Do you want a big permit for the retentionist? The family of the flat-rate bribery case reported the procedural dispute to the Shandong Provincial Disciplinary Commission.

8 October, one letter of reporting under the nameIt was sent to the Sandong Provincial Disciplinary Commission. The whistleblower was the family of Zhao Hyun-soon, the defendant in the case of the flat-rate financing broker. They allege that the police of the city of Pyuddu, while Zhao Xianzheng remained the representative of the city ' s people, had been subject to detention measures restricting personal liberty without the approval of the Presidium of the Grand Council of the People ' s Republic of China or the Standing Committee. The family claimed to hold the persons involved to account, and the same issue had previously been dealt with by the Court of Parity in its hearings as a dispute over the legality of evidence. For this unsentenced case, it is no longer just the charge of bribery itself that determines the next step.

From 8 May, the Court of Equalities spent approximately 20 trial days trying the bribery of three accused,The trial was completed on 10 September.I'm sorry. The prosecution considers that Li Ho, Sun Zhongqiang and Zhao Xianxian sent to the management of the platform ' s companies, in order to obtain a competitive advantage, when arranging a multi-billion dollar financing operation for the local government financing platform. Defence counsel questioned whether the financing project had no open tendering or competitive procedures for non-specific intermediaries and what exactly the prosecution termed a “competitive advantage” was for, which business, which needed to be specifically proven. The total size of the financing cannot be considered as a direct bribe in the case.

The legality of the detention leaves a particularly clear procedural issue in this case. The report revealed that the Ombudsman had been in control of Zhao Xianjun ' s personal freedom since November 2024, and that he was still the nineteenth-year-old representative of the city of Pyddu. Zhao Xian was detained in 2024.Article 32 of the Law on the Representation of Persons in forceOther measures of restriction of personal liberty for the representatives of the prefectural assemblies and above have been requested, with the permission of the Presidium of the PRC or the Standing Committee. The 2025 amendment moved this requirement to article

1. Counsel submits that this approval document is not available in the case file and that the detention body has complied with the special procedures ' obligation to answer in accordance with the law.

The accounts provided by the family to the investigative journalist show that the police are not responsible for the incident.2 staff of the Equalization Monitoring Board on 20 SeptemberHe went to the office of Zhao Hyun-chun ' s father, Zhao Yushan, to explain the legality of the case and to refer it to his family to monitor the laws and regulations and the regulations governing their implementation. The family claimed that the staff member did not consider it necessary to obtain a separate authorization, even saying that “the whole country does so”. This statement is currently from family and interview records, and there is no complete, publicly reciprocated recording and cannot be directly used as an official written position; This is why it is all the more necessary for the Provincial Council to investigate whether the necessary authorization documents have been obtained in accordance with the law.

During the trial, the prosecutor reportedly classified the issue of unauthorized status as a procedural flaw.and does not claim to prejudice the use of evidence; The defence requested the exclusion of the evidence, which the court had not previously granted. This raises two different levels of adjudication in the case of the accused: even if it is ultimately established that the accused is suspected of having bribed, the legality of the evidence and the restriction of personal liberty of the Ombudsman itself should be subject to independent judgement. Criminal trials cannot acquiesce to the fact that all pre-emptive coercive measures are not subject to the law because of the need to prove a crime.

It is even more difficult for the public to avoid the fact that local government financing platforms appear in the same case as the oversight of the justice system. The defendants were charged with delivering property to the city, financing a 10 billion dollar loan, and the public security and inspection system controlled access to key testimony. When both public financing and criminal prosecution are concentrated in a few institutions, the defence ' s access to all evidence and the judge ' s serious handling of the legality dispute determine whether the case will ultimately leave an irremediable procedural gap.

The findings of the Shandong Provincial Disciplinary Commission on the admissibility of the report of 8 October and on how to hold the inspectors accountable have not yet been made public. The first instance judgement of the Court of Parity has not yet been published. Whether the letter of complaint can change the evaluation of the evidence available requires an answer from the follow-up procedure. What is before the courts and the Ombudsman is a more clear question than the fate of Zhao Xianxian: What are the consequences for the prosecution authorities when the order restricting personal liberty is not completed in accordance with the procedure established by law?