DeepSeek

Legal Analysis and Evaluation of the Prosecution’s Indictment in the Case of Chen Jingyuan

---

I. Compliance with Statutory Requirements for Indictments

1. Formal Requirements

   • The indictment (Xi Jian Xing Su [2023] Z1) complies with basic procedural formalities under China’s Criminal Procedure Law (CPL). It identifies the defendant, outlines the alleged facts, cites applicable laws (Article 293 of the Criminal Law), and lists evidence categories (physical evidence, documentary evidence, electronic data, etc.).

   • Deficiency: The indictment lacks specificity in defining the “false information” and fails to clarify how the retweeted content meets the legal threshold for criminal liability under PXQT (寻衅滋事罪).

2. Legal Basis

   • The indictment invokes Article 293 of the Criminal Law, which criminalizes acts that “disrupt public order.” However, it conflates the distinct elements of online defamation (from the Judicial Interpretation on Online Defamation) and PXQT, creating ambiguity about the exact legal foundation for the charges.

   • Critical Issue: Article 293 primarily targets physical acts of provocation (e.g., fighting, threats). The prosecution’s reliance on this article for online speech stretches its original legislative intent, raising concerns about overbreadth.

---

II. Factual and Evidentiary Deficiencies

1. Vagueness in “False Information”

   • The indictment alleges Chen disseminated “false statements” but does not:

   ◦ Identify specific posts or provide verbatim examples.

   ◦ Demonstrate how the content qualifies as “false” under criminal law (e.g., verifiably untrue facts vs. subjective opinions).

   ◦ Reference official rulings or third-party verification labeling the posts as “false.”

   • Key Weakness: Academic opinions or critiques of political systems, even if controversial, are not inherently “false information” under Chinese law. The prosecution conflates ideological dissent with criminal falsehoods.

2. Failure to Prove “Serious Disorder”

   • The indictment asserts that Chen’s actions caused “serious disorder in public order” but provides no empirical evidence (e.g., police reports, social unrest, or quantitative metrics such as repost counts).

   • Contradiction with Judicial Standards: The Judicial Interpretation on Online Defamation requires “serious harm” to be measured by metrics like 500+ reposts or 5,000+ views. Chen’s account (with <100 followers and minimal engagement) clearly falls short of these thresholds.

3. Lack of Subjective Intent Evidence

   • The prosecution claims Chen “knowingly” spread false information but relies on circumstantial inferences (e.g., his education level) rather than direct evidence (e.g., confessions, messages proving intent).

   • Violation of Legal Principle: Subjective intent must be proven through objective evidence (Article 14, Criminal Law). Presuming intent based on education violates the presumption of innocence.

---

III. Procedural Irregularities

1. Insufficient Disclosure of Evidence

   • The indictment lists evidence categories (e.g., “electronic data”) but does not provide detailed descriptions, copies of posts, or chain-of-custody records. This violates Article 41 of the CPL, which requires prosecutors to disclose evidence to the defense.

2. Selective Enforcement Concerns

   • The indictment targets Chen while ignoring original authors of the posts and other users who shared identical content. This contradicts Article 4 of the Criminal Law (equality before the law) and suggests politically motivated prosecution.

3. Overreach in Charging

   • The prosecution’s focus on Chen’s use of “circumvention software” (to access overseas platforms) is irrelevant to PXQT charges. Such tools are not illegal under Chinese law unless used for criminal purposes, which the indictment fails to establish.

---

IV. Legal and Ethical Implications

1. Chilling Effect on Free Expression

   • By criminalizing low-impact online sharing, the indictment sets a dangerous precedent for suppressing legitimate discourse. Academic debates and political critiques risk being mislabeled as “false information.”

2. Erosion of Rule of Law

   • The indictment reflects a trend of using vague charges (PXQT) to sidestep rigorous evidentiary standards. This undermines public trust in China’s legal system and contradicts President Xi Jinping’s stated goal of “governing the country according to law.”

3. International Law Concerns

   • The prosecution’s approach conflicts with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which protects freedom of expression. While China has not ratified the ICCPR, the indictment exacerbates scrutiny of its human rights record.

---

V. Recommendations for Improvement

1. Clarify “False Information” Standards

   • The Supreme People’s Procuratorate should issue guidelines distinguishing criminalized falsehoods from protected speech (e.g., opinions, academic debates).

2. Strengthen Evidentiary Rigor

   • Prosecutors must provide concrete proof of (1) falsity, (2) intent, and (3) causation between online acts and public disorder.

3. Ensure Procedural Fairness

   • Adhere to CPL requirements for evidence disclosure, avoid selective enforcement, and guarantee defendants’ right to a public trial and meaningful defense.

---

Conclusion

The indictment against Chen Jingyuan suffers from critical flaws in factual specificity, evidentiary sufficiency, and legal coherence. While formally compliant with procedural requirements, it weaponizes the vague PXQT charge to punish non-criminal speech, undermining both domestic rule of law and international human rights norms. To restore legitimacy, China’s procuratorial organs must adopt transparent, evidence-based charging practices aligned with the Criminal Law’s original intent.

---

[Chinese]