news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

Dear President of the Zhejiang Provincial High People's Court:

My name is Zong Guohua, and I am the mother of Han Zheng, the defendant in a case of fraud and provoking disturbances currently being tried by the Ninghai County People's Court. As a retired CCTV reporter, I am very reluctant to communicate with you in this way. But due to the urgency of the situation, I have nowhere else to turn and have no choice. I am over 70 years old and have cancer. For my son's case, I have traveled from Beijing to Ningbo, Ninghai, and Hangzhou more than 20 times. I feel like I am being kicked around like a ball, and the problem has not been solved.

I have no choice but to write this open letter to you. Please forgive me. On the morning of August 26, 2024, my child’s father, six lawyers and I, a total of eight people, came to your court to submit an "Application for the Zhejiang Provincial Higher People's Court to Designate a Different Jurisdiction over the Cases of Han Zheng and 21 Others (in four cases) Suspected of Fraud and Provoking Trouble". Judge Lin Gang, the leader of your court's filing court, received us. We are deeply grateful! I wrote this open letter to you mainly to accuse the Ningbo and Ninghai judicial authorities of characterizing my son's case according to the abolished documents and making judgments before trial!

There is evidence that the political and legal organs of Ninghai County held a "political and legal meeting" in violation of party discipline and national law before the trial of the case, intervened in the conviction and sentencing of the case, and made specific determinations. The Ninghai County Public Security Bureau, Ningbo Municipal Public Security Bureau, Ninghai County People's Procuratorate, and Ningbo Municipal People's Procuratorate investigated, reviewed and prosecuted the case based on the "Notice on (Zhejiang High Law [2019] No. 117)" (hereinafter referred to as the "Zhejiang "Routine Loan" Minutes"), which was abolished in 2021. In order to maintain the "case balance" (the balance between the cases previously tried in accordance with the "Zhejiang "Routine Loan" Minutes"), the Ningbo Intermediate Court, knowing that the "Zhejiang "Routine Loan" Minutes" had been abolished, still instructed the Ninghai County Court to maintain the wrong characterization of the case and to pursue the criminal responsibility of the defendants in this case for the crimes of fraud and provoking disturbances. The trial of this case in Ninghai and Ningbo will inevitably be a formality and cannot be heard fairly. I request that your court can legally designate the case to be tried in a court outside Ningbo to ensure the fairness and justice of the case.

Now I will report the specific circumstances of the case to your court as follows:

01

Basic information of the case

The defendant Han Zheng and others set up a company in Beijing and provided short-term micro loans to people in need through an APP. The company's outbound callers guided people who intended to borrow money to download and install the loan APP through their mobile phones, and instructed them to fill in information, upload their ID cards, and agree to provide the borrower's mobile phone address book and communication records and other information to complete the registration according to the requirements of the APP. The company reviewed the borrower's qualifications by analyzing the registration information. Borrowers who passed the qualification review can apply for loans. The APP will inform the borrower of the basic information of the loan, such as the number of loan periods, loan amount, withdrawal amount, and due date through a pop-up window. After the borrower clicks to confirm, the company will issue the loan to him. Most of the loans lent by the company are less than 3,000 yuan, with a term of 7 days, a small number of 5 days or 14 days, and actually charge at least 28% (mostly 1/3) of the head interest in advance; if the borrower cannot repay on the due date, he can continue to maintain the loan relationship by paying an extension fee consistent with the head interest; if the borrower fails to repay on time, the company will call the borrower and his relatives and friends to urge the borrower to repay the principal and interest of the loan.

(Beijing Fengtai Headquarters Base Science and Technology Park. Han Zheng and more than 20 others were taken away by Zhejiang police here)

Since the incident occurred in June 2023, the case has been concluded by the Ningbo Municipal Public Security Bureau. In October 2023, the case of 21 defendants including Han Zheng was transferred to the Ningbo Municipal People's Procuratorate for review and prosecution on suspicion of fraud and provoking disturbances. In November of the same year, the Ningbo Municipal People's Procuratorate transferred the Han Zheng case to the Ninghai County People's Procuratorate for handling.

(Ninghai County Public Security Bureau)

In March 2024, the Ninghai County People's Procuratorate filed a public prosecution with the Ninghai County People's Court, accusing the defendants Han Zheng and others of fraud and provoking trouble, and that Han Zheng and others belong to a criminal gang with evil forces. The Ninghai County People's Court is currently hearing the case.

02

Ninghai County People's Court

It is not appropriate to continue the trial of this case

(1) The political and legal system of Ninghai County held a "political and legal meeting" in violation of regulations and decided to convict and punish the "Han Zheng case" for the crimes of fraud and provoking disturbances. It sentenced Han Zheng to more than ten years in prison without trial, which seriously violated the Party's discipline and the law of the country.

It is understood that when the investigation agency questioned some of the defendants in this case, it informed the defendants that although Han Zheng's lawyer was trying to change the charges, it was impossible to change them. The "political and legal meeting" for this case had already been held, and the sentence was still more than 10 years in prison. In this regard, we attached a CD with the materials we submitted to your court this morning. The CD contains evidence. Please investigate and verify it. I believe that the Ninghai political and legal system held a "political and legal meeting" in violation of regulations and sentenced Han Zheng's case before trial, which seriously violated party discipline, political discipline and the Criminal Procedure Law.

On March 18, 2015, the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council jointly issued the "Regulations on the Recording, Reporting and Accountability of Leading Cadres' Interference in Judicial Activities and Involvement in the Handling of Specific Cases" (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"). Article 3 of the Regulations stipulates: "Institutions with leadership responsibilities for judicial work may, in accordance with work procedures, understand the circumstances of the case, organize research on judicial policies, coordinate and handle work in accordance with the law, urge judicial organs to perform their duties in accordance with the law, and create an environment of fair justice for judicial organs. However, they may not make specific decisions on the acceptance of evidence, determination of facts, judicial adjudication, etc. in the case." The Ninghai political and legal system held a "political and legal meeting" to make specific decisions on the conviction and sentencing of the Han Zheng case, and made a judgment without trial, which violated the above-mentioned prohibition of the "Regulations" and was a serious violation of party and government discipline.

At the same time, Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates: "The people's courts exercise judicial power independently in accordance with the provisions of the law, and the people's procuratorates exercise procuratorial power independently in accordance with the provisions of the law, and are not subject to interference from administrative organs, social groups or individuals." The Ninghai County political and legal system held a "political and legal meeting" on the Han Zheng case, and made specific decisions on the conviction and sentencing of Han Zheng in violation of party discipline and government discipline. It made a judgment without trial, seriously violating the basic principles stipulated in Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Law, and illegally interfering with the Ninghai County People's Procuratorate's exercise of procuratorial power in accordance with the law, and illegally interfering with the Ninghai County People's Court's exercise of judicial power in accordance with the law.

Since the conviction and sentencing of this case have already been decided by the Ninghai County Political and Legal Affairs Bureau at a "Political and Legal Meeting", the next trial of this case by the Ninghai Court will inevitably be a formality. This case is no longer likely to be heard fairly in the Ninghai Court.

(Ninghai County People's Court)

(2) The Ninghai Court illegally tried separate cases that should have been tried together. The presiding judge violated the facts and the law and used threats, inducements, and deception to call the family members of the parties, asking them to plead guilty and accept punishment, and to change their Beijing lawyers, thereby obstructing judicial justice.

1. Ninghai Court illegally tried separate cases that should have been tried together

In this case, the 21 defendants in the same case were divided into at least four separate cases for trial. For cases brought to court by the procuratorate, under what circumstances can they be tried separately and under what circumstances can they be tried together? Article 220 of the Interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Law clearly stipulates that:

For joint crimes or related crimes prosecuted in one case, where there are many defendants and the case is complicated, the people's court may try the cases separately if it deems that separation is more conducive to ensuring the quality and efficiency of the trial. Separate trials shall not affect the exercise of the parties' litigation rights such as the right to cross-examination.

For cases of joint crimes or related crimes that are prosecuted separately, the people's court may conduct a joint trial if it deems, after examination, that a joint trial will be more conducive to ascertaining the facts of the case, safeguarding litigation rights, and accurately determining guilt and sentencing.

This case is a joint crime case prosecuted by the procuratorate. We believe that:

A joint trial is more conducive to ascertaining the facts of the case. Because the company involved in the case involves several departments, each department has different divisions of labor and functions, and the departments cooperate with each other. To accurately ascertain the facts of the case, the defense lawyer needs to ask questions to the defendants in each department in court to understand and verify the relevant circumstances of the case. If the defendants from different departments are assigned to different cases, the defense lawyer cannot ask questions to the defendants in the assigned cases to understand and verify the relevant case circumstances; the defense lawyer cannot hear the cross-examination opinions of the defendants in the assigned cases; for key issues, the court cannot let the defendants in different cases confront each other in court, let alone arrange for the defendants to ask each other questions. Obviously, separate trials are not conducive to ascertaining the facts of the case. Only joint trials are conducive to ascertaining the facts of the case.

A joint trial is more conducive to protecting litigation rights. As mentioned above, a joint trial can protect the defense lawyer's right to ask questions to all defendants in accordance with the law; it can better protect the defendants and the defense lawyer's right to conduct comprehensive cross-examination based on the questioning and the cross-examination opinions expressed by all the defendants in court; it can better protect the defendants and the defense lawyer's right to understand the facts of the case in combination with the situation of all the defendants participating in the trial, and to express in-depth and accurate defense opinions.

A joint trial is more conducive to accurate conviction and sentencing. In judicial practice, a situation often occurs, that is, employees plead guilty and accept punishment, but management does not. After the first-instance verdict is announced, the employee does not appeal, and the verdict takes effect after the appeal period. However, if the management appeals, the second-instance court finds that there are problems with the first-instance court's determination of facts and applicable laws, but the second-instance court will be in an awkward position at this time. Whether it is a change of verdict or a retrial, it will conflict with the effective verdict of the employee who pleaded guilty and accepted punishment. Only a joint trial can avoid such a situation and make a more accurate conviction and sentencing for the entire case.

Combined trials are more conducive to ensuring the quality and efficiency of court trials and avoiding waste of judicial resources. For example, in cases with victims, the court must notify the victim to appear in court in accordance with the law before the court opens. If the trial is combined, the victim only needs to come once. If the trial is divided into separate cases, the victim needs to attend multiple court sessions. For another example, if you apply for investigators and auditors to appear in court, combined trials are also a one-time solution. Separate trials may result in investigators and auditors appearing in court multiple times. The above situations will greatly reduce the efficiency of the trial.

Therefore, as far as this case is concerned, I believe that it is necessary to conduct a joint trial, whether from the perspective of ensuring the quality and efficiency of the trial, or from the perspective of being more conducive to ascertaining the facts of the case, protecting litigation rights, and accurately determining guilt and sentencing.

On the contrary, if this case is tried separately, it will seriously affect the parties' litigation rights such as the right to cross-examination, cause a decline in litigation efficiency and a waste of judicial resources, and "judgment before trial" which will seriously affect judicial fairness and hinder procedural justice.

2. The presiding judge violated the facts and the law, and used threats and inducements to call the client’s family members, asking them to plead guilty and accept punishment, and to change lawyers in Beijing, thus obstructing judicial justice.

It is understood that after the defense lawyer raised a major objection to the characterization of the case to the presiding judge of the Ninghai Court who was responsible for hearing the case and pointed out that the "Minutes of Zhejiang's "Routine Loan"" had been abolished, the presiding judge not only did not correct the mistake, but also insisted on making a mistake to the end in order to make the characterization of the case "consistent" with the cases that the court had previously tried in accordance with the "Minutes of Zhejiang's "Routine Loan"". He communicated with the relevant defense lawyers and the defendant's family members many times, saying that if the characterization was changed, the sentence would be heavier and the fine would be more. If the defendant pleaded guilty and accepted punishment for the crimes of fraud and provoking disturbances, the sentencing would be considered as much as possible. Even some defendants who could not be sentenced to probation originally, in order to make them plead guilty and accept punishment for the crimes of fraud and provoking disturbances, they were promised to be sentenced to probation. Because the Beijing lawyer team insisted that there were serious problems with the characterization of this case, the presiding judge of this case even called the families of some of the defendants in this case and suggested that they replace the Beijing lawyers.

I believe that the words and deeds of the presiding judge in this case, in order to cover up the serious mistakes made by the investigative and procuratorial organs in characterizing the nature of this case and to implement the so-called "Political and Legal Committee"'s opinions on the handling of this case, have failed to correct their mistakes and have lost the objective and fair stance that a judge should have. This further shows that it is impossible for this case to be fairly tried in the Ninghai Court.

03

Ningbo Intermediate Court and its subordinate district and county courts

It is not appropriate to hear this case

(I) The “Minutes on Zhejiang’s “Ponzi Loan” Policy” has been abolished

On July 24, 2019, the Zhejiang Higher People's Court, the Zhejiang People's Procuratorate, and the Zhejiang Provincial Public Security Department jointly issued the "Notice on (Zhejiang Higher People's Court [2019] No. 117)" to the people's courts, people's procuratorates, and public security bureaus of all cities, counties (cities, districts) in Zhejiang.

As mentioned above, since June 2023, the Ninghai County Public Security Bureau and the Ningbo Municipal Public Security Bureau have successively filed investigations into the case, and the Ningbo Municipal People's Procuratorate and the Ninghai County People's Procuratorate have successively reviewed and prosecuted the case.

For such a long time, I have learned that the Ninghai County Public Security Bureau and the Ningbo Municipal Public Security Bureau have investigated this case in accordance with the "Zhejiang "Plot Loan" Minutes", and the Ningbo Municipal People's Procuratorate and the Ninghai County People's Procuratorate have also examined and prosecuted this case in accordance with the "Zhejiang "Plot Loan" Minutes". After the case is prosecuted to the Ninghai County People's Court, it will also be tried in accordance with the "Zhejiang "Plot Loan" Minutes.

I believe that the "Minutes of Zhejiang's "Plot Loan"" violates Article 119 of the "Legislation Law". The defense lawyer and I and the father of the child have submitted review suggestions to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, the Standing Committee of the Zhejiang Provincial People's Congress, the Zhejiang Higher People's Court, the Zhejiang Provincial People's Procuratorate, and the Zhejiang Provincial Public Security Department, requesting relevant departments to review the legal effect of the "Minutes of Zhejiang's "Plot Loan"". The Legal Affairs Committee of the Standing Committee of the Zhejiang Provincial People's Congress and the Zhejiang Provincial People's Procuratorate notified Han Zheng's family in writing or by text message that the "Minutes of Zhejiang's "Plot Loan"" was abolished in early 2021.

I was very surprised when I learned about this! This means that from June 2, 2023, the Ninghai County Public Security Bureau, Ningbo Municipal Public Security Bureau, Ningbo Municipal People's Procuratorate, and Ninghai County People's Procuratorate have been handling this case in accordance with an abolished document. How absurd! What is even more surprising is that the Ninghai political and legal authorities actually held a "political and legal meeting" to keep this case on the wrong path!

(II) The Ningbo Intermediate People’s Court illegally instructed the Ninghai People’s Court to continue to wrongly pursue criminal responsibility for the crimes of fraud and provoking disturbances against the defendants in the Han Zheng case

According to insiders, after the defenders reported to the Ninghai County People's Court and the Ninghai County People's Procuratorate that the "Minutes of Zhejiang's "Routine Loans"" had been abolished in early 2021 and should not continue to apply, the Ninghai Court learned that the defenders and the parties had major objections to the characterization of the crimes of fraud and provoking disturbances, and communicated with the Ningbo Intermediate Court. The opinion of the Ningbo Intermediate Court is that it was previously sentenced for fraud, but now it has been changed to illegal business operations, and the case is unbalanced. The Ningbo Intermediate Court disregarded the provisions of the law and, without fully understanding the facts and evidence, made a mistake for the sake of departmental self-interest. In order to balance this case with the cases that were previously judged in accordance with the "Minutes of Zhejiang's "Routine Loans", the Ningbo Intermediate Court illegally instructed the Ninghai Court to continue to determine the crime according to the wrong charges, which in fact has deprived the parties of their right to appeal. Therefore, this case is no longer possible to get a fair trial within Ningbo.

(III) The basic consensus reached in my country’s judicial practice: The nature of Han Zheng’s behavior should be evaluated as illegal business operations

Since the "Zhejiang "Ponzi Loan" Minutes" has been suspended in September 2021, it should no longer be used as the legal basis for handling the Han Zheng case. To determine whether this case is a "ponzi loan" and whether it constitutes fraud, we should return to Article 266 of the Criminal Law and the relevant provisions of the "Ponzi Loan" Opinions. The defense attorney retrieved and collected the first-instance judgments of nine criminal cases of the same type as the Han Zheng case: (1) Criminal Judgment No. (2021) Jing0105 Xingchu 93 of the Chaoyang District People's Court of Beijing; (2) Criminal Judgment No. (2023) Hu0115 Xingchu 299 of the Pudong New Area People's Court of Shanghai; (3) Criminal Judgment No. (2020) Zhejiang 0683 Xingchu 457 of the Shengzhou People's Court of Zhejiang Province; (4) Criminal Judgment No. (2021) Zhejiang 0681 Xingchu 445 of the Zhuji People's Court of Zhejiang Province; (5) Criminal judgment No. (2020) Yue 1284 Xingchu 268 of the People's Court of Sihui City, Guangdong Province; (6) Criminal judgment No. (2020) Yue 1203 Xingchu 89 of the People's Court of Dinghu District, Zhaoqing City, Guangdong Province; (7) Criminal judgment No. (2020) Su 0923 Xingchu 537 of the People's Court of Funing County, Jiangsu Province; (8) Criminal judgment No. (2020) Min 0723 Xingchu 46 of the People's Court of Guangze County, Fujian Province; (9) Criminal judgment No. (2021) Yu 0102 Xingchu 6 of the People's Court of Zhongyuan District, Zhengzhou City, Henan Province.

The above-mentioned 9 verdicts show that judicial authorities in Beijing, Shanghai, Zhejiang Shengzhou, Zhejiang Zhuji, Fujian, Henan, Guangdong, Jiangsu and other places have reached a basic consensus: the behavior type in Han Zheng's case constitutes the crime of illegal business operation, and the vast majority of the people's courts in the above-mentioned places did not separately convict and punish illegal debt collection behavior. Only the Zhuji Municipal People's Court characterized the illegal debt collection behavior as the crime of collecting illegal debts. More importantly, the people's courts in the above-mentioned places did not identify such cases as crimes involving gangs and evil.

In summary, I believe that this case has been "judged before trial" in Ninghai and Ningbo, and has already been concluded, and it is impossible for it to be heard fairly. Today, I came to your court with the father of the child and the six lawyers who defended the parties in this case, and solemnly request that your court designate a court outside Ningbo to hear the four cases of fraud and provoking disturbances against Han Zheng and 21 others in accordance with the law, so as to ensure that the court can maintain an objective and fair position, correctly determine the facts, accurately apply the law, and ensure that the case is heard fairly and impartially.

Requester: Zong Guohua

August 26, 2024

(Han Zheng's father and mother)