructed the city’s public security, procuratorial and judicial authorities. It is a typical case of judicial corruption and persecution through abuse of power. Shen Aibin’s conduct in the case constituted necessity and righteous conduct in coming to others’ aid.

I. Circumstances of the case:

On June 18, 2013, five petitioners from Taihu Subdistrict, Binhu District, Wuxi City—Ding Yongjin, Ding Guoying (female), Ding Hongxiang, Yang Jianyan (female) and Zhou Jingjuan (female, deceased)—went to Beijing to petition. After being intercepted and kidnapped back to Wuxi by social riffraff hired by the Wuxi Office in Beijing of the Communist Party of China, all their personal belongings were taken from them en route. They arrived in Wuxi on June 19 and exited the expressway at the Meicun service area, then drove around the same location for nearly four hours before placing black hoods over the five people’s heads and detaining them at the Dongjiao Business Hotel in Anzhen. Each person was put in a separate room, with three social riffraff assigned to guard each room. They were not allowed to leave their rooms or contact the outside world. It was only later, through the case-file materials, that it was discovered that the five had been forcibly and secretly placed in a “legal education study class for petitioning citizens” (commonly known as a “black jail”) by the Wuxi Municipal Party Committee Joint Conference Office, the Binhu District Party Committee Joint Conference Office and the Taihu Subdistrict Joint Conference Office (collectively known as the “three-level joint conference offices,” all temporary bodies operating under Party organizations at the corresponding level and not belonging to the administrative structure).

At around 10 p.m. on June 22, 2013, after Shen Aibin of Wuxi and Ding Hongfen, among others, found the Dongjiao Business Hotel, where the five were being held, they immediately gathered more than 20 people and rescued the five who had been illegally detained inside the hotel by the “three-level joint conference offices” under the pretext of conducting a “legal education study class for petitioning citizens.”

This was the fifth rescue in which Shen Aibin had participated. The first was the rescue of Wu Guoxin at the “Xinlixin Hotel”; the second was the rescue of the couple Ding Hongfen and Shen Guodong at “Yao Bay No. 1”; the third was the rescue of Li Meifang at the “Xishan Party School”; and the fourth was the rescue of Ding Yongjin, Ding Hongfen’s father, at the “Xinfangyuan Hotel.”

Unlike the previous occasions, when rescuers arrived at a hotel and shouted, the “students” inside the rooms would hear the voices outside and immediately shout loudly, “Help, help!” When the rescuers followed the voices and knocked on the door, the guards inside would immediately open it and flee in panic because they knew their conduct was illegal. This time, however, when the rescuers heard the “students” inside shouting “Help, help!” and arrived at the room door and knocked, the guards inside blocked the door and prevented the rescue. Faced with this sudden and unexpected situation, the rescuers acted decisively. Without discussing it with or obtaining permission from anyone, they immediately kicked open the room doors and successfully carried out the rescue. As a result, several room doors and locks at the Dongjiao Business Hotel were damaged, and Shen Guodong also damaged a sink and toilet in one room during the rescue.

This was a typical lawful and legitimate act by citizens exercising their right to private relief to free petitioners who were being illegally detained. It was only because those carrying out the illegal detention were Wuxi’s Communist Party “three-level joint conference offices” that Shen Aibin and the others were subjected to inhumane persecution through abuse of power by Wuxi’s judicial officials of ill repute.

II. The handling of the case:

Jiang Hongliang, then secretary of the Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the Wuxi Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China, established the “6.22” special case team and instructed the Municipal Public Security Bureau to open a case for “the crime of assembling a crowd to disrupt social order.” At around 11 a.m. on June 26, 2013, the Binhu Branch of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau arrested and summoned Shen Aibin from his residential community on suspicion of “the crime of assembling a crowd to disrupt social order” (see Attachment2: summons), immediately searched his residence and seized a large number of items. Shen Aibin was then hooded with a black hood and taken to Dongjiang Police Station of the Binhu Branch. At around 3 p.m. on June 27, Shen Aibin was transferred to the Xinglong Hotel opposite the police station.

During the 27 hours at Dongjiang Police Station, Shen Aibin was subjected in the police station’s conference room to the “ladder torture” method of extracting confessions, beatings, corporal punishment, abuse, verbal abuse, intimidation and threats by four people: Zhu Xiangdong and Xue Yong, police officers from the Criminal Police Brigade of the Binhu Branch; Wu Yuanchao, a police officer from Dongjiang Police Station; and another unidentified police officer (not recorded in the case files). He was not given food or water, and was not allowed to sit or sleep, causing Shen unbearable suffering that left an indelible impression.

In the conference room at Dongjiang Police Station, police officer Zhu Xiangdong banged on the table and shouted at Shen: “Shen Aibin, I am the founding master of extracting confessions through torture. As long as the government has made a decision, I have confidence. This time, I will not only deal with you, but also your family. There is nothing I cannot do.”

At around 10 p.m. on June 28, 2013, Shen Aibin was again hooded with a black hood and transferred to Room 323 of the Baolong Hotel on Hubin Commercial Street. At around 5 p.m. on July 3, he was summoned and taken back to Dongjiang Police Station. After six or seven statements were extracted through torture, he was not sent to the Wuxi No. 1 Detention Center until around 11 p.m.

On August 6, 2013, following approval by the Binhu District Procuratorate, Shen was arrested on suspicion of “the crime of assembling a crowd to disrupt social order” (see Attachment3: arrest notice), and the case was subsequently transferred for review and prosecution.

On March 18, 2014, late at night on the final day of the maximum period following “two returns and three extensions” during the Binhu District Procuratorate’s review for prosecution, the Binhu District Procuratorate forcibly placed Shen Aibin on bail and released him from the Wuxi No. 1 Detention Center (see Attachment4: release certificate). However, the law provides that at this point it could only decide whether to initiate a prosecution or not to prosecute; it did not grant the procuratorate the authority to impose bail. By then, Shen had been detained for more than eight months.

It was later learned that Huang Lixin, then Party secretary of the municipal Party committee, had invited experts from the Jiangsu Provincial Higher People’s Court and the provincial procuratorate to review the case in order to turn it into an unassailable case. After reviewing the files, the experts unanimously reached two conclusions: first, the “legal education materials for petitioning citizens” produced by the Taihu Subdistrict Joint Conference Office (reported by Civil Rights and Livelihood Watch on April 22, 2026: https://wqw2010.blogspot.com/2026/04/blog-post_22.html) confirmed that the “study class” deprived the students of their personal freedom and was suspected of secretly and illegally detaining them; second, the joint conference office was a temporary Party committee body and had no legal basis for holding a study class for petitioners. Consequently, at around 11 p.m. on the last night of the review for prosecution, the Binhu District Procuratorate had no choice but to place Shen Aibin on bail.

Because Shen Aibin and the other four people went to the Binhu District Procuratorate every Thursday, beginning March 20, 2014 (the procuratorate’s public reception day), to report the torture and other inhumane conduct by the investigation authorities, as well as the procuratorate’s illegal imposition of bail and other issues, they angered Zhao Wenqing, deputy chief procurator of the Binhu District Procuratorate (still in office), and Xiang Mian, chief of the Public Prosecution Division (who has voluntarily left the position to practice law). On May 29, 2014, when Shen Aibin and the others went to the Binhu District Procuratorate for the 11th time to file their complaints, they were arrested. Shen was then arrested by the Binhu District Court (see Attachment5: arrest notice), sent to the Wuxi No. 1 Detention Center, and detained there. On May 30, the Binhu Court served the procuratorate with an “indictment” (see Attachment6: indictment), charging Shen Aibin and the other four people with the crime of intentionally damaging property.

On October 25 (Saturday) and 26 (Sunday), 2014, the Binhu District Court of Wuxi City publicly tried the case. The Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the Wuxi Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China mobilized public security, procuratorial and judicial personnel from across the city to conduct security controls at the Binhu District Court. The area within several kilometers around the court was filled with plainclothes public security, procuratorial and judicial personnel. People from across the country who had come to observe the trial blocked the roads around the court, and vehicles filled the surrounding residential communities. However, the seats for observers had already been filled through prior arrangements. Consequently, the area around the court was packed with people during the trial, while drones occasionally flew overhead. Information circulated afterward that gunmen had been positioned around the court. This was also the first case nationwide to be specifically scheduled for trial over a weekend (see Attachment7: trial summons).

Ultimately, the Binhu Court sentenced Shen Aibin to one year and six months in prison for the crime of intentionally damaging property. As a result, Shen Aibin was expelled from the Party and dismissed from public office. On March 12, 2015, Shen Aibin was released after completing his sentence at the Wuxi Detention Center.

III. The truth about this case:

This case was deliberately plotted and fabricated by judicial officials of ill repute in Wuxi. It was a case of favoritism and the deliberate violation of the law, as well as persecution through abuse of power. Shen Aibin’s conduct legally constituted necessity and righteous conduct in coming to others’ aid.

(1) The judicial documents deliberately distorted the facts and took statements out of context.

1. The “legal education materials for petitioning citizens” produced by the Taihu Subdistrict Joint Conference Office in the case files alone are sufficient to prove that the five “students” were secretly and illegally detained.

2. The statements of all the rescuers involved show that the purpose and motive of Shen Aibin and Ding Hongfen in gathering more than 20 people at the Dongjiao Business Hotel that night was to rescue the five petitioners who had been illegally detained at the hotel.

3. The “request for approval of arrest” and the “opinion for prosecution” produced by the investigation authorities both confirm that the purpose and motive of Shen Aibin and Ding Hongfen in gathering people that night was to “seize people” from the “study class.”

4. The purpose of preparing iron rods and strips of cloth before the rescue that night was for the iron rods to remove obstacles to the rescue—namely, the obstruction posed by the iron grille door on the first floor—and to pry open the main door. Only after entering that door could the rescuers reach the first and second floors. The strips of cloth were intended to tie up the people carrying out the illegal detention—the social riffraff responsible for guarding the petitioners in the rooms.

The judgment stated only: “The court has determined after trial that on June 19, 2013, the Office of the Joint Conference on Handling Prominent Petitioning Issues and Mass Incidents in Taihu Subdistrict, Binhu District, this city, conducted legal education for Ding Yongjin, Ding Guoying, Ding Hongxiang, Zhou Jingjuan and Yang Jianyan at the Dongjiao Business Hotel, located in Anzhen Subdistrict, Xishan District, this city, because they had illegally petitioned.” It ignored the “legal education materials for petitioning citizens” concerning the five students in the case files and turned a deaf ear to the fact of the students’ illegal detention, repeatedly raised by all five defendants and their defense lawyers during the trial. Furthermore, it deliberately distorted the motive behind Shen Aibin and Ding Hongfen’s gathering people to go to the Dongjiao Business Hotel, twisting the rescue of people into the destruction of property. This motive also contravenes common sense and logic: What conflict did these people have with the Dongjiao Business Hotel? Why would they go and damage the hotel’s room doors in the middle of the night?

(2) Shen Aibin’s conduct legally constituted necessity and righteous conduct in coming to others’ aid.

Guiding Case No. 93, the Yu Huan intentional injury case, among the 18th batch of guiding cases issued by the Supreme People’s Court on June 20, 2018, expressly states that ongoing conduct illegally restricting another person’s personal freedom should be deemed an “unlawful infringement” as provided in Paragraph 1 of Article 20 of the Criminal Law, and that legitimate defense may be carried out.

Article 21 of the Criminal Law provides that where, in order to protect the state, public interests, or the personal, property or other rights of oneself or another person from an ongoing danger, a person is forced to take emergency-avoidance measures that cause damage, he or she shall not bear criminal responsibility. Where emergency avoidance exceeds the necessary limit and causes undue damage, the person shall bear criminal responsibility, but the punishment shall be reduced or exempted.

In this case, not only can it be confirmed from the “legal education materials for petitioning citizens” produced by the Taihu Subdistrict Joint Conference Office in the case files that the five students were deprived of their personal freedom; the actual rescue scene also confirms that when the rescuers walked into the hotel corridor, the students inside were shouting loudly, “Help, help!” After the rescue succeeded, the family members called 110 at the scene, and the students told the police at the scene how they had been illegally detained. However, the investigation authorities in this case did not question the five students or make statements from them, deliberately concealing the fact that the study class had illegally detained the students. The video of the entire rescue process can fully prove this fact.

The five students were illegally detained in hotel rooms, and their right to personal freedom was being unlawfully infringed upon. This also constituted an “ongoing danger.” In order to protect the five students’ right to personal freedom (a significant legal interest), when the rescue was obstructed and it was impossible to enter the rooms peacefully, the rescuers had no choice but to kick the doors as the only means of carrying out the rescue. The resulting damage to several hotel doors and locks constituted an act of necessity, for which they should not bear criminal responsibility under the law. Nor did it exceed the necessary limit. This was also a citizen’s right to private relief.

Under the law, the hotel’s losses should be borne by the people who carried out the illegal detention.

Because the five rescued students had no interest-based relationship whatsoever with Shen Aibin, Shen Aibin’s act of organizing the rescue also constituted righteous conduct in coming to others’ aid.

(3) The investigation authorities instructed a price-assessment agency to inflate prices, reaching the 5,049-yuan threshold for opening a case.

In this case, the total value of all the damaged items was only slightly more than 2,000 yuan. However, the investigation authorities instructed the Binhu District price-assessment agency to inflate the prices of the damaged items, raising the total to 5,049 yuan to reach the 5,000-yuan threshold for opening a criminal case and initiating prosecution. Of this amount, 149 yuan consisted of taxes and fees, which under the law should not have been included in the total.

(4) Shen Aibin did not destroy any property during the entire rescue.

Shen Aibin’s purpose in gathering people to go to the Dongjiao Business Hotel was to rescue the students who had been illegally detained. At the time, the only consideration was that an iron grille door on the first floor had to be breached, so someone brought a crowbar. The door-kicking during the rescue was a situation that took everyone by surprise; no one had imagined that such a situation would occur. The rescuers’ kicking of the doors was also a sudden, urgent and spontaneous act, carried out without discussing it with or obtaining permission from anyone.

That day, after entering the hotel, Shen Aibin went to the front desk to argue with the staff. Only after seeing that the five students had already been rescued and had walked into the lobby did Shen Aibin enter, while Li Miao filmed the entire process. When he saw that the room doors had been damaged, Shen Aibin was surprised and asked what had happened, only then learning the reason.

During the entire rescue, Shen Aibin himself did not damage any property, nor did he instruct anyone else to damage property. The case files and judicial documents likewise contain no evidence proving that Shen Aibin damaged property.

IV. Xia Daohu, president of the Jiangsu Provincial Higher People’s Court, acted as an accomplice in the persecution of Shen Aibin by the Communist Party of China’s Wuxi authorities, deliberately violated the facts and law to wrongfully close the case, and prevented the Supreme People’s Court from accepting it.

On June 9, 2019, Shen Aibin mailed a “criminal petition” to the Supreme People’s Court. After waiting for two years, just as the Supreme People’s Court was about to accept and docket the case, the Jiangsu Provincial Higher People’s Court initiated a procedure in September 2021 to review the termination of the litigation-related petition. On December 31, 2021, it issued a “notification of termination of the litigation-related petition” (see Attachment8), wrongfully closing the case. However, it went to the Wuxi Detention Center on March 31, 2022, to deceive Shen Aibin into signing a “return of service.” After Shen Aibin requested it for nearly a year, police officer Gu Xiaojiang at the detention center finally handed the “notification of termination of the litigation-related petition” to Shen Aibin on February 16, 2023.

Because this case was assigned and handled at the direction of the Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the Wuxi Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China, Xia Daohu of the Jiangsu Provincial Higher People’s Court wanted to cover up the matter for Wuxi and did not want the Wuxi Communist Party authorities’ disgrace exposed, helping Wuxi conceal this case of favoritism and the deliberate violation of the law. The Wuxi Intermediate Court also explicitly told Shen Aibin: “This case concerns an internal request for instructions!”

At present, Shen Aibin is filing complaints and petitions with the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, hoping that the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate will correct in accordance with the law this case of persecution through abuse of power, in which Wuxi Communist Party and government officials interfered in and intervened in the judiciary, and declare to the world that the Chinese Communist Party’s vows concerning governing the country according to law and judicial justice are not lies or child’s play.

V. List of wrongdoers in this case:

(1) Jiang Hongliang (now deceased after jumping from a building), former secretary of the Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the Wuxi Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China;

(2) Investigation authorities:

Zhao Zhixin, former director of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau;

Shao Weimin, former director of the Binhu District Public Security Sub-Bureau of Wuxi City;

Zhu Xiangdong, Xue Yong and Wu Yuanchao, police officers of the Binhu Public Security Sub-Bureau;

(3)Prosecution authorities:

Zhao Wenqing, deputy chief procurator of the Binhu District Procuratorate (still in office).

Ding Hongwei (now promoted to chief procurator of the Wuxin District Procuratorate in Wuxi), Xiang Mian (now voluntarily left the position to practice law) and Zhang Ziyang (still in office), former procurators of the Binhu District Procuratorate.

(4)Judicial authorities:

Wang Rui, Xu Kebing and Cui Xiaoping, members of the first-instance collegial panel of the Binhu District Court;

Ma Xiaowei, Zhang Jiantong and Fan Kai, members of the second-instance collegial panel of the Wuxi Intermediate Court;

(5) Xia Daohu, former president of the Jiangsu Provincial Higher People’s Court.

This outlet will continue to follow and report on developments in the case.

Next report: 【Series Report (2)】The Truth Behind Wuxi Human Rights Defender Shen Aibin’s Second Prison Sentence: Police Falsified Injuries “Medically Excluded as Caused by Blows” to Make a False Accusation and Wrongfully Sentence Him