[Series Report (3)] The Truth Behind the Third Conviction of Wuxi Human Rights Defender Shen Aibin: Sentenced in Defiance of the Law Despite Knowing All Statutory Elements of the Crime Were Absent

On September 20, 2023, the Liangxi District Court of Wuxi issued Criminal Judgment No. (2022) Su 0213 Xing Chu 873 (see Attachment 1), sentencing Shen Aibin to three years in prison for the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. After Shen Aibin appealed, the Wuxi Intermediate People's Court issued Criminal Ruling No. (2023) Su 02 Xing Zhong 338 on December 11, 2023, ruling to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

This case was deliberately initiated by the director of the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau, Xu Nuo (since promoted to secretary of the Liangxi District Political and Legal Affairs Commission), deputy director Zheng Bangxian, head of the Legal Affairs Brigade Shen Qi, head of the Criminal Police Brigade Yang Hua, director of the Guangyi Police Station Wu Deyue, and political instructor Han Dawei for the sake of political achievements in maintaining stability. They first used the alleged criminal fact that Shen Aibin had “posted content inciting others to petition through mobile-phone WeChat” to register a criminal case for picking quarrels and provoking trouble; after carefully planning to first illegally transfer jurisdiction over the case to Yixing, they had Yixing public security place Shen Aibin under designated-residence residential surveillance and confine him in a small dark room, then transferred jurisdiction over the case to the “special task force” of the municipal Public Security Bureau. After the conspiracy to use Yang Hua's intimidation and threats to force Shen Aibin to submit through gangster methods failed, they urgently changed the alleged criminal fact to “fabricating false information and disseminating it on information networks” and transferred the case for prosecution as an online case of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. Finally, the case was produced through a one-stop public security, procuratorate, and court operation, in violation of the law for personal interests, at the instruction of Zhang Zhen, former deputy secretary of the Wuxi Municipal Committee Political and Legal Affairs Commission and vice mayor of Wuxi concurrently serving as director of the Municipal Public Security Bureau (currently dismissed and under investigation). 

This case is a blatant case of bending the law for personal interests, judicial corruption, and abuse of power and persecution, carefully plotted and manufactured for the third time by Wuxi's gangster-affiliated judicial scum, with the purpose of retaliatory persecution and the means of a judgment in violation of the law. It is ironclad evidence of the inhuman gangster atrocities committed by Wuxi's Communist Party-affiliated judicial scum.

The key to this case is that both the prosecutor and the first-instance presiding judge admitted during the trial that the “fabricated false information” on the overseas online media involved in the case was not disseminated by Shen Aibin; there was no evidence proving that Shen Aibin had engaged in “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance” on the online media involved in the case; and there was even less evidence proving that the consequence required for filing and prosecuting the case—“causing serious disorder in public order”—resulted from the “fabricated false information” disseminated on the overseas online media involved in the case. Yet these three elements are conditions for the crime to be established under the provisions cited by the judgment as the basis for conviction. The core issue is that this case was invalid from the outset, because the “fabricated false information” identified in the judgment does not legally constitute false information, let alone information that was “fabricated.” 

I. How the case came to light:

At around 7 a.m. on May 17, 2020 (the national “Two Sessions” were held on May 22), the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau hired four idle members of the public to stop Shen Aibin, who was preparing to board a train at Wuxi railway station to go to Suzhou. Shen Aibin immediately called the police. When railway police took Shen Aibin and the four unidentified people to an office to ask about the situation, a police officer surnamed Geng from the Guangyi Police Station of the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau rushed into the office and forcibly abducted Shen Aibin. On the way, the officer told Shen Aibin, “The leaders told me that as soon as I saw you, I was to grab your phone,” and took Shen's phone while speaking. At the Guangyi Police Station, police officer Wang Xiaoming told Shen Aibin, “Because you incited others to petition on mobile-phone WeChat, the branch bureau opened a case on May 14 for suspected picking of quarrels and provoking trouble. We are now summoning you in accordance with the law.” ( See Attachment 2: the Case-Filing Decision.) After questioning him, they placed Shen Aibin under the compulsory measure of residential surveillance (see Attachment 3: the Decision on Residential Surveillance), hiring idle members of the public with dragon and tiger tattoos on their bodies to erect a tent downstairs from Shen's home and block his movements. On November 16 of the same year, the compulsory measure was changed to release on bail pending trial (see Attachment 4: the Decision on Release on Bail Pending Trial).

On June 19, 2021, the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau issued a wanted notice and deployed a net to arrest Shen Aibin. He was captured on June 24, criminally detained on June 25, and released on July 24 (see Attachment 5: the Release Certificate). In order to successfully maintain stability for the “100th anniversary of the founding of the Party,” they also placed Shen under the compulsory measure of release on bail pending trial (see Attachment 6: the Decision on Release on Bail Pending Trial).

At around 4 p.m. on March 5, 2022 (a Saturday, on the eve of the national “Two Sessions”), because Shen had posted information in a WeChat group about the abnormal death of Mao Lihui in Jiangyin, Wuxi police urgently arrested him. He was criminally detained again on March 6 and released again late at night on April 5 (see Attachment 7: the Release Certificate), but was forcibly taken to Yixing and informed that he had been placed under residential surveillance at a designated residence. After making inquiries, he learned that the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau had designated Yixing as the jurisdiction for the case (see Attachment 8: the Decision on Designated Jurisdiction).

On April 25, 2022, Yang Hua, head of the Criminal Police Brigade of the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau, and Wang Xiaoming, a police officer from the Guangyi Police Station, went to the Yixing residential-surveillance site to talk with Shen. They said they wanted to help Shen “solve the channel problem.” When Shen questioned the legality of their presence at the Yixing residential-surveillance site, Yang Hua said: “Your case is now under the jurisdiction of the ‘special task force’ established by the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau. The group leader is Director Zhang Zhen; we are members and are responsible for talking with you. If you have any objection to the designated jurisdiction, you can report it to Group Leader Zhang (Zhen). We all follow his orders.”

Because Shen Aibin firmly refused to cooperate, Yang Hua saw that the conspiracy he had carefully plotted was completely unable to succeed. He therefore immediately manufactured a wrongful case in the name of Yixing public security. After the final questioning of Shen Aibin, on the way back from the Dingshan Police Station of the Yixing Municipal Public Security Bureau to the residential-surveillance site, Yang Hua sat in the front passenger seat and, with a gloomy expression and lowered voice, said viciously to Shen Aibin: “You didn't give me face and made me unable to save face. If you don't die, we'll meet again in a few years.” After a pause, he continued: “But you have to look forward; the matter still has to be resolved.” The next day (September 26, 2022), Lü Yiji, head of the Economic Investigation Brigade of the Yixing Municipal Public Security Bureau, and Deputy Brigade Head Zhao went to the residential-surveillance site and delivered to Shen the Notice of Transfer of the Case for Review and Prosecution. The Yixing Procuratorate then transferred the case to the Liangxi District Procuratorate. On September 28, Wang Lei of the Liangxi District Procuratorate went to the Yixing Procuratorate to summon Shen Aibin. When Shen Aibin asked, “What are the criminal facts being prosecuted?” Wang Lei answered, “I haven't read the case file yet, so I don't know what criminal facts they are prosecuting.” But a moment later he said: “We are going to change the compulsory measure against you and decide to arrest you.”

On September 29, 2022, the Liangxi District Procuratorate of Wuxi decided to arrest Shen Aibin, after which he was taken to the Wuxi Detention Center.

What is evil is that during the review-and-prosecution stage, when Shen Aibin's defense lawyer, Chen Jinxue, went to the Liangxi District Procuratorate to review and copy the case files in accordance with the law, he was told that the “case involved state secrets” and was refused access to and copies of the files. It was not until the trial stage that he was able to copy and obtain the case files and learn the “criminal facts” charged. Before that, no one had investigated the “criminal facts” charged with Shen Aibin. Ultimately, the Liangxi District Court issued a first-instance judgment sentencing Shen Aibin to three years in prison for picking quarrels and provoking trouble. After an appeal, the Wuxi Intermediate People's Court issued a criminal ruling “rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment.”

On December 28, 2023, Shen Aibin was taken from the Wuxi Detention Center to the Jiangsu Liyang Prison to serve his sentence. During his one year and four days at Liyang Prison, he was subjected to a series of gangster-style abuses of power and persecution in collusion between Liyang Prison and Wuxi public security, including but not limited to: 1. Liyang Prison completely accepted Wuxi public security's Confidentiality Letter and subjected Shen to discriminatory, nonviolent measures of isolated and solitary supervision; 2. torturing and abusing Shen in daily life; 3. depriving Shen of his right to appeal and file complaints, with his appeal and complaint materials being comprehensively blocked; 4. depriving Shen of his right to communicate—Shen submitted 73 letters, of which only six were mailed, while the whereabouts of the other letters remain unknown to this day, and letters sent to Shen by his family have also been withheld to this day; 5. attacking Shen with extremely strong electromagnetic radiation and high-frequency sound waves, causing him several times to nearly faint and nearly lose his life, with the attacks stopping after the sound-wave attacks were exposed; 6. unlawfully deducting points and reducing his treatment; 7. depriving Shen of the right to family telephone calls; 8. unlawfully detaining a large number of Shen's letters and written materials by “retaining” them and issuing informal receipts; and so on. Shen Aibin was released after completing his sentence on April 30, 2025.

 

II. Statutory provisions cited by the judgments in this case

 

(1) Article 293, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China  Whoever commits any of the following acts of picking quarrels and provoking trouble and disrupts social order shall be sentenced to not more than five years' imprisonment, criminal detention, or public surveillance: (4) causing a commotion and creating a disturbance in a public place, causing serious disorder in the order of the public place. 

    The following understandings can be drawn from this provision:

1. The criminal conduct punished under this provision is “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance”; the place of the crime is a “public place”; and the threshold for filing and prosecuting the case, namely the harmful consequence, is “causing serious disorder in the order of the public place.”

2. The criminal subject under this provision is the “person causing a commotion and creating a disturbance”; the criminal conduct is the act of “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance” carried out by that person “in a public place”; and the criminal consequence is that the act causes “serious disorder in public order.” The place where the conduct is carried out and the place where “serious disorder in public order” is caused must be the same place.

3. To constitute this crime, the person causing a commotion and creating a disturbance must satisfy the subjective-motive element in the Supreme People's Court and Supreme People's Procuratorate's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Cases Involving Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble (Fa Shi [2013] No. 18).

4. To constitute this crime, the threshold for filing and prosecuting the case prescribed in Article 8 of the Supreme People's Procuratorate and Ministry of Public Security's Supplementary Provisions on the Standards for Filing and Prosecuting Criminal Cases under the Jurisdiction of Public Security Organs (I) must also be met.

 

(2) Supreme People's Court and Supreme People's Procuratorate Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Cases Involving the Use of Information Networks to Commit Defamation and Other Crimes (Fa Shi [2013]21)

Article 5, paragraph 2  Whoever fabricates false information, or knowingly disseminates fabricated false information on information networks, or organizes or instructs personnel to disseminate it on information networks, thereby causing a commotion and creating a disturbance and causing serious disorder in public order, shall be convicted and punished for the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble in accordance with Article 293, paragraph 1, item (4), of the Criminal Law.

 

    The following understandings can be drawn from this provision:

1. This judicial interpretation extends the conduct of “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance” in a “public place” under Article 293, paragraph 1, item (4), of the Criminal Law to “information networks.” The core conduct is “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance,” meaning that conduct carried out on information networks is included within the scope of liability.

2. The information disseminated on information networks must not only be false information; it must also be fabricated false information;

All information inconsistent with objective facts is false information. According to the way it is formed, it can be divided into naturally formed false information and fabricated false information.

Naturally formed false information is a factual description inconsistent with objective facts that people make in daily life about people, events, and things around them because of misunderstandings, insufficient knowledge, memory errors, distortion in transmission, incomplete information, errors in reasoning or judgment, and other reasons. Such information is generated by miscommunication or misunderstanding and does not constitute a crime regardless of where it is disseminated.

Fabricated false information first possesses, in the words “fabricate,” the attributes of “creating something out of nothing, inventing out of thin air, and making things up.” These are the subjective attributes involved in the formation of false information. Fabricated false information is a factual description that the actor intentionally “fabricates” and that is inconsistent with objective facts; it is the fabrication of an objective fact for the purpose of deceiving or harming others.

3. Merely fabricating false information without disseminating the fabricated false information on information networks does not constitute a crime.

4. Fabricated false information disseminated on information networks may have been fabricated by the disseminator or by another person. However, when disseminating false information fabricated by another person, the disseminator must subjectively “know that it is fabricated false information.”

5. The disseminator may disseminate the information directly on information networks or may organize or instruct personnel to disseminate it;

6. After disseminating fabricated false information, the disseminator must also carry out an act of “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance” on the same information network, and this must be done by the disseminator personally, because the provision does not stipulate “or organize or instruct personnel to cause a commotion and create a disturbance.”

7. The statutory cause of “causing serious disorder in public order” must be the act of “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance.” If there is no such act, there necessarily cannot be the harmful result of “causing serious disorder in public order.”

8. There must be evidence proving that “serious disorder in public order” was caused. Whether in cyberspace or in the real physical world, “serious disorder in public order” must be proved by objective evidence; otherwise, the threshold for filing and prosecuting the case is not met.

9. The qualified criminal subject must be a person who successively carried out “two acts”: first “disseminating” fabricated false information on an information network, and then carrying out an act of “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance” on that information network. If there was no dissemination, or if the person merely disseminated information without carrying out an act of “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance,” neither constitutes a crime, and there necessarily cannot be the harmful consequence required for filing and prosecuting a case of “causing serious disorder in public order.” 

(3) Difference from Article 291-1 of the Criminal Law:

Article 291-1 of the Criminal Law does not require an act of “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance” after dissemination.

Article 291-1, paragraph 1: [Crime of Placing False Dangerous Substances] [Crime of Fabricating and Intentionally Disseminating False Terrorist Information] Whoever places false explosive, toxic, radioactive, or infectious-disease-pathogen substances, or fabricates terrorist information such as bomb threats, biochemical threats, or radiation threats, or knowingly disseminates fabricated terrorist information intentionally, seriously disrupting social order, shall be sentenced to not more than five years' imprisonment, criminal detention, or public surveillance; where serious consequences are caused, the sentence shall be not less than five years' imprisonment.

Article 291-1, paragraph 2: [Crime of Fabricating and Intentionally Disseminating False Information] Whoever fabricates false information concerning dangerous situations, epidemics, disasters, or police matters and disseminates it on information networks or other media, or knowingly disseminates the above-mentioned false information intentionally on information networks or other media, seriously disrupting social order, shall be sentenced to not more than three years' imprisonment, criminal detention, or public surveillance; where serious consequences are caused, the sentence shall be not less than three years but not more than seven years' imprisonment. 

It can therefore be seen that the “fabricated false information” referred to in Article 5, paragraph 2, of Fa Shi [2013] No. 21 means false information other than that covered by Article 291-1 of the Criminal Law—namely, information other than “terrorist information” and “dangerous situations, epidemics, disasters, or police matters.” By comparison, this type of information is less harmful. Merely disseminating it on information networks does not create social harm; only carrying out an act of “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance” after dissemination may result in the threshold for filing and prosecuting a case of “causing serious disorder in public order” being met. 

III. The facts found in this case are erroneous and the evidence is insufficient. Conduct that clearly did not constitute the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble was deliberately and unlawfully determined to constitute that crime, manufacturing a wrongful case and subjecting Shen Aibin to abuse of power and persecution. 

The criminal facts charged in this case: Between 2019 and 2021, defendant Shen Aibin fabricated false information that he had been falsely accused and persecuted, that his daughter had suffered retaliatory persecution because of him, and that he had suffered persecution by electromagnetic radiation, and disseminated it extensively on multiple information-network platforms, including The Epoch Times, I Love China, and Rights Defense Network, causing serious disorder in public order.

 

Explanation:

1. The term “online networks involved in the case” in this article refers to overseas online media (websites) such as “The Epoch Times,” “I Love China,” and “Rights Defense Network,” which disseminated the alleged false information referred to in the criminal facts charged by the prosecution.

2. The term “information involved in the case” in this article refers to the “fabricated false information” charged by the prosecution, namely “information that he had been falsely accused and persecuted, that his daughter had suffered retaliatory persecution because of him, and that he had suffered persecution by electromagnetic radiation.” 

(1) The judgments lacked sufficient evidence to establish that the information involved in the case on the overseas information networks involved in the case was disseminated by Shen Aibin. Shen Aibin was not a qualified criminal subject in this case and should be acquitted under the law.

Prosecutor Wang Lei explicitly said during the trial: “We know that the defendant had no ability to post this information on these overseas websites.”

Presiding Judge Wu Wei explicitly said during the trial: “According to the identity determination made by the public security organs by comparing the electronic data in the computer with the photographs, audio, video, and other materials used in the overseas reports, the relevant reports are objectively identical and related to Shen Aibin. The evidence proves the connection between the relevant overseas reports and Shen Aibin; it does not prove that you posted them, but proves the identity of the images, videos, and audio” (recorded on page 18, line 9 from the bottom, of the trial transcript). “The prosecutor made clear that it was impossible for you to post them on foreign websites, but the source was your computer” (recorded on page 46, line 8 from the bottom, of the trial transcript).

Under the provisions of the law cited by the judgments as the basis for conviction, the qualified criminal subject in this case must be the person who disseminated the information involved in the case on the overseas information networks involved in the case.

The first-instance prosecutor and presiding judge both admitted during the trial that the information involved in the case on the overseas online media was not posted by Shen Aibin. Therefore, Shen Aibin was not a qualified criminal subject in this case and should be acquitted under the law. 

(2) The judgments provided no evidence that Shen Aibin carried out an act of “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance” on the overseas websites that disseminated the information involved in the case.

It was not until he obtained the indictment that Shen Aibin learned that these overseas online media (websites) had published information about his experiences. Before that, Shen Aibin knew nothing about it and had never carried out any act of “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance” on these online media. The judgments also contained no evidence proving that Shen Aibin had carried out such an act on the online media involved in the case.

The second-instance ruling abused the statutory provision by actually determining that Shen Aibin's conduct of communicating and chatting with others on WeChat constituted “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance.” This was an erroneous finding of fact and an erroneous application of law. Even if there had been such conduct on WeChat, it could not be deemed the “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance” prescribed in Article 5, paragraph 2, of Fa Shi [2013] No. 21. The conduct prescribed in that provision must have been carried out on the information network where the fabricated false information was disseminated. 

(3) The judgments lacked sufficient evidence to establish that the information disseminated on the information networks involved in the case caused the harmful consequence of “serious disorder in public order.” They therefore did not meet the statutory threshold for filing and prosecuting a case and did not constitute a crime.

First, the statutory cause of “causing serious disorder in public order” is the act of “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance.” Since no one carried out such an act on the information networks involved in the case, it necessarily follows that the harmful consequence of “causing serious disorder in public order” did not exist.

The criminal conduct punished under Article 293, paragraph 1, item (4), of the Criminal Law is “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance” in a public place. Article 5, paragraph 2, of Fa Shi [2013] No. 21 extends the act of “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance” in physical space under Article 293, paragraph 1, item (4), of the Criminal Law to virtual online space. Therefore, the criminal conduct in information-network space must also be “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance.”

The difference between Article 5, paragraph 2, of Fa Shi [2013] No. 21 and Article 291-1 of the Criminal Law shows that the criminal conduct punished under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Fa Shi [2013] No. 21 must be “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance.”

Second, the judgments contained no evidence proving that the overseas information networks involved in the case caused “serious disorder in public order” because the information involved in the case was disseminated on them.

According to the meaning of the law, “serious disorder in public order” includes serious disorder in the order of virtual online space and in the order of real physical space.

The judgments contained neither evidence that the virtual online space (that is, the overseas online media involved in the case) experienced serious disorder in its underlying technical order or system functions because the information involved in the case was disseminated—such as server failure, data congestion, or inability to access the site—nor evidence that the real physical space experienced public panic, flight, or large-scale gatherings because someone disseminated the information involved in the case on the information networks involved in the case, resulting in the loss of control of social administrative order and social-life order, such as large-scale traffic paralysis, the loss of functions at major venues, group incidents and panic (mass disturbances, panic and stampedes, or illegal gatherings), the obstruction of important activities and facilities, or waste of government resources.

Furthermore, all the information networks involved in this case were overseas online media (websites). Investigating authorities had no power to determine whether the order of an overseas website was seriously disrupted unless they obtained certificates and evidence issued by the overseas online media.

The judgments actually treated the number of clicks and reposts of the information involved in the case on overseas networks as the standard for determining that “serious disorder in public order” had been caused. This was an erroneous application of law.

The number of clicks and views and the number of reposts are among the circumstances for determining that the “circumstances are serious” under Article 2, paragraph 1, item (1), of Fa Shi [2013] No. 21, constituting the crimes of insult and defamation under Article 246, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Law. Moreover, click rates should be calculated after “deduplication,” meaning “unique visitors” (UV), rather than being calculated according to page views (PV).

In this case, none of the investigating, prosecuting, or adjudicating organs conducted deduplicated calculations of the number of clicks on the information involved in the case obtained unlawfully by the investigating authorities from overseas networks.

 

(4) The judgments lacked sufficient evidence to establish that the information involved in the case on the information networks involved in the case “originated from Shen Aibin's computer.”

The judgments stated that some of the pictures and text, as well as a video, in the information published on the overseas networks involved in the case were identified by the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau's Forensic Evidence Appraisal Institute as completely identical to materials stored on the computer in Shen Aibin's home, and therefore determined that the information on the information networks involved in the case “originated from Shen Aibin's computer.”

First, during the trial, Shen Aibin repeatedly emphasized: “I don't know where the information involved in the case on the online networks came from. The pictures and text on my computer were written and produced by others and sent to WeChat groups. I thought they were good, so I downloaded and saved them from the WeChat groups. The video was recorded by me and saved to the computer, but after recording it I sent it to all the WeChat groups.” This proves that the source of the pictures and text was the WeChat groups, and that the video had already circulated among the various groups. Thus, the pictures, text, and video had been disseminated among unspecified persons and were not uniquely obtained and saved by Shen Aibin.

Second, the pictures and text were downloaded and saved by Shen Aibin from WeChat groups. The actual source was group members, and those group members may themselves have obtained them from members of other WeChat groups. The same text and pictures circulated in various groups, and after group members downloaded and saved them, the data characteristics of the pictures and text did not change. Therefore, it was not only Shen Aibin's computer that contained pictures and text whose characteristics were completely identical to those in the information involved in the case on the online networks. If any group member saved the pictures and text, the characteristics of those pictures and text would likewise be completely identical to those in the information involved in the case on the online networks. Thus, merely because the pictures and text on Shen Aibin's computer were completely identical in data characteristics to the pictures and text in the information involved in the case, it was not possible to determine that they originated from Shen Aibin's computer. The evidence was not reliable or sufficient, reasonable doubt could not be excluded, and the finding lacked uniqueness and certainty.

Third, although the video was filmed by Shen Aibin himself, he posted it in the various groups immediately afterward. It cannot be ruled out that group members forwarded, collected, downloaded, and saved it. Although the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau's Forensic Evidence Appraisal Institute confirmed that the video in the information involved in the case was completely identical to the video on Shen Aibin's computer, it was also completely identical to the video collected, downloaded, and saved by all group members. Therefore, it was not possible to determine solely because the video in the information involved in the case was completely identical to the video on Shen Aibin's computer that the information on the information networks involved in the case originated from Shen Aibin's computer. This determination did not exclude reasonable doubt, the conclusion lacked unique certainty, and the appraisal conclusion was not reliable or sufficient.

(5) The judgments lacked sufficient evidence to establish that the information involved in the case was fabricated by Shen Aibin

During the trial, Shen Aibin repeatedly emphasized: “Although my computer contains content that is the same as or similar to the content of the information involved in the case, it was all content that I sent to various WeChat groups. Group members (including public security, procuratorial, and judicial personnel, lawyers, legal workers, and rights defenders) reached conclusions after comprehensively analyzing the judgment contents and evidentiary materials. They concluded that the case involving the crime of intentional destruction of property was a case of bending the law for personal interests, judicial corruption, and abuse of power and persecution deliberately distorted and produced by Wuxi's judicial scum; that the second case was a wrongful case manufactured by the Huishan public security, procuratorate, and court in a one-stop operation through bending the law for personal interests, and was a typical case of judicial corruption and abuse of power and persecution; and that the information about my underage daughter being sentenced after suffering retaliatory persecution was also a conclusion reached by group members through comprehensive analysis of the case materials. I thought their analysis made sense, so I accepted and believed it and saved their analytical process and results to my computer.”

The judgments determined solely because Shen Aibin's computer contained content identical or similar to the information involved in the case that the information on the information networks involved in the case originated from Shen Aibin's computer. This determination did not conform to common sense or logic, and the possibility that other group members disseminated it could not be excluded.

Although Shen Aibin accepted the conclusions reached by the group members and used them in his appeals and complaints, the content did not originate with Shen Aibin but with the group's collective analytical conclusions. Therefore, the judgments' determination that the information involved in the case was fabricated by Shen Aibin was not reliable or sufficient, and the conclusion lacked unique certainty. 

(6) The judgments' determination that the information involved in the case was “fabricated false information” was an erroneous finding of fact and an erroneous characterization, treating “subjective understanding” as “false fact.”

Although the judgments found that the information involved in the case on the online networks was fabricated by Shen Aibin, and the evidence that it originated with Shen Aibin was insufficient, the content charged—namely, the determination that the information involved in the case was “fabricated false information”—was, with respect to Shen Aibin, an erroneous finding of fact and an erroneous characterization. It was in fact an intentional distortion of facts and abuse of law, with the purpose of retaliating against and persecuting Shen Aibin.

First, as far as Shen Aibin is concerned, he himself had already experienced the following objective facts:

(1) He had already been sentenced twice: the first time, the Binhu Court found him guilty of intentional destruction of property; the second time, the Huishan Court found him guilty of picking quarrels and provoking trouble;

(2) His underage daughter had already been sentenced;

(3) Extremely strong electromagnetic radiation and high-frequency sound waves had appeared in his home;

(4) In addition to being sentenced twice, Shen Aibin had also been the subject of two criminal case filings. The first was on July 30, 2015 (on the eve of Army Day), when a case was filed against him for suspected obstruction of official duties. The second was on September 3, 2019 (on the eve of the 70th anniversary of National Day), when a case was filed against him for suspected picking of quarrels and provoking trouble. Both cases were filed for maintaining stability and both ultimately came to nothing;

(5) Since his release after serving his first sentence on March 12, 2015, Shen Aibin's movements and communications have been tracked and monitored 24 hours a day. Friends around him have been intimidated and threatened by police. His finances have been blocked, and the company he registered was also forced, through intimidation and harassment, to cancel its registration;

Second, Shen Aibin expressed subjective cognitive judgments based on the objective facts and feelings arising from his own experiences—that is, he expressed his understanding, evaluation, or judgment of those experiences.

Even if the information involved in the case had been published by Shen Aibin, it would have constituted his subjective cognitive evaluation of his own experiences. Based on his own understanding and judgment, Shen Aibin expressed the view that his two sentences were cases of judicial corruption, false accusation and persecution, and abuse of power and persecution carefully plotted and manufactured by Wuxi's judicial scum; that his underage daughter had suffered retaliatory persecution because of him; and that the extremely strong electromagnetic radiation appearing in his home was an attempt on his life.

These statements constituted both the exercise of citizens' freedom of speech granted by Article 35 of the Constitution and the exercise of citizens' rights to criticize, make suggestions, and supervise granted by Article 41 of the Constitution.

(7) The judgments' characterization of Shen Aibin's subjective cognitive evaluation of his own experiences as fabricated false information was erroneous.

Objective fact: an event that actually occurred and requires evidentiary support;

Subjective cognition: an interested party's understanding, evaluation, or judgment of an event based on personal experiences and feelings; it is a subjective evaluation or expression of an opinion, for which there is only a distinction between right and wrong, not between true and false.

Fabricating false information: inventing out of thin air facts that do not exist at all, for the purpose of deceiving others or disrupting order; it generally requires proof that the person knew the information was false but disseminated it intentionally.

Cognitive judgment: a subjective feeling produced by a person's real experiences, as well as the person's interpretation of what happened to them. This feeling falls within the scope of freedom of speech or the right to appeal and supervise. Even if the language is forceful, an evaluation based on a factual foundation does not constitute “fabrication.”

In light of the understanding of “fabricated false information” in Article 5, paragraph 2, of Fa Shi [2013] No. 21, it is immediately apparent that the error in the judgments was this: they directly characterized the subjective cognitive evaluation arising from real events experienced by Shen Aibin as false facts invented out of thin air. This confused “fact” and “opinion,” or “factual statement” and “expression of opinion,” and constituted a typical erroneous finding of fact.

(8) The judgments' reasons for finding that the information involved in the case was “fabricated false information” were absurd and their logic was sinister.

1. The judgments' reason for finding that “Shen Aibin was falsely accused and persecuted, and his daughter suffered retaliatory persecution because of him” was fabricated false information was that the “three cases” (meaning that Shen Aibin was sentenced twice and his daughter once, for three sentences in total) had all been appealed and final, effective rulings had been issued by the Wuxi Intermediate People's Court!

First-instance Presiding Judge Wu Wei said during the trial: “‘The three cases’ have all taken legal effect. Your belief that errors exist is your subjective understanding. The judgments in the three cases have taken effect. According to the law, an effective judgment is correct.” (Recorded on page 34, line 6 from the bottom, of the trial transcript.)

Presiding Judge Wu Wei also said during the trial: “According to the provisions, facts confirmed by an effective judgment of a people's court do not need to be proved by evidence.”

That is indeed so: what an effective judgment confirms does not require evidence to prove its legality and fairness. But does an interested party's raising doubts about an effective judgment and questioning the legality and fairness of its decision constitute fabricating false information?

How sinister is this? How sinister are the legal principles and logic involved?

Indeed, under the law, an effective judgment is correct. However, the law also does not prohibit an interested party from questioning the legality and fairness of an effective judgment and expressing a subjective cognitive evaluation of it. On the contrary, in legal theory, effective judgments are not necessarily all legal and fair. If all effective judgments were legal and fair, why would the law establish an “adjudication supervision procedure,” and why would it grant interested parties the right to petition against a judgment that has already taken effect?

2. The judgments' reason for finding that “he suffered persecution by electromagnetic radiation” was fabricated false information was: “He said that someone was using electromagnetic radiation against him and blamed the authorities without ruling out other possibilities.”

The trial transcript clearly records Prosecutor Wang Lei as saying: “Shen Aibin failed to recognize where the false information was. The false information charged by the prosecutor was Shen Aibin's statement about persecution by electromagnetic radiation. The key point is ‘persecution.’ He said that someone was using electromagnetic radiation against him and blamed the authorities without ruling out other possibilities.”

Under the Criminal Procedure Law and the People's Procuratorate Criminal Procedure Rules, the burden of proof in a public-prosecution case rests with the prosecuting authority. Since the prosecutor determined that “Shen Aibin suffered persecution by electromagnetic radiation” was false information, the prosecutor had the duty to provide evidence proving that Shen Aibin had not suffered electromagnetic radiation, or that although he had suffered electromagnetic radiation it was not caused by public power and was not persecution. This is a statutory duty. Yet the prosecutor shifted the burden of proof to Shen Aibin and actually required him to “rule out other possibilities.”

Statement: To date, no public authority has investigated the electromagnetic radiation that appeared in Shen Aibin's home. To evade responsibility, the judicial scum instructed the Wuxi Municipal Ecology and Environment Bureau and the Liangxi District Ecology and Environment Bureau to issue false certificates, and the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau to issue false police-incident records. None of this will escape accountability.

If no public authority investigated the electromagnetic radiation that appeared in Shen Aibin's home, what was the basis for the prosecutor's determination that “Shen Aibin suffered persecution by electromagnetic radiation”? (Moreover, Shen Aibin did not see the phrase “persecution by electromagnetic radiation” online; he saw only the claim that someone was trying to harm him.) This determination lacked a factual and legal basis. 

(9) The “fabricated false information” identified in the judgments was in fact objective fact, not false information at all, still less fabricated information. Shen Aibin has conclusive evidence.

Shen Aibin has sufficient facts and reasons to prove that his first sentence by the Binhu Court was not only a judgment in violation of the law, but also a judicial-corruption and abuse-of-power-and-persecution case deliberately and carefully plotted and manufactured. The Wuxi Intermediate People's Court told Shen Aibin that this was an “internal-request case.” The essence of the case was the unlawful characterization of Shen Aibin's acts of necessity and bravery in assisting others as intentional destruction of property. No power or influence can conceal this; the case file is ironclad evidence.

Shen Aibin also has evidence proving that his second sentence by the Huishan Court was a blatant case of bending the law for personal interests, manufactured by the State Security Detachment of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau in collusion with former petitioner Ding Hongfen, on the premise that State Security police officer Deng Yongfeng fabricated medical records to falsely accuse and persecute him, through the manufacture of illegal evidence in the form of a “consultation opinion” and a false appraisal opinion, and finally through a judgment in violation of the law. It was an abuse-of-power-and-persecution case deliberately and carefully plotted and manufactured by people. I have conclusive evidence; it is only that Wuxi's gangster-affiliated public authorities are currently buying off personnel in influential positions everywhere, secretly defaming, slandering, and maligning me, and luring and corrupting some senior officials with economic inducements, preventing me from successfully petitioning to this day.

The sentencing of Shen Aibin's underage daughter was an even more typical case of retaliatory persecution. A series of circumstances—including the unlawful filing of the case, unlawful submission of a request for approval of arrest, and unlawful determination of facts—as well as the “letter on strictly maintaining confidentiality regarding the investigation and assessment opinion concerning Shen Jiayi” issued by the investigating authority, further confirm that the case arose because of Shen Aibin. Because of Shen Aibin, the investigating authority turned an ordinary civil dispute into a criminal case. The case file is also ironclad evidence, which no power or influence can conceal or change.

 

IV. Violations of litigation procedure seriously affected a fair trial

 

(1) Serious violations of the investigation procedure

1. The criminal facts identified in the judgments were never “registered” or investigated by the investigating authorities

On May 14, 2020, the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau registered a case for picking quarrels and provoking trouble based on the alleged criminal fact that Shen Aibin had “posted information inciting others to petition on mobile-phone WeChat.”

On September 26, 2022, the Yixing Municipal Public Security Bureau suddenly transferred the case to the Yixing Procuratorate for review and prosecution based on the alleged criminal fact that Shen Aibin had “disseminated fabricated false information on information networks.” Before that, no one had ever investigated Shen Aibin regarding the conduct of “disseminating fabricated false information on information networks.”

2. The case was unlawfully assigned to the jurisdiction of the Yixing Municipal Public Security Bureau

According to Article 22 of the Provisions on Procedures for Public Security Organs Handling Criminal Cases, the precondition for designated jurisdiction is that there are circumstances in which “jurisdiction is unclear or disputed” or that the “circumstances are special.” This case met none of the statutory conditions for designated jurisdiction. The Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau exceeded the scope of its discretion granted by law by assigning the case to the jurisdiction of the Yixing Municipal Public Security Bureau; the statutory elements were absent, and the procedure was unlawful.

The document on designated jurisdiction presented at trial also failed to state the reasons for the designation as required by law.

 

3. Because, after the case was assigned to the jurisdiction of the Yixing Municipal Public Security Bureau, it was then transferred to the jurisdiction of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau's “special task force,” all appraisal opinions issued by the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau's Forensic Evidence Appraisal Institute were produced through an unlawful appraisal procedure and may not be used as evidence under the law.

The case was initially registered by the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau. In order to confine Shen Aibin in a closed detention arrangement, the case was unlawfully assigned to Yixing. However, under the Provisions on Procedures for Public Security Organs Handling Criminal Cases, after a case is assigned to the jurisdiction of Yixing public security, the original Liangxi public security branch may no longer participate in the case.

Nevertheless, the Liangxi Branch participated throughout. Late at night on April 5, 2022, it took Shen Aibin from the Wuxi Detention Center to Yixing to implement residential surveillance at a designated residence. On April 25, Yang Hua, head of the Criminal Brigade of the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau, and Wang Xiaoming, a police officer from the Guangyi Police Station, went to the residential-surveillance site and said they wanted to “solve the channel problem” for Shen Aibin. When Shen Aibin questioned the legality of the two men's presence at the site, Yang Hua, head of the Criminal Brigade of the Liangxi Branch, told him on the spot: “This case is now under the jurisdiction of the ‘special task force’ established by the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau. The group leader is Director Zhang Zhen. If you object to the designated jurisdiction, you can report it to Group Leader Zhang (Zhen); we are only responsible for talking with you.” The residential-surveillance site was also staffed in shifts by Guangyi Police Station officers, while special-duty personnel were dispatched by the Liangxi Branch's Special-Duty Brigade.

Because the case was under the jurisdiction of the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau's “special task force,” none of the appraisal opinions issued by the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau's Forensic Evidence Appraisal Institute in this case may be used as evidence. The evidence violated the principle of impartiality; the authority handling a case may not itself review and accept evidence that it itself created. 

4. All information and other evidence from the overseas online networks involved in the case collected by the investigating authorities through illegal means constituted illegal evidence and may not be accepted under the law.

The means used by the investigating authorities to collect the information involved in the case from overseas online networks were unlawful. During the trial, when the prosecutor read out the source of the information obtained by the investigating authorities from overseas online networks, he said: “The investigating authorities used bridge technology to collect it.” This method of collection is an unlawful act expressly prohibited by the state and violates Article 6 of the Measures for the Security Protection Administration of International Networking of Computer Information Networks of the People's Republic of China. It should be investigated and handled under Article 14 of those Measures. Therefore, evidence obtained through this illegal means should be excluded under the law.

 

(2) The investigating authorities tampered with and forged the Records of Interrogation

After Shen Aibin was placed under residential surveillance at a designated residence in Yixing, Yang Hua separately brought Wang Xiaoming, Shao Xuefeng, and Zhu Chuang to Yixing to interrogate Shen Aibin. However, in the records made afterward, the interrogators' identities were all altered and replaced with those of people Shen Aibin did not know. This had three purposes: first, to conceal the Liangxi Branch's continued illegal participation in the case; second, to conceal the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau's conduct in handling the case through a “special task force”; and third, to conceal the serious violations of the investigation procedure.

The period covered by the forged records was from April 25 to September 25, 2022. There were 14 records in total, of which only four were genuine: the interrogation records of Shao Xuefeng and Lü Da on May 9 and 11, 2022, and two interrogations by Yang Hua and Zhu Feng on September 24 and 25. These were also the final two interrogations, which is sufficient to prove that they were interrogations of me by the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau's “special task force.” Otherwise, Yang Hua and Zhu Chuang had no authority to interrogate me. Of course, the records also mentioned the “special task force.” The other 10 records were all products of tampering.

 

(3) The three judges on the second-instance collegial panel had major interests connected to this case and should have recused themselves under the law, but refused to do so.

The information involved in the case—that is, the alleged “fabricated false information”—referred to the claim that Shen Aibin's first sentence by the Binhu Court for intentional destruction of property constituted abuse-of-power persecution; that his second sentence by the Huishan Court for picking quarrels and provoking trouble constituted false accusation and persecution; that his underage daughter was sentenced by the Liangxi Court for forcible molestation as retaliatory persecution; and that information about the “three cases,” as well as information about Shen Aibin being harmed by electromagnetic radiation, constituted fabricated false information.

In fact, the core issue in this case should have been whether the “fabricated false information” charged by the prosecution was actually fabricated false information—that is, whether the judgments by the Binhu and Huishan courts against Shen Aibin were fair and objective, or constituted abuse-of-power persecution and false accusation and persecution; and whether the judgment against Shen Aibin's underage daughter constituted retaliatory persecution. The answer to these questions directly concerns whether the three second-instance judges engaged in bending the law for personal interests.

This is because the members of the second-instance collegial panel in this case—Gu Rongrong, Xu Haihong, and Yang Liu—were all first- or second-instance judges in the “three cases.” Gu Rongrong was a judge on the collegial panel of the Huishan Court that sentenced Shen Aibin for picking quarrels and provoking trouble. Xu Haihong and Yang Liu were judges on the collegial panels of the Wuxi Intermediate People's Court in the second-instance proceedings involving Shen Aibin and his daughter. Therefore, all members of the collegial panel had major interests connected to this case and were directly connected to its central dispute.

During the second-instance proceedings, Shen Aibin submitted an Application for Recusal, but they refused to recuse themselves. According to the Criminal Procedure Law and the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, two of the judges on the second-instance collegial panel should have recused themselves under the law. Their failure to do so created suspicion of favoritism, misconduct, or a judgment in violation of the law.

The second-instance trial procedure in this case seriously violated the law and deprived or restricted Shen Aibin's statutory litigation rights. The ruling issued thereby lost legal effect. Under Article 29 of the Criminal Procedure Law, failure to recuse when required constitutes the serious procedural violation of “violating the recusal system” prescribed in Article 238 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Under Article 463 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, a retrial should also be conducted. 

V. This case is a judicial-corruption, abuse-of-power-and-persecution, and bending-the-law-for-personal-interests case carefully plotted and manufactured by Wuxi's judicial scum to retaliate against Shen Aibin. It is a blatant judgment in violation of the law.

1. They knew that the information involved in the case on the overseas networks involved in the case had not been disseminated by Shen Aibin.

2. They knew that Shen Aibin had not carried out an act of “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance” on the overseas information networks involved in the case;

3. They knew that the information involved in the case on the overseas information networks involved in the case had not caused the harmful consequence required for filing and prosecuting a case of “serious disorder in public order”;

4. They knew that the information involved in the case did not legally constitute “fabricated false information”;

5. They knew that it was impossible to determine solely from the consistency between the data characteristics of the pictures, text, and video information saved on Shen Aibin's computer and those used in the information involved in the case that the pictures, text, and video in the information involved in the case had been provided by Shen Aibin;

6. They knew that Shen Aibin had not engaged in “causing a commotion and creating a disturbance,” but characterized his conduct of contacting and communicating with others on WeChat as such conduct (as found in the second-instance ruling);

7. They knew that the information involved in the case on the information networks involved in the case had not been disseminated by Shen Aibin. In order to maliciously frame Shen Aibin, however, they relied on his admission during the trial that he had “previously posted content on WeChat that was the same as or similar to the information involved in the case” to determine that the information on the information networks involved in the case had been disseminated by Shen Aibin, while providing no evidence showing when, on which WeChat account, or what content Shen Aibin had posted, or when and by whom that content had been forwarded to the information networks involved in the case. Their painstaking intent is truly apparent; 

VI. The first- and second-instance judgments in this case contained the following unlawful circumstances:

1. The judgments made erroneous findings of fact and applied the law erroneously;

2. The evidence on which the case was decided was unreliable and insufficient;

3. The legally prescribed litigation procedures were violated, seriously affecting a fair trial;

4. The adjudicators engaged in conduct amounting to a judgment in violation of the law while hearing the case.

 

It can be seen from the foregoing that the prosecutor and the first- and second-instance adjudicators in this case knew that the “criminal facts” charged did not legally constitute the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. Yet, in order to subject Shen Aibin to abuse of power and persecution, they openly abused their authority, deliberately distorted the facts, and abused the law. They first unlawfully characterized conduct that did not constitute picking quarrels and provoking trouble as criminal conduct involving picking quarrels and provoking trouble, and then, through sinister logic, framed Shen Aibin for this “criminal conduct determined in violation of the law.” The baseness of their methods, the viciousness of their intentions, and the sinister nature of their logic are obvious at a glance. It would not be excessive to say that this gangster-affiliated judicial scum deserves the extermination of nine generations! The case file is ironclad evidence, and no power or influence can conceal it!

 

 

In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, the People's Procuratorate Criminal Procedure Rules, and the Provisions of the People's Procuratorate on Handling Criminal Appeal Cases, we request that the Wuxi Municipal People's Procuratorate follow the principles for handling criminal appeal cases, conduct a comprehensive, objective, and impartial review under the law, hear Shen Aibin's views in accordance with the law, organize a public hearing, expose and correct this case of bending the law for personal interests carefully plotted and manufactured by certain judicial scum in Wuxi, lawfully lodge a protest, safeguard judicial justice, defend the dignity of the law, protect Shen Aibin's lawful rights and interests, and support the central government's rule of law. At the same time, we request that the conduct of the relevant personnel discovered during the handling of the criminal appeal—namely, their abuse of power, deliberate violation of the facts, and judgments in violation of the law for personal interests during the handling of this case—be transferred to the relevant authorities for handling.

This case is currently under review by the Wuxi Municipal People's Procuratorate following a petition, and a fair decision is awaited.

VII. List of wrongdoers who bent the law for personal interests in this case: 

Zhang Zhen, former deputy secretary of the Wuxi Municipal Committee Political and Legal Affairs Commission, vice mayor, and director of the Municipal Public Security Bureau;

Xu Nuo, Zheng Bangxian, Shen Qi, Yang Hua, Wu Deyue, and Han Dawei, personnel of the Liangxi Branch;

Zhang Qin, Wang Lei, and Li Tongyuan, prosecutors appearing in court from the Liangxi District People's Procuratorate of Wuxi;

Wu Wei, Li Peng, and Xia Yan, judges on the first-instance collegial panel of the Liangxi District People's Court;

Gu Rongrong, Xu Haihong, and Yang Liu, judges on the second-instance collegial panel of the Wuxi Intermediate People's Court;

Niu Zhaoxiang, Li Hailin, and Guo Jiguang, judges on the retrial collegial panel of the Wuxi Intermediate People's Court.

On December 28, 2023, the Wuxi Detention Center transferred Shen Aibin to Jiangsu Liyang Prison to serve his sentence. Before that, the Wuxi Detention Center had already sent Liyang Prison a Confidentiality Letter, secretly defaming, slandering, and maligning Shen. As a result, during his one year and four days at Liyang Prison, Shen suffered a series of gangster-style abuses of power and persecution carried out through collusion between Wuxi public security and Liyang Prison, and came close to losing his life several times.

Next report: [Series Report (4)] The Inhuman Atrocities Committed by the Chinese Communist Party in Wuxi Against Human Rights Defender Shen Aibin: His Underage Daughter Sentenced After Suffering Retaliatory Persecution

Attachment 1: First-instance judgment (9 pages in total) omitted

 Attachment 2: Case-Filing Decision

 Attachment 3: Decision on Residential Surveillance (2020.5.17)

Attachment 4: Decision on Release on Bail Pending Trial (2020.11.16)

Attachment 5: Release Certificate (2021.7.24)

 

Attachment 6: Decision on Release on Bail Pending Trial (2021.7.24)

Attachment 7: Release Certificate (2022.4.5)

Attachment 8: Decision on Designated Jurisdiction