Illegal accusations of the indictment

Analysis of Dr. Chen Jingyuan’s Case and the Deficiencies and Errors in the Kunming Authorities’ Enforcement Actions

Case Background Overview

In this case, Dr. Chen Jingyuan was convicted by the Kunming public security and judicial system of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” under Article 293 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China. The indictment reveals that the public security criminal investigation department provided only a vague determination that Chen “disseminated false information and disrupted social order,” without presenting specific, objective factual evidence. The procuratorate further accused Chen, without any basis, of “knowingly” disseminating false information “intentionally” and causing “serious” disruption to social order. Additionally, during the trial, Prosecutor Ge Bin of the Xishan District Procuratorate explicitly stated that he “had not conducted any verification and had no intention of doing so.” Chen argues that these facts clearly demonstrate that Prosecutor Ge Bin and other prosecutors engaged in deliberate distortion of facts, fabrication of evidence, dereliction of duty, abuse of power, and defamation through rumor-mongering, constituting illegal and criminal acts.

Comment on the Case Facts

Dr. Chen Jingyuan’s analysis and accusations regarding the enforcement actions in this case directly highlight severe issues in the conduct of the public security and procuratorate authorities, and his arguments are grounded in both reason and legal principles. Below is a detailed comment on the case facts:

  1. Vagueness of Evidence from Public Security:

    • The public security criminal investigation department’s vague determination of “disseminating false information and disrupting social order” lacks specific, objective factual evidence. Article 293 of the Criminal Law requires proof that the defendant disseminated false information and caused “serious disruption to public order.” However, the public security failed to provide specific data on dissemination (e.g., retweet or view counts) or concrete social impacts (e.g., mass incidents). This vague accusation does not meet the legal requirements for the crime.

    • The vagueness of the evidence likely reflects a perfunctory approach to evidence collection by the public security, failing to adhere to the principle of clear and sufficient evidence as required by the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the CPL).

  2. Arbitrariness of the Procuratorate’s Accusations:

    • The procuratorate accused Chen of “knowingly” disseminating false information “intentionally” and causing “serious” disruption to social order, without providing any evidence to support the subjective elements of “knowledge” and “intent” or the objective element of “serious” disruption. Article 293 of the Criminal Law requires proof of subjective intent (i.e., “knowing” the information is false and “intentionally” disseminating it) and a “serious” consequence to public order. The procuratorate’s failure to provide evidence for these elements renders the accusation baseless and speculative.

    • The procuratorate’s accusations not only lack evidentiary support but also potentially involve a misinterpretation of the legal requirements, demonstrating arbitrariness and unprofessionalism in the enforcement process.

  3. Prosecutor Ge Bin’s Dereliction of Duty:

    • Prosecutor Ge Bin’s explicit statement during the trial that he “had not conducted any verification and had no intention of doing so” blatantly violates the duties required of a prosecutor under the CPL. As a public prosecutor, Ge Bin is obligated to thoroughly verify the facts of the case to ensure that charges are supported by sufficient evidence. His admission of failing to verify evidence and proceeding with unverified accusations against Chen constitutes dereliction of duty.

    • Ge Bin’s accusation that Chen “knew” the information was false, without any supporting evidence, may amount to fabrication of facts. If this accusation led to Chen’s wrongful conviction, Ge Bin’s actions could further constitute defamation through rumor-mongering.

  4. Illegality of Enforcement Actions:

    • Chen’s accusation that Ge Bin and other prosecutors deliberately distorted facts, fabricated evidence, neglected their duties, abused their power, and engaged in defamation through rumor-mongering is supported by the facts of the case. Ge Bin’s failure to verify evidence while proceeding with accusations violates Article 55 of the CPL, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence. If Ge Bin knowingly proceeded with insufficient evidence, his actions may constitute the crime of “false accusation and framing” under Article 243 of the Criminal Law or “perverting the law for personal gain” under Article 399.

    • The overall enforcement actions by the public security and procuratorate lack transparency and legality, failing to adhere to the principles of the rule of law and severely infringing on Chen’s legitimate rights.

Summary of Comment: Dr. Chen Jingyuan’s analysis of the enforcement actions in this case reveals significant issues in evidence collection, the basis for accusations, and the enforcement process. The public security’s vague determination, the procuratorate’s arbitrary accusations, and Prosecutor Ge Bin’s dereliction of duty collectively constitute a deviation from the principles of the rule of law. Chen’s accusations against Ge Bin and other prosecutors for illegal conduct are reasonable, reflecting broader issues of power abuse and procedural injustice in China’s judicial practice.

Deficiencies and Errors in the Kunming Authorities’ Enforcement Actions

The enforcement actions by the Kunming public security and judicial system in this case exhibit the following significant deficiencies and errors:

1. Lack of Specific, Objective Evidence

Issue:

  • The public security criminal investigation department provided only a vague determination of “disseminating false information and disrupting social order,” without specific factual evidence such as the content of the alleged false information, dissemination metrics (e.g., retweet or view counts), or concrete manifestations of social disorder.

  • The Two Highs Interpretation explicitly requires quantifiable consequences for online dissemination of false information (e.g., 500 retweets or 5,000 views) or severe outcomes (e.g., mass incidents), which the public security failed to provide.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 53 of the CPL requires that a conviction be based on clear and sufficient evidence, ruling out reasonable doubt. The public security provided no specific evidence, violating this principle.

  • Article 293 of the Criminal Law requires proof of an objective consequence of “serious disruption to public order,” which the public security’s vague determination fails to satisfy.

Conclusion: The public security’s accusation lacks specific, objective evidence, violating the evidentiary standards of the CPL and the elements of Article 293 of the Criminal Law.

2. Baseless Accusations by the Procuratorate

Issue:

  • The procuratorate accused Chen of “knowingly” disseminating false information “intentionally” and causing “serious” disruption to social order, without providing any evidence to support the subjective elements of “knowledge” and “intent” or the objective element of “serious” disruption.

  • This accusation is speculative and lacks factual or legal basis.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 14 of the Criminal Law states that an intentional crime requires the actor to know their actions will cause harm to society and to desire or allow such harm to occur. The procuratorate failed to prove Chen’s subjective intent.

  • Article 293 of the Criminal Law requires proof of “serious disruption to public order,” which the procuratorate did not substantiate with evidence.

Conclusion: The procuratorate’s accusation lacks factual and legal basis, violating the requirements of the Criminal Law for subjective intent and objective consequences.

3. Dereliction of Duty by Prosecutor Ge Bin

Issue:

  • Prosecutor Ge Bin explicitly stated during the trial that he “had not conducted any verification and had no intention of doing so,” indicating a failure to fulfill his duty to verify evidence and proceeding with unverified accusations against Chen.

  • As a public prosecutor, Ge Bin is obligated to thoroughly review the evidence in the case, and his admission demonstrates a serious dereliction of duty.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 7 of the CPL mandates that the procuratorate fulfill its duties in criminal proceedings in accordance with the law, ensuring the correct implementation of the law. Ge Bin’s failure to verify evidence violates this duty.

  • Article 284 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the People’s Procuratorates requires prosecutors to comprehensively review evidence during the prosecution phase, a requirement Ge Bin violated.

Conclusion: Prosecutor Ge Bin failed to fulfill his duty to verify evidence, constituting dereliction of duty in violation of the CPL and related regulations.

4. Fabrication of Evidence and Abuse of Power

Issue:

  • Prosecutor Ge Bin accused Chen of “knowing” the information was false without any supporting evidence, potentially fabricating facts to support the accusation.

  • If Ge Bin knowingly proceeded with insufficient evidence, his actions may constitute an abuse of power, leading to Chen’s wrongful conviction.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 55 of the CPL prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence. If Ge Bin fabricated facts to accuse Chen, this constitutes illegal evidence collection.

  • Article 399 of the Criminal Law states that judicial personnel who pervert the law for personal gain or abuse their power, causing harm to citizens’ rights, shall bear criminal liability. Ge Bin’s actions may violate this provision.

Conclusion: Prosecutor Ge Bin may have engaged in fabrication of evidence and abuse of power, violating the CPL and the Criminal Law.

5. Defamation Through Rumor-Mongering

Issue:

  • Prosecutor Ge Bin’s accusation that Chen “knew” the information was false, made without evidence, may constitute defamation against Chen. If this accusation led to Chen’s wrongful conviction, Ge Bin’s actions could further be classified as rumor-mongering.

  • Ge Bin’s baseless accusation, made without verification, may have severely damaged Chen’s reputation.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 243 of the Criminal Law states that fabricating facts to falsely accuse and frame another person with the intent of subjecting them to criminal prosecution, if the circumstances are serious, constitutes the crime of false accusation and framing. Ge Bin’s actions may violate this provision.

  • Article 246 of the Criminal Law states that fabricating facts to publicly insult or defame another person constitutes the crime of defamation. Ge Bin’s accusation may amount to defamation.

Conclusion: Prosecutor Ge Bin’s accusation may constitute defamation through rumor-mongering, violating the Criminal Law.

6. Violation of Constitutional Rights

Issue:

  • Chen was accused of “disseminating false information,” but the public security and procuratorate provided no specific evidence. His forwarding behavior falls within the scope of free speech protected by the Constitution. The authorities’ accusation and conviction infringe on Chen’s constitutional rights.

  • The authorities failed to demonstrate how Chen’s actions specifically harmed national interests or public order, as required to justify restricting his rights under Article 51 of the Constitution.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 35 of the Constitution guarantees citizens’ freedom of speech, which includes the right to forward and discuss information.

  • Article 51 of the Constitution allows for restrictions on rights, but such restrictions must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. The authorities did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the restriction.

Conclusion: The authorities’ actions violate Chen’s constitutional right to free speech, failing to justify the restriction of this right.

7. Lack of Procedural Justice

Issue:

  • The public security criminal investigation department provided no specific evidence, relying on a vague determination without a transparent evidence collection process.

  • Prosecutor Ge Bin proceeded with unverified accusations, violating the evidence review process.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 2 of the CPL mandates that criminal proceedings ensure the correct implementation of the law and protect citizens’ rights. The authorities’ failure to carefully verify evidence violates procedural justice.

  • Article 55 of the CPL prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence, which Ge Bin’s actions may violate.

Conclusion: The authorities lacked transparency and diligence in evidence verification, violating the procedural justice requirements of the CPL.

Overall Assessment

Comment on the Case Facts: Dr. Chen Jingyuan’s analysis of the enforcement actions in this case reveals significant issues in evidence collection, the basis for accusations, and the enforcement process. The public security’s vague determination, the procuratorate’s arbitrary accusations, and Prosecutor Ge Bin’s dereliction of duty collectively constitute a deviation from the principles of the rule of law. Chen’s accusations against Ge Bin and other prosecutors for illegal conduct are reasonable, reflecting broader issues of power abuse and procedural injustice in China’s judicial practice.

Deficiencies and Errors in Enforcement:

  • Lack of Evidence: The public security provided no specific evidence, relying on a vague determination, violating Article 53 of the CPL.

  • Baseless Accusations: The procuratorate failed to prove “knowledge,” “intent,” or “serious disruption,” violating Articles 14 and 293 of the Criminal Law.

  • Dereliction of Duty: Ge Bin failed to verify evidence, constituting dereliction of duty in violation of Article 7 of the CPL.

  • Fabrication and Abuse of Power: Ge Bin may have fabricated evidence and abused power, violating Article 55 of the CPL and Article 399 of the Criminal Law.

  • Defamation: Ge Bin’s accusation may constitute false accusation and defamation, violating Articles 243 and 246 of the Criminal Law.

  • Violation of Constitutional Rights: The authorities infringed on Chen’s free speech under Article 35 of the Constitution.

  • Lack of Procedural Justice: The authorities failed to verify evidence, violating the procedural justice requirements of the CPL.

Final Conclusion: The enforcement actions by the Kunming public security and judicial system in this case severely violate legal procedures and the principles of the rule of law, lacking specific evidentiary support and failing to meet the elements of Article 293 of the Criminal Law. Prosecutor Ge Bin’s failure to verify evidence while proceeding with baseless accusations constitutes dereliction of duty, potential fabrication of evidence, abuse of power, and defamation through rumor-mongering, amounting to serious illegal conduct. This case not only infringes on Chen’s legitimate rights but also reflects deeper issues of power abuse and procedural injustice in China’s judicial practice.

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

[Chinese]