- A rabbit? After raising billions of dollars for government platform companies, the three middlemen were charged with “bribing”

“It is time for the local people to take over. In Shandong Pingdu, the Board of Monitoring took a wrongful stay of Zhao Xianxian, the deputies of the HPCSC, without the approval of the NPCSC or the NPCSC. The prosecution in court said it was a procedural defect; The defence has raised the exclusion of unlawful evidence, but the presiding judge has held that this is not unlawful evidence. The blogger adds:

Three cases of bribery by Li Ho and others were held at the police station in Hindue. Zhang Zhang Zhang Zing

On 10 September, the four-month long trial in the police custody of the city was concluded with the ringing of a crochet by the presiding judge, the charges against the accused Li Ho, Sun Sun-Kei and the Grand Representative of the city of Pyrandu, Zhao Hyun-chun. Starting on 8 May, the Court of Justice of the Nation spent almost 20 days in trial to hear the case of a local city-based platform-financed intermediary bribery.

The case has received considerable attention on the ground. This is due, in part, to the joint efforts of the Central Regulatory Commission and the Ministry of Finance, which are pursuing the increased hidden debt problems of local governments. The bribery of Li Ho and others is inextricably linked to local government financing through financing platforms and to hidden debt problems.

The prosecution service charged Li Ho, Sun Sun Kay and Zhao Hyun-chun with bribery for “seeking a competitive advantage” in the course of completing a multibillion dollar financing operation for the local government platform company.

Counselor Li Yujin and Szeto Yiping pleaded not guilty to the charges against Zhao Hyun-chun. The defence submits that the case is characterized by serious problems of lack of clarity, insufficient evidence, procedural irregularities and that Zhao Xianxiang ' s conduct did not meet the constituent elements of the offence of bribery and requested that the court be acquitted in accordance with the law.

01

Unauthorized detention of deputies by the Ombudsman *

The illegality of the detention of deputies without authorization by the Ombudsman was one of the first issues to trigger a violent confrontation in the present case.

The prosecution and defence have engaged in intense confrontations in the pre-trial meetings and hearings around this issue.

The prosecution considers that the measures of restriction of liberty imposed by the Equalization Monitoring Commission on Zhao Xianxian without a substantial permission were procedural defects that did not affect the validity of the relevant evidence. The Tribunal upheld the prosecution ' s case.

The Equalization Monitoring Board. Zhang Zhang Zhang Zing

In response, two of Zhao ' s advocates expressed strong objections. Counsel for the People ' s Congresses at the local level (as amended in

1. states that, under article 39, paragraph 2, of our National People ' s Congress and Local People ' s Congresses Act, other measures restricting personal liberty are taken against delegates at the county level and above, with the permission of the Presidium of the People ' s Congress or the Standing Committee of the People ' s Congress at that level. Retention is precisely a monitoring measure that directly restricts personal liberty.

The legal measures taken by the investigators in the case against Zhao Xianxian, knowing that he is a representative of the Great People ' s Republic of China, without the permission of the statutory authorities, are clearly not procedural flaws in the general sense but constitute serious violations of the protection of the Special Procedures of the High Representative. The resulting statement of questioning is evidence of unlawfulness and should be excluded by law.

Counsel for Stu Ipin notes that the Supreme Prosecutor has qualified the act of “adoption of other measures of restriction of personal liberty” against the deputies of the Hmong without a broad licence as an offence of unlawful detention. Citing the current Supreme Council ' s urgent notice on serious investigation and punishment of offences committed by the deputies of the People ' s Congress of the People ' s Congresses at all levels and above, he states that other measures restricting personal liberty provided for by law should be approved by the Presidium of the People ' s Congress or its Standing Committee at that level. The prosecution authorities at all levels must ensure that the investigation and prosecution of cases involving the most illegal detention of persons represents the crime.

“The special procedure for the protection of the deputies of the People's Republic is the special right conferred on the deputies by constitutional law, which was created to guarantee the exercise of their functions in accordance with the law and the exercise of State power on behalf of the people. The rules of procedure are by no means without formal requirements, but are peremptory norms of legal force. “Stuart Il-Phi said that the actions of the Equal Monitoring Board to detain Zhao Hyun-sheng without a person's consent constituted an infringement of the special protection regime established by the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, which was of such a nature and with such a negative social impact that Zhao Xianxian's interrogation transcript, obtained during the course of the offence, has fundamentally lost the basis of legality and should be subject to a negative assessment by the judicial authorities in accordance with the law.

The Office of the Public Prosecutor. Zhang Zhang Zhang Zing

The family of one of the accused told the author that they had consulted the National People ' s Congress on the legal provisions restricting the personal liberty of the deputies of the Congress. The Constitution and the laws stipulate that no measures restricting personal liberty may be taken against the deputies of the people without the permission of the Presidium of the People ' s Congress or the Standing Committee of the People ' s Congress. The aim is to ensure that the deputies of the People ' s Congress perform their representative functions in accordance with the law, to prevent the authorities or individuals concerned from using their public powers to retaliate against the actions of the representatives in the exercise of their office in accordance with the law, to ensure the proper functioning of the organs of State power and to safeguard their authority and dignity. The authorization to impose measures of restriction of personal liberty on the deputies of the HPR is different from that for subsequent reports, and must be obtained in advance of arrest, criminal trial or other measures of restriction of personal liberty provided for by law.

All judicial powers are vested in the People ' s Congress, which has the highest level of oversight over the judiciary. A more questionable question is: can the door be bypassed when the law sets a special protection procedural threshold for delegates? How will the law's scales eventually be tilted? Many of the delegates are waiting to see.

02

Unpredictable “Competition advantage”*

The prosecution alleges that Li Ho and others bribed State agents in order to obtain a “competitive advantage” in financing government platform companies.

Thus, “the delivery of money — the acquisition of a competitive advantage — constitutes the offence of bribery”, which is the core logic of the prosecution's allegations.

Zhao Hyun-chun ' s defence cites the evidence in the case that the four platform companies involved did not publicly disclose their financing needs, but that the persons concerned sought funds in private through financial intermediaries. Platform company involved does not have open business opportunities for non-specific intermediaries without public funding requirements; Without open and fair business opportunities, there are no basic conditions for competition between intermediaries over the same business; Without the basic conditions for competition between intermediaries around the same business, Zhao Xianxiang and others do not have objective conditions for seeking a competitive advantage.

The flat holding group (upper figure) that privately obtains funds through financing intermediaries and the Peacetown Group (see figure below). Zhang Zhang Zhang Zing

Counsel for the case states that there is no evidence in this case as to which particular financing business is in competition, who the competitors are and who should have obtained it. There is no evidence that other intermediaries were excluded because of money delivered by Zhao Hyun-chun. Therefore, the case lacks the most basic factual premise for the determination of competitive advantage

• competition.

She said: And since there is no competition, how can there be a “competitive advantage”?

The Zhao Hyun-chun Advocate also submits that the platform companies involved have been involved in important tasks such as building local government cities, and that there is a long-term and urgent need for funding. Funds referred to by any intermediary are withdrawn from the land as long as they are approved by the party that has the funds. Even so, the funding needs of the platform company cannot be met. There is thus no need for competition between intermediaries.

Did Li Ho, Sun Sun Kui, Zhao Hyun-chun gain a “competitive advantage”? How does “competitive advantage” be defined? Where is the safe border as an intermediary for private entrepreneurs? The defence expects a case-specific response from the Court of Justice.

03

Duplicate paste evidence*

The trial, the flawed verdict, that pierces the judicial threshold, often begins with evidence. During the trial, the prosecution and defence engaged in multiple rounds of intense defence around the evidence.

The Public Prosecution Service provided electronic evidence such as Platform company accounts, witness statements, and micro-credit chats. The three were proven to be the most active, with high intermediary rates, Yang Shubo having disclosed to Zhao Xianjun the cost of financing, and “quality leases” such as the Heat Power and Water Supply Networks of the Heat and Water Supply Networks being approved for financing. Several superimposed, pointing to the “competitive advantage” that no one else could take in exchange for the money.

Detailed list of charges of bribery

The core issue in the present case, according to Zhao Hyun-soon, is that, since the Public Prosecution Service accused Zhao Hyun-sheng and others of seeking a competitive advantage, it is necessary to have solid and sufficient evidence that the four platform companies involved, when any of the funds actually needed, have more than two co-competents. It must also be proven that competitor financing schemes, the amount of financing, the combined costs and the time of the funds' landing are all in the same or better circumstances than Zhao Hyun-soon, who, for sending money, has excluded other competitors.

However, the Public Prosecution Service did not provide any evidence to support the above-mentioned matters. The defence argued that the so-called “competitive advantage” lacked a factual basis and was not supported by evidence. The allegations of the Public Prosecution Service do not form a complete chain of evidence.

In her trial, Lee Yujin said: “Request the Public Prosecutor to provide evidence that there is competition in which financing business of the platform company involved? Who's the competition? Which agency was excluded for not sending money? The blogger adds:

The Public Prosecution Service remained silent about this.

During the trial, the presiding judge repeatedly reminded the prosecutor not to add evidence of bribery, which is now being tried in the case of bribery, and which you are about to do. This was interpreted by the defence counsel as the lack of sufficient evidence from the prosecution to establish the bribe.

The defence counsel also commented on the legality, authenticity and integrity of the prosecution ' s evidence.

The different accused population submitted by the prosecution is highly similar, and the logic and order of the statement are identical. Counsel for the defence notes that the interrogation transcript of Sun Sun Sun Qi even shows how “I and Sun Qi” was recorded, apparently reproducing a statement that had been pasted by Zhao Zheng and that they were lazy to change their names.

The level court. Zhang Zhang Zhang Zing

In response to Li Ho ' s confession, the defence also stated that his statement was in an odd match with that of the other two. “How did Li Ho not participate in the specific business and how did he get the extensive detail? The blogger adds:

In response to the unlawful seizure and extraction of electronic evidence in the present case, the large number of audio, the unopenable documents, the concealment of the facts, the substantial and inconsistent deletions, the defence counsel stated that “the question of `the taking of evidence on demand' is clearly present”.

In the case file of the City of Lacey, the Mok District Supervisory Commission, which was transferred to the Pyndou City Supervisory Board in April 2025, article 48 of the Regulations on the Implementation of the Inspection Act, which was only formally in force on 1 June 2025, was invoked. The defense challenged, "Did they cross? The blogger adds:

One defence counsel stated that “the Piff is innocent and in possession of his guilt. “The local case was conducted on the basis that the three accused were rich and wanted to take them all away. It's chilling.

The case is currently pending. The case is progressing and the author will continue to follow up.

The `Dubster' misappropriated 70 million Zhengzhou Police for eight years has not been returned

Retired police officers in Heilong River have been exposed to 300 million dollars: urban areas have been marked as their property

Hebei-Khunming Police officer worked the case, the person who was the subject of the crime was paid for the entire time.

4.6 billion big cases! Why did China's first case of illegal business using flexible platforms delay the court hearing?

The shivering anchor was caught in a false cross-province in Hainan, and the cell phone extraction data was accidentally exposed