People have been insured, why computer bank cards continue to be controlled?Anmey's withdrawal application to withdraw the case of the Church of Zion to the Criminal Prosecution Law review by review

On the 10th of August, when Amy and her agents entered the Bank Sea branch of the North Sea Municipal Public Security Bureau, the request was not complicated: to withdraw the case, return the seized computer, mobile phone, mobile hard drive, U disk and book data, and unlock the still frozen bank cards.

Looking apart from the application, the North Sea police are now facing four separate procedural issues.

The first is the basis for the continued filing of the case. The case relating to the Amenin Church of Zion was detained in October 2025 on suspicion of “illegal use of information cybercrime” and the compulsory measure was changed on June 18 of this year to seize custody. Insurance is not equivalent to withdrawal of the case, but criminal proceedings also do not allow the investigative agency to maintain the case indefinitely in the absence of continued prosecution conditions. The Amenin this time cited the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law relating to the withdrawal of cases, requiring the police to re-assess whether the existing evidence is sufficient to support the criminal prosecution.

The second is the change in evidence resulting from the processing of the same persons. The founding member of the Zion Church, Kim, was granted no prosecution by the prosecutor's office in July this year. The criminal responsibility of different suspects must of course be determined separately, but important persons in the same case system have withdrawn from the criminal prosecution, and the investigation agency continues to pursue Amy's responsibility, and needs to make clear the acts, evidence and crimes belonging to her person.

The third item is the seizure of electronic equipment. Police previously controlled Amy's computers, mobile phones, mobile hard drives and other items. Criminal investigation can extract data related to the case in accordance with the law, but electronic devices also contain work documents, private communications and personal data. After technical evidence has been able to copy and fix the data, continue to control the long-term whether the entire device is necessary, should be subject to procedural review.

The fourth is the freezing of bank accounts. The freezing of funds is a compulsory measure to restrict property rights directly. If the investigators believe that certain funds are related to suspected criminal activities, they need to be able to explain the connection between the accounts, the flow of funds and the case.

These four questions ultimately point to the same procedural principle: the public security organs have the right to investigate, which does not mean that the right to investigate can be excluded from the necessity and the period of time review.

Amy has left the detention center, but the case hasn’t really ended. The state of security means that actions are still restricted; electronic equipment cannot be used, bank cards may still be frozen, and the case itself has no final legal conclusion. This state can maintain long-term control over the parties without continuing detention.

The Church of Zion has long belonged to China’s unregistered family church system, and when religious administration issues are converted into criminal cases, every compulsory measure used by public security agencies should return to the specific conditions of criminal proceedings, and cannot automatically be justified for unlimited extension due to political or religious sensitivity.

The petition actually returned the case to the legal text: continue the investigation, please draw the evidence for continuing the investigation; continue the detention, please explain the need for the detention; continue to freeze, please explain the relationship between funds and crime.

Where criminal proceedings really test the rule of law, it has never been just whether the state has the power to arrest people, but also whether the state can stop using power after reason disappears.