The only one: the Fuzhou Police “squeezing point” for the protection of Yang Kim-ju from detention

A security complaint that should have been resolved within the framework of the rule of law is evolving into a controversial incident that exposes the CCP local political and legal system to the need for cross-sectoral repression of public opinion and oversight.

After about 15 months of reporting to the Fukuo police, a decision to fine $500 was awaited by a well-known defender of human rights, Zou Li-hye. She publicly complained of deliberate delay by the police until the person who had been reported as a former lawyer, Yang Kim-ju, reached the age of 70, thus circumventing administrative detention. The judicial administration intervened after Zou Li Hui applied to Hong Yongxiang, the new Director of Public Security of Fukuzhou, for a police inspector and made available relevant evidence on the Internet. On the afternoon of 4 November, Zou Lie-hye disclosed that the staff of the judicial office of the county of Ou Ho had requested the deletion of the text, which was subsequently removed from the Twitter platform.

Fifteen months of “Judicial Run” and the precise “70-year-old threshold”

Zou Li Hui, a law firm based in Fujianyang, has 13 years of public security and more than 30 years of experience in the practice of lawyers, and has long been following and supervising the functioning of local judicial administration and the Bar Association.

According to the public security instruments and administrative review materials disclosed by Zou Li Hui, in July 2025 Yang Kim-ju issued insulting statements against Zou Li-wei and others in several micro-clinical groups, which together involved nearly 1,000 members. Zou Li Hui reported the same case to the Yishan Police Station of the Public Security Bureau of Fukuzhou on 11 July of that year, when the police issued a Notification of the Establishment of Administrative Cases.

However, the handling of the cyberinsults lasted about 15 months. It was not until 8 October 2026 that the administrative penalty imposed on Yang Kim-ju was set at a fine of $500 by a decision of the Public Security Bureau of Fukuzhou to take the street (Gau Xinxi District) branch. Zou Li-hye considered that there were serious problems in the length of cases and in the discretion of the penalties.

This 15-month delay was questioned by Zou Lie-hye and concealed the calculation of the threshold of 70 years. Kings of Yang was born on 22 September 1956; After 16 days after his 70th birthday, the date of deposit of the police sanction decision was 8 October.

(a) Under article 23 of the new amendment to the Law on the Punishment of the Administration of Public Security, which was introduced on 1 January 2026, persons over 70 years of age are not subject in principle to administrative detention, except in certain serious cases; Nor does reaching the age of 70 mean that the public security organs cannot make decisions on the punishment of detention. Therefore, whether the age change affected the punishment in the present case and its enforcement would need to be determined in the context of the particular case and the law enforcement record.

Zou Li Hui therefore strongly questioned the fact that the Fukuzhou police had significantly exceeded the normal time frame for the case, not simply inefficient, but rather that it might have deliberately dragged the case beyond the special age point of 70 years for Yang Kim-ju. She accused the staff concerned of administrative fraud and fraud and requested access to records of delays, discretionary penalties and the like to ascertain the reasons.

Zou Li Hui further stated that she had concentrated on 9 October 2026 with the Civil Police in charge of the case, to submit new evidence on the crime of other offences, and that the subsequent decision to punish by the police was dated 8 October, one day earlier than the new evidence. She suspects that the police have a problem of re-signatureing the documents and avoiding further investigation. Whether or not the allegation is established still requires a check of the original record of the decision-making, approval and delivery; Even if a previous decision on punishment has been made, new evidence involving other violations should be reviewed and dealt with in accordance with the law.

Case: Specialized fund collection and inter-provincial reporting

In a public submission, Zou Li Hui disclosed that, in addition to being accused of being a network insult, Yang Kim-joon was involved in network activities related to former cadres of the judicial department of the city of Jenan, Shandong Province, and public lawyer Li Ai Xin, among others. She reported that the so-called “Special Fund for Complaints of Suspected Illness in Prison Cases” had been collected under the name of “Cleaning Serious Suspected Misdemeanours in Prisons” and that she had raised questions about the whereabouts of funds and suspected offences. These allegations of fund-raising and crime are reported and are not facts that have been established by the judicial authorities.

In late October 2026, Hong Yong Xin, Deputy Director-General of the Public Security Department of Fujian Province, took up his new duties as Director and Inspector-General of Public Security of Fukuzhou. Zou Li Hui filed an application for administrative review around 27 October and sent the police inspector Hong Yongxiang with a request for an investigation of the conduct of the case at the New Division and the Yishan police station. The mailing and receipt records already show that the relevant written material has been sent to the relevant authorities.

On 30 October, Zou Lihui made public his letter of complaint and review of the case in the public domain, “Attorney Zou”. This was subsequently reproduced and followed up in Focus China.

Involving industry regulatory authority in law enforcement disputes: Department of Justice door-to-door request for deletion

On the afternoon of 4 November, according to the micro-clinics between Zou Li Hue and Liu Chang Song, a chief of the legal and engineering section of the judicial department of the province of Guan Huo and two staff members came to Fujian Yiyang Law Office to request Zou Li Hui to remove articles that were publicly reported to local public security organs. The judicial office of the county of Caihou is not the public security organ that has imposed a security penalty in this case, nor is it the body that has accepted the application of the police inspector. The judicial administration, in its capacity as a professional manager, requests lawyers to remove their public criticism of public security enforcement, which concerns the right of lawyers to express and supervise, and is worth asking about their legal basis and work orders.

According to the interview records disclosed by the client, the head of the Department of Justice was on the spot asking, “Do you have any use in writing? Zou Li-hye's response: “Doesn't it not mean that you're here to mobilize me to delete the article? The government has been working on the issue of the human rights of women.

Zou Lihye indicated that she had refused to request the deletion. Since then, the article and part of the page on the report, which was referred to by Zou, has disappeared from the Micro-Measure platform. The presence of the Directorate of Justice at the door and the deletion of the Platform continued, but the existence of direct coordination between the organs and the Platform still required an investigation into the basis for the deletion of the Platform and the records of contacts between the relevant departments. Even though the origin of the strike order has not yet been determined, the priority given by the industry regulator to the removal of critical articles rather than responding publicly to enforcement disputes has constituted a matter of power use that deserves serious scrutiny.

Independent observation: citizens monitor public power and why is the administrative system addressing “problems”?

According to Focus China Zhui Yi, the incident of the rights defender in Fukuzhou under redacted pressure is not just a legal discretion dispute over the administrative fine of $500, but reflects the possible mutual protection mechanisms between local public security law enforcement, regulation of the legal profession and the management of online opinion. When public reporting on public power is first subject to a requirement for deletion, the response order of the administrative system is in a alarming reversal.

Although he has just taken up his new duties, the public security organs under his leadership are still required to respond to the issue of the duration of the case, the handling of evidence and the discretionary punishment that occurred before his appointment. The lack of verifiable answers to specific questions posed by the parties and the public by the administrative inspectors, if they remain in internal circulation, does not dispel any doubts about the closed monitoring mechanism. At present, there is no information that Hong Yongxiang himself requested the Department of Justice to intervene to delete or instruct the wi-fi platform to delete articles; It is what the organs actually do, on what basis and on whom responsibility rests that should be pursued.

When a citizen attempts to seek redress through administrative review, the police inspector, the relevant case record and procedural basis are reviewed; When citizens are more reliant on online public opinion, the judicial administration should not use the authority of the lawyer to silence the whistleblower. The public security organs should explain the 15-month period of the proceedings, the judicial administration should explain the basis of its mandate to request the deletion of the text on 4 November and the web platform should indicate the rules and the specific reasons for the deletion of the article under the name. The monitoring procedures that fail to address reported problems and that can put pressure on whistleblowers quickly expose the systemic risk of lack of external checks and balances on local power.

The WikiLeaks could delete the public letter from Zou Liwei, but not erase the filing documents, administrative sanctions decisions, review materials and signed-off records that have been sent to the judiciary, or automatically eliminate queries about public security enforcement, the management of the profession and public expression. Focus China will continue to follow up on this controversy with the Director General of Public Security of Fukuzhou City, Hong Yongxiang, the judicial bureau of Guan Ho County and the relevant bodies.