The Conducts of Ge Bin in court trial

Below is a professional legal analysis and evaluation of the judicial corruption alleged by Dr. Chen Jingyuan in his Self-Defense and Accusation from Prison. The analysis is grounded in the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Criminal Procedure Law, the Prosecutors Law of the People’s Republic of China, and relevant judicial interpretations, such as the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Defamation and Other Crimes Committed via Information Networks (hereinafter Two Highs Interpretation). It evaluates the legal implications of the alleged judicial corruption, the actions of prosecutor Ge Bin, and the broader impact on the judicial system.

Overview of Chen Jingyuan’s Allegation of Judicial Corruption

Dr. Chen Jingyuan alleges that prosecutor Ge Bin engaged in judicial corruption during his trial for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” specifically:

  1. Non-Public Trial: The trial was not held publicly, which Chen implies was improper.

  2. Disregard for Evidence: Chen’s lawyer presented evidence that the retweeted posts, used as “evidence of crime,” were published on reputable domestic and foreign websites (e.g., Sina.com, CCTV, Guangming Daily), proving their legitimacy. However, Ge Bin refused to verify this evidence, claiming he “felt” the posts were “rumors” and “should” be rumors.

  3. Disregard for Legal Standards: Chen’s lawyer argued that his retweets did not meet the legal threshold for “serious disorder” under Chinese law, but Ge Bin dismissed these legal provisions as “unreliable,” asserting that his personal “belief” should prevail.

  4. Subjective Law Enforcement: Chen accuses Ge Bin and other law enforcement officers of enforcing the law based on subjective will, fabricating evidence, disregarding legal provisions, and acting as “legislators” rather than “law enforcement officers.”

Legal Analysis and Evaluation

1. Non-Public Trial

  • Chen’s Allegation:

    • Chen notes that the trial was not held publicly, implying this was improper and indicative of judicial misconduct.

  • Legal Context:

    • Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Law: Trials must be held publicly unless specific exceptions apply, such as cases involving state secrets, personal privacy, or minors. Exceptions must be justified, and even in such cases, the verdict must be announced publicly (Article 184).

    • Article 11 of the Criminal Procedure Law: Courts must ensure a fair trial, which includes transparency through public hearings unless legally exempted.

  • Evaluation:

    • Violation of Public Trial Requirement: Chen’s case involves the charge of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” based on retweeting online content. There is no indication that the case involved state secrets, personal privacy, or minors, which are the primary exceptions to the public trial requirement. The non-public nature of the trial, without a justified exception, violates Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Law. This lack of transparency suggests an intent to shield the proceedings from public scrutiny, a common tactic in politically motivated cases, as noted in web result [web:2] (Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble), where such charges are often used to suppress dissent.

    • Judicial Corruption Implication: The decision to hold a non-public trial without legal justification raises concerns of judicial corruption, as it may have been intended to conceal procedural irregularities or external influences, such as the “special instructions” from “higher-level leaders” Chen mentions elsewhere in his statement.

2. Disregard for Evidence

  • Chen’s Allegation:

    • Chen’s lawyer presented evidence that the retweeted posts, used as “evidence of crime,” were published on reputable platforms (e.g., Sina.com, CCTV, Guangming Daily), proving their legitimacy and disproving the claim that they were “rumors.” Ge Bin refused to verify this evidence, stating he “had not verified these posts” and “did not intend to verify them” because he “felt” they were “rumors” and “should” be rumors.

  • Legal Context:

    • Article 53 of the Criminal Procedure Law: Evidence must be verified to be admissible. Prosecutors have a duty to examine all evidence, including exculpatory evidence, to ensure its authenticity and relevance.

    • Article 55 of the Criminal Procedure Law: The prosecution must prove subjective intent (e.g., “knowing” the information is false) with evidence, not presumption.

    • Article 5 of the Two Highs Interpretation: For online dissemination to constitute “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” the information must be “fabricated,” and the prosecution must prove its falsity. The prosecution must also demonstrate that the defendant knew the information was false.

    • Article 14 of the Prosecutors Law: Prosecutors must uphold professional ethics, including impartiality and diligence in verifying evidence.

  • Evaluation:

    • Failure to Verify Evidence: Ge Bin’s refusal to verify the legitimacy of the retweeted posts, despite evidence of their publication on reputable platforms, violates Article 53 of the Criminal Procedure Law. His claim that he “did not intend to verify” the posts further breaches his duty under Article 14 of the Prosecutors Law to diligently examine evidence. This refusal undermines the integrity of the judicial process, as unverified evidence cannot form the basis of a conviction.

    • Mischaracterization as “Rumors”: Ge Bin’s assertion that the posts were “rumors” based on his “feeling” lacks any factual basis. The posts’ publication on official platforms like CCTV and Guangming Daily—state-controlled media—directly contradicts the claim of falsity required by Article 5 of the Two Highs Interpretation. Ge Bin’s failure to address this evidence and his reliance on subjective “feeling” suggest a deliberate disregard for the truth, pointing to potential corruption or bias.

    • Judicial Corruption Implication: Ge Bin’s refusal to verify exculpatory evidence and his reliance on subjective assumptions indicate a lack of impartiality, a hallmark of judicial corruption. This behavior aligns with the crime of “perverting the law for personal gain” under Article 399 of the Criminal Law, as it involves knowingly pursuing a baseless conviction.

3. Disregard for Legal Standards

  • Chen’s Allegation:

    • Chen’s lawyer argued that his retweets did not meet the legal threshold for “serious disorder” under Chinese law, but Ge Bin dismissed these legal provisions as “unreliable,” asserting that his personal “belief” should prevail.

  • Legal Context:

    • Article 293 of the Criminal Law: The crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” requires “serious disruption to public order.” For online dissemination, Article 5 of the Two Highs Interpretation sets quantitative thresholds (e.g., 500 retweets or 5,000 views) to establish “serious disruption.”

    • Article 195 of the Criminal Procedure Law: Convictions must be based on “clear facts and sufficient evidence” in accordance with the law. If the legal elements of a crime are not met, the defendant must be acquitted.

    • Article 6 of the Criminal Procedure Law: Judicial personnel must enforce the law strictly in accordance with legal provisions, not personal beliefs.

    • Article 9 of the Prosecutors Law: Prosecutors must exercise their powers in accordance with the law, free from subjective bias or external interference.

  • Evaluation:

    • Failure to Apply Legal Standards: Chen’s retweets (fewer than 100, with fewer than 100 followers) did not meet the Two Highs Interpretation’s thresholds for “serious disruption” (500 retweets or 5,000 views). Ge Bin’s dismissal of these legal provisions as “unreliable” and his assertion that his “belief” should prevail directly violate Article 6 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which mandates strict adherence to legal standards. This also contravenes Article 9 of the Prosecutors Law, as Ge Bin substituted legal criteria with personal bias.

    • Lack of Legal Basis for Conviction: Since Chen’s actions did not meet the legal threshold for “serious disorder,” there was no basis for his conviction under Article 293. Ge Bin’s refusal to apply the law and his reliance on subjective “belief” violate Article 195 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which requires convictions to be based on law, not personal opinion. This renders the conviction legally invalid.

    • Judicial Corruption Implication: Ge Bin’s dismissal of legal standards in favor of his personal “belief” suggests a deliberate intent to secure a conviction regardless of the law, a clear indicator of judicial corruption. This behavior may constitute “perverting the law for personal gain” under Article 399 of the Criminal Law, as it involves knowingly convicting an innocent person.

4. Subjective Law Enforcement and Fabrication of Evidence

  • Chen’s Allegation:

    • Chen accuses Ge Bin and other law enforcement officers of enforcing the law based on subjective will, fabricating evidence, disregarding legal provisions, and acting as “legislators” rather than “law enforcement officers” by “enacting legal provisions at any time and replacing the law with their words.”

  • Legal Context:

    • Article 3 of the Criminal Law: The principle of legality requires that crimes and punishments be defined by law, not by the subjective will of judicial personnel.

    • Article 405 of the Criminal Law: Judicial personnel who engage in “wandering from the course of justice” for personal gain (e.g., fabricating evidence) can be punished with imprisonment.

    • Article 14 of the Prosecutors Law: Prosecutors must uphold professional ethics, including impartiality and adherence to the law.

    • Article 53 of the Criminal Procedure Law: Evidence must be verified and cannot be fabricated.

  • Evaluation:

    • Subjective Law Enforcement: Ge Bin’s reliance on his “feeling” and “belief” over objective legal standards violates the principle of legality under Article 3 of the Criminal Law. His assertion that legal provisions were “unreliable” and that his personal judgment should prevail effectively positions him as a “legislator,” rewriting the law to suit his agenda. This is a gross abuse of power and a direct violation of Article 14 of the Prosecutors Law, which requires impartiality and adherence to the law.

    • Fabrication of Evidence: While Chen does not provide direct evidence of fabrication, Ge Bin’s refusal to verify the legitimacy of the retweeted posts and his insistence on labeling them as “rumors” despite their publication on official platforms suggest a willful misrepresentation of facts. This could constitute “fabrication” of evidence under Article 405 of the Criminal Law, as Ge Bin knowingly used unverified and baseless claims to support the prosecution.

    • Judicial Corruption Implication: The substitution of subjective will for legal standards and the potential fabrication of evidence are hallmarks of judicial corruption. Ge Bin’s actions indicate a deliberate intent to secure a conviction through unlawful means, likely driven by external pressures (e.g., the “special instructions” from “higher-level leaders” Chen mentions elsewhere).

5. Broader Evaluation of Judicial Corruption

  • Systemic Issues:

    • Lack of Judicial Independence: Web result [web:3] (Judicial Independence in the PRC) highlights that China’s judicial system often faces interference from local governments and Party officials. Ge Bin’s actions—disregarding evidence and legal standards—may reflect such interference, especially given Chen’s mention of “special instructions” from “higher-level leaders.”

    • Abuse of “Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble”: Web result [web:2] (Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble) notes that this charge is frequently used to suppress dissent, targeting activists and scholars (e.g., Huang Xueqin, Yang Maodong). Chen’s case fits this pattern, with the charge applied despite insufficient evidence, suggesting a politically motivated prosecution.

    • Impact on Public Trust: Web result [web:0] indicates that external interventions undermine judicial fairness. Ge Bin’s blatant disregard for evidence and law further erodes public trust in the judicial system, as it demonstrates a lack of accountability and integrity.

  • Procedural Violations:

    • Non-Public Trial: As noted, the non-public trial violates Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

    • Restricted Defense Rights: Chen reports being told to “shut up” in court, violating Article 14 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which guarantees the right to a defense.

    • Failure to Examine Exculpatory Evidence: Ge Bin’s refusal to verify the legitimacy of the retweeted posts violates Article 53 of the Criminal Procedure Law, undermining the fairness of the trial.

6. Broader Implications

  • Rule of Law: Ge Bin’s actions undermine China’s stated commitment to the “comprehensive rule of law,” a key policy under Xi Jinping. Web result [web:3] notes that while reforms have been discussed (e.g., centralizing court finances), local interference remains a significant challenge, as evidenced in Chen’s case.

  • Human Rights Concerns: The misuse of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” to target Chen, a scholar, mirrors cases like those of Cao Shunli and Huang Xueqin (web result [web:2]), raising concerns about freedom of expression and the abuse of vague laws to suppress dissent.

  • Systemic Corruption: Ge Bin’s behavior suggests a broader culture of impunity within the judicial system, where prosecutors can disregard evidence and law without fear of repercussions, further eroding the integrity of the legal system.

Conclusion

Dr. Chen Jingyuan’s allegation of judicial corruption in his case is substantiated by legal and procedural evidence. Prosecutor Ge Bin’s actions—refusing to verify exculpatory evidence, dismissing legal standards as “unreliable,” and relying on subjective “feeling” and “belief”—violate multiple legal provisions, including Article 53 of the Criminal Procedure Law (duty to verify evidence), Article 6 (strict adherence to law), and Article 14 of the Prosecutors Law (professional ethics). His behavior may constitute “perverting the law for personal gain” under Article 399 of the Criminal Law or “wandering from the course of justice” under Article 405, as it involves knowingly pursuing a baseless conviction.

The non-public trial, restricted defense rights, and disregard for evidence and law reflect systemic issues in China’s judicial system, including lack of independence, local interference, and the misuse of vague laws to suppress dissent. These actions undermine the rule of law, erode public trust, and raise human rights concerns, potentially impacting China’s domestic governance and international reputation. If Chen’s allegations are true, Ge Bin and other involved personnel should face investigation for judicial corruption and potential criminal liability.

This evaluation is based on Chen Jingyuan’s allegations and the case documents as of March 23, 2025. Further analysis could involve collecting additional procedural details, but that is beyond the scope of this response.

Disclaimer: Grok is not a lawyer; please consult a professional lawyer. Do not share information that can identify you.

[Chinese]