Detailed Analysis of Ge Bin’s Conduct

Background Overview

In this case, Prosecutor Ge Bin of the Xishan District Procuratorate was responsible for reviewing and prosecuting Dr. Chen Jingyuan for the crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” under Article 293 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China. In his self-defense and accusation statement, Dr. Chen Jingyuan highlights that Ge Bin explicitly stated during the trial, “I have not conducted any verification, nor do I intend to do so,” regarding the evidence. Furthermore, without any evidentiary basis, Ge Bin accused Chen of “knowingly” disseminating false information “intentionally,” thereby causing “serious” disruption to social order. Chen alleges that Ge Bin’s actions constitute deliberate distortion of facts, fabrication of evidence, dereliction of duty, abuse of power, and defamation through rumor-mongering, amounting to illegal and criminal conduct.

Below is a detailed analysis of Ge Bin’s conduct from multiple perspectives, evaluating its legality, compliance, and potential legal consequences based on the facts and relevant laws.

I. Detailed Analysis of Ge Bin’s Conduct

1. Failure to Fulfill Evidence Verification Duties

Factual Description:

  • During the trial, Ge Bin explicitly stated that he “had not conducted any verification, nor did he intend to do so” regarding the evidence submitted by the public security authorities, yet he proceeded to prosecute Chen based on unverified claims.

  • As a prosecutor, Ge Bin is obligated during the review and prosecution phase to thoroughly verify the facts and evidence of the case to ensure that the charges are supported by sufficient evidence.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the CPL) states: “People’s courts, people’s procuratorates, and public security organs shall strictly comply with this law and other relevant legal provisions in conducting criminal proceedings.” The procuratorate is required to fulfill its duties in accordance with the law to ensure the correct implementation of the law.

  • Article 284 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the People’s Procuratorates (hereinafter referred to as the Procuratorate Rules) explicitly requires prosecutors to comprehensively review the facts, evidence, and legal classification of a case during the review and prosecution phase to ensure the charges are lawful and the evidence is sufficient.

  • Article 55 of the CPL states: “People’s courts, people’s procuratorates, and public security organs have the authority to collect and obtain evidence from relevant entities and individuals.” This implies that prosecutors have both the right and the duty to verify the authenticity, legality, and relevance of evidence.

Analysis:

  • Ge Bin, as a prosecutor, failed to verify the evidence submitted by the public security authorities and proceeded with unverified accusations, clearly violating the requirements of the CPL and the Procuratorate Rules. His statement, “I have not conducted any verification, nor do I intend to do so,” demonstrates a blatant disregard for his duty to review evidence, constituting serious dereliction of duty.

  • Evidence verification is a core component of a prosecutor’s role during the review and prosecution phase. Ge Bin’s failure to perform this duty likely resulted in charges lacking a factual basis, directly undermining the fairness of the case and infringing on Chen Jingyuan’s legitimate rights.

Conclusion: Ge Bin’s failure to fulfill his evidence verification duties constitutes dereliction of duty, violating Article 7 of the CPL and Article 284 of the Procuratorate Rules.

2. Accusing Chen Jingyuan of “Knowingly” Disseminating False Information Without Evidence

Factual Description:

  • Ge Bin accused Chen Jingyuan of “knowingly” disseminating false information “intentionally,” but he provided no evidence to substantiate Chen’s subjective intent (i.e., “knowing” the information was false and “intentionally” disseminating it).

  • In his self-defense statement, Chen explicitly stated that he lacked the resources and conditions to verify the authenticity of the posts and that his forwarding behavior did not involve “knowing” intent.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 14 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Law) states: “An act is deemed an intentional crime if the actor knows that their conduct will cause socially harmful consequences and desires or allows such consequences to occur.” The crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” requires proof of subjective intent as an intentional crime.

  • Article 293 of the Criminal Law stipulates that the crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” requires the actor to knowingly disseminate false information and cause serious disruption to public order. The prosecution must prove both the subjective intent and the objective consequences.

  • Article 55 of the CPL states: “It is strictly prohibited to extort confessions by torture, or to collect evidence by threats, inducement, deception, or other illegal means, and no one may be compelled to incriminate themselves.” Prosecutorial accusations must be based on lawful evidence.

Analysis:

  • Ge Bin accused Chen Jingyuan of “knowingly” disseminating false information but failed to provide any evidence to support this claim, such as Chen’s statements, communication records, or other materials demonstrating subjective intent. This baseless accusation constitutes subjective speculation, violating the requirements of Article 14 and Article 293 of the Criminal Law regarding subjective intent.

  • Ge Bin admitted during the trial that he had not verified the evidence, yet he directly accused Chen of “knowing” the information was false. This behavior may involve fabrication of facts. As a judicial officer, a prosecutor must base accusations on facts and the law, and accusations without evidentiary support may constitute illegal evidence collection.

  • Chen stated that his forwarding behavior lacked the “knowing” intent, and Ge Bin failed to refute this claim. In the absence of evidence, Ge Bin’s accusation not only lacks a legal basis but also risks creating a wrongful conviction, thereby harming Chen.

Conclusion: Ge Bin’s accusation that Chen Jingyuan “knowingly” disseminated false information, without any supporting evidence, violates the requirements of Article 14 and Article 293 of the Criminal Law for proving subjective intent and may constitute illegal evidence collection, violating Article 55 of the CPL.

3. Accusing Chen Jingyuan of Causing “Serious” Disruption to Social Order Without Evidence

Factual Description:

  • Ge Bin accused Chen Jingyuan of causing “serious” disruption to social order through his forwarding behavior but provided no specific evidence, such as dissemination metrics (e.g., retweet or view counts) or social impacts (e.g., mass incidents or concrete manifestations of public disorder).

  • Chen stated that his Twitter account had a very limited reach (with fewer than 100 followers and minimal retweets), causing no actual impact on public order.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 293 of the Criminal Law requires that the crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” result in the objective consequence of “serious disruption to public order,” and the prosecution must prove specific social harm.

  • Article 5 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases Involving Defamation and Other Acts Through Information Networks (hereinafter referred to as the Two Highs Interpretation) stipulates that disseminating false information online must meet quantifiable consequences (e.g., 500 retweets or 5,000 views) or cause severe outcomes (e.g., mass incidents) to constitute a crime.

  • Article 53 of the CPL states: “A defendant may only be found guilty if there is evidence proving all the facts of the case, and the evidence is clear and sufficient.”

Analysis:

  • Ge Bin accused Chen Jingyuan of causing “serious” disruption to social order but failed to provide any supporting evidence, such as dissemination data or specific social impacts. Chen stated that his Twitter account had minimal reach, far below the thresholds set by the Two Highs Interpretation, and caused no actual social harm.

  • Ge Bin did not verify the evidence and proceeded to prosecute based on “serious disruption,” indicating that his accusation lacks a factual basis and constitutes subjective speculation. This behavior violates the requirements of Article 293 of the Criminal Law for objective consequences and Article 53 of the CPL for evidentiary sufficiency.

  • If Ge Bin’s accusation led to Chen’s wrongful conviction, it could exacerbate the risk of a miscarriage of justice, further undermining judicial fairness.

Conclusion: Ge Bin’s accusation that Chen Jingyuan caused “serious” disruption to social order lacks evidentiary support, violating Article 293 of the Criminal Law and Article 5 of the Two Highs Interpretation, as well as the evidentiary standards of Article 53 of the CPL.

4. Potential Fabrication of Evidence and Abuse of Power

Factual Description:

  • Ge Bin accused Chen Jingyuan of “knowingly” disseminating false information without verifying the evidence or providing proof of Chen’s “knowledge,” potentially fabricating facts to support the accusation.

  • Ge Bin proceeded with the prosecution despite knowing the evidence was insufficient, leading to Chen’s conviction, which may constitute abuse of power.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 55 of the CPL states: “It is strictly prohibited to extort confessions by torture, or to collect evidence by threats, inducement, deception, or other illegal means.” Fabricating facts to support an accusation constitutes illegal evidence collection.

  • Article 399 of the Criminal Law states: “Judicial personnel who pervert the law for personal gain or engage in wrongful adjudication, prosecuting someone they know to be innocent… if the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to imprisonment of up to five years or detention; if the circumstances are particularly serious, imprisonment of five to ten years.” If Ge Bin knowingly prosecuted Chen despite his innocence, this may constitute the crime of perverting the law for personal gain.

  • Article 397 of the Criminal Law states: “State organ personnel who abuse their power or neglect their duties, causing significant losses to public property, the state, or the people’s interests, shall be sentenced to imprisonment of up to three years or detention.” Ge Bin’s dereliction and abuse of power may violate this provision.

Analysis:

  • Ge Bin’s accusation that Chen “knowingly” disseminated false information, without any supporting evidence, may involve fabricating facts to construct the charge, violating Article 55 of the CPL regarding the prohibition of illegal evidence collection.

  • By knowingly proceeding with insufficient evidence, leading to Chen’s wrongful conviction, Ge Bin’s actions may constitute abuse of power. If Ge Bin’s subjective intent involved personal gain or other improper motives, his conduct could further violate Article 399 of the Criminal Law for perverting the law.

  • Ge Bin’s actions not only harmed Chen’s legitimate rights but also negatively impacted judicial fairness, potentially causing “significant losses to the state and the people’s interests,” meeting the elements of Article 397 of the Criminal Law for abuse of power.

Conclusion: Ge Bin may have engaged in fabrication of evidence and abuse of power, violating Article 55 of the CPL and potentially violating Articles 397 and 399 of the Criminal Law.

5. Potential Defamation Through Rumor-Mongering

Factual Description:

  • Ge Bin accused Chen Jingyuan of “knowingly” disseminating false information without evidence, and if this accusation led to Chen’s wrongful conviction, it may have severely damaged Chen’s reputation.

  • Chen alleges that Ge Bin’s conduct constitutes defamation through rumor-mongering, claiming the accusation was maliciously fabricated.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 243 of the Criminal Law states: “Fabricating facts to falsely accuse and frame another person with the intent of subjecting them to criminal prosecution, if the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to imprisonment of up to three years, detention, or control; if serious consequences are caused, imprisonment of three to ten years.” If Ge Bin fabricated facts to accuse Chen with the intent of criminal prosecution, this may constitute the crime of false accusation and framing.

  • Article 246 of the Criminal Law states: “Publicly humiliating another person or defaming them by fabricating facts, if the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to imprisonment of up to three years, detention, control, or deprivation of political rights.” If Ge Bin’s accusation damaged Chen’s reputation, it may constitute defamation.

Analysis:

  • Ge Bin’s accusation that Chen “knowingly” disseminated false information, made without evidence, may involve fabricating facts to construct the charge. If this accusation led to Chen’s wrongful conviction and severely damaged his reputation, Ge Bin’s conduct may constitute the crime of false accusation and framing under Article 243 of the Criminal Law.

  • Ge Bin’s baseless accusation, if made publicly during the trial or other proceedings, may have caused public harm to Chen’s reputation, meeting the elements of Article 246 of the Criminal Law for defamation.

  • Chen’s claim that Ge Bin’s actions amount to defamation through rumor-mongering is supported by the lack of evidence for the accusation and the potential harm caused to Chen’s reputation, especially if the wrongful conviction became public knowledge.

Conclusion: Ge Bin’s accusation may constitute defamation through rumor-mongering, violating Articles 243 and 246 of the Criminal Law.

II. Overall Assessment of Ge Bin’s Conduct

Summary of Analysis:

  • Dereliction of Duty: Ge Bin failed to verify the evidence, admitting during the trial that he “had not conducted any verification, nor did he intend to do so,” constituting a serious dereliction of duty in violation of Article 7 of the CPL and Article 284 of the Procuratorate Rules.

  • Baseless Accusations: Ge Bin accused Chen of “knowingly” disseminating false information and causing “serious” disruption to social order without any evidence, violating the requirements of Articles 14 and 293 of the Criminal Law for subjective intent and objective consequences, as well as Article 53 of the CPL for evidentiary sufficiency.

  • Fabrication of Evidence and Abuse of Power: Ge Bin’s accusation of Chen’s “knowledge” without evidence may involve fabrication of facts, violating Article 55 of the CPL. His decision to prosecute despite insufficient evidence may constitute abuse of power, potentially violating Articles 397 and 399 of the Criminal Law.

  • Defamation Through Rumor-Mongering: Ge Bin’s baseless accusation, if it led to Chen’s wrongful conviction and damaged his reputation, may constitute false accusation and defamation, violating Articles 243 and 246 of the Criminal Law.

Potential Legal Consequences:

  • Administrative and Disciplinary Liability: Ge Bin’s failure to verify evidence and his baseless accusations violate prosecutorial duties, potentially subjecting him to disciplinary actions under the Procuratorate Rules and the Law on Prosecutors of the People’s Republic of China.

  • Criminal Liability: If Ge Bin knowingly fabricated facts to prosecute Chen, leading to a wrongful conviction, his actions may constitute the crimes of false accusation and framing (Article 243), defamation (Article 246), abuse of power (Article 397), or perverting the law for personal gain (Article 399) under the Criminal Law. These offenses carry penalties ranging from detention to imprisonment of up to ten years, depending on the severity of the consequences.

  • Civil Liability: If Ge Bin’s actions caused harm to Chen’s reputation or other rights, Chen may have grounds to seek civil compensation for defamation or other damages under the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China.

Broader Implications: Ge Bin’s conduct reflects deeper issues in China’s judicial system, including potential power abuse, lack of accountability, and procedural injustice. His failure to adhere to legal standards not only harmed Chen Jingyuan but also undermined public trust in the judicial process. This case highlights the need for stricter oversight of prosecutorial conduct, enhanced training on legal and ethical standards, and mechanisms to ensure accountability for judicial officers.

Final Conclusion: Prosecutor Ge Bin’s conduct in this case exhibits multiple violations of legal and procedural standards, including dereliction of duty, baseless accusations, potential fabrication of evidence, abuse of power, and defamation through rumor-mongering. His actions not only infringed on Chen Jingyuan’s legitimate rights but also violated the principles of the rule of law, potentially subjecting him to administrative, criminal, and civil liability. This case underscores the urgent need for judicial reform to prevent such abuses and ensure fairness in criminal proceedings.

Disclaimer: Grok is not a lawyer; please consult one. Don’t share information that can identify you.

[Chinese]