A Thong Ting has triggered the third prison sentence: the repeated punishment in the Wu-hyun case of Heilongjiang.

A 55-year-old former university teacher, who had handed a calendar to passers-by on to the fair, was once again involved in the criminal justice process. , disclosed on 11 October, according to which, Wu Zhui, a Falun Gong practitioner in Fangqing County, Heilongjiang Province, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment by the District Court of Bali and is currently being held in the Songham Prison, Harbin City. She had been sentenced twice before in 2017 and

1. This time, at the very beginning of the police operation, it was a desk history of the dissemination of information about faith.

Wu Xian has graduated from the Changchun College of Optical Fine Machinery and holds a Master ' s degree from Jilin University of Industry, where he has been teaching at the University of Jilin ' s Centre of Teaching Assistance. She began working on Falun Gong in

1. The criminal and administrative dispositions that followed for more than two decades changed her professional and family life.

In winter 2001, Wu Yan was taken to the West City Detention Centre after having visited Beijing and then re-education through labour for a year and a half. In 2017, she was sentenced to three years ' imprisonment by the Harbinson North District Court for producing dissemination materials. In 2021, three years and six months were also sentenced to three years and six months for distributing information on the streets of Harbin. Ming Hui reported that during her second term of imprisonment, she suffered serious vertebrae injuries. No matter how officially the previous sentence was described, the fact that a person was deprived of liberty for years cannot be removed from the news of this two-year sentence.

The three judicial nodes do not overlap. The plainclothes police officers of Fang Zheng County took Wu Zhu from the market and then searched the Soo-ta and the house of the plumbs; The prosecution decided to prosecute and the Burley County Court finally sentenced him to two years ' imprisonment. The sentences imposed in 2017 and 2021 cannot replace the proof that the act constituted a crime. A person who passed the calendar to another person, the content of his or her items, the manner in which they were actually disseminated, the evidence that determined the harm and the reasoning of the judgement should have independent evidence. The report is not about abstract tolerance, but about where the investigative, prosecutorial and adjudicative organs translate ordinary expressions into criminal responsibility.

On the morning of 4 December 2025, Wu Zheng and Uyun, aged 76, rode on a bus to the market. It was reported that after she gave a calendar to a passer-by, a black car stopped and two men were taken away by plainclothes policemen. The same night, the police went to Soo Tha's house and, on the basis of the key found on Wu Zhu's body, to another student to search the house of the emerald. Yu Su-ta and the piping plume were released after medical examination, and Wu Zheng was kept in detention and subsequently transferred to Buri County, Seven Rivers.

One notable point in this case is the change in the geographical scope of criminal prosecution: the arrest took place in Fang Ching County, while the sentencing authority was the Burley County Court. The case jurisdiction basis, the charges against it, the catalogue of evidence, the public hearings and the defence opinion are not complete in the case file currently being made public. The real problem cannot be ignored because of the lack of information: what is the strength of a gift to others to deprive her of her liberty for two years again?

According to reports, the members of the Gao Xing National Security Guard of the Fangzheng County Public Security Bureau who were involved in the arrests included Gao Qiang, head of the Criminal Investigation Unit, and other police officers. Judicial responsibility extends beyond those who are in the process of arrest. The way in which the investigating authorities select evidence, the prosecution authorities identify harm, the courts justify the crime and the penalties imposed, determines how the administrative political repression is converted into a formal penalty.

The Wu Zhu case is completely different from the description of the general repeat crime. According to normal criminal justice logic, ex-pension cannot automatically prove that a similar act subsequently carries criminal harm. Nor can one be considered as a ground for an aggravating circumstance for one ' s adherence to thought and belief. Whether the external dissemination of religious or political expressions constitutes a specific offence should be replaced by visible conduct, statutory elements and verifiable evidence, rather than by political labels.

The case ended not with an abstract question of tolerance but with a borderline of State penal power: if the gift of a desk calendar and the transmission of information can be converted into prison years, the repeated punishment may in fact be a belief and expression that a person does not wish to change. The challenge of such judicial power is more important than simply counting the length of sentences.