China case re-trial: wife's application for security, lawyers continue to seek evidence and procedure disputes

To Liu Center, Attorney General of the People's Procuratorate of Guilin Autonomous County People's Courts of Qingdao City, Qingdao City, Qingdao City, Qingdao City:

We saw the beautiful mountains of Guilin and the splendid mountains of Guilin, and the splendid reputation of the mountains of Guilin and the water of the sky.

We saw the gentle kindness, warm hospitality of the Yuan people of Chongqing County, a bowl of oil tea, and a long taste.

We have also seen a section of the Chinese lawyers in the court of Chongqing, several breaches, a few hardships.

Seeing the Chongqing court troubled Barra didn't want to let the audience listen, a little minor comment, that is, cancel the listening, even if the court opened, and did not forget to the listening person recorded in the court a huge fine.

Seeing an ordinary case was arranged in the detention center, the name says: due to the unsuccessful opening of the case, in order not to affect the normal work of the court, so arranged in the detention center.

We see three lawyers being restricted to speak and deprived of all kinds of lawsuits.

We saw the lawyer in the court said above that he was treated inhumanly by the Gong Mountain Supervisory Commission, was threatened not to pay 6 million, should let him firmly sit in the scream, to see the lawyer in order to go out early, had to write down the bribes of 30,000 humiliation self-writing.

We see the defense lawyers face a bunch of documents that can prove the innocence of Mr. Gong, hanging their heads to a bunch of lawyers in court telling the truth that non-professionals can easily understand.

We see prosecutors delivering a bunch of contradictory witness testimony, constantly changing the grounds for the accusation, replacing the whole truth with fragmented facts, and repeating the accusations of guilt of Xi Jinping with simple logic.

We see Guilin Mountains under the water, but the city justice may bury it underground.

What are you waiting for?

When the wind comes, that wind does not necessarily be the east wind, and when the rain comes, the rainy rain runs underneath it are ants.

That was not their intention, to mess things up, waiting for the leader to wipe your ass, waiting for the leader to give you a medal?

Listening to the voice of professionals, the Guilin Law Council has already given the answer, and the Guangxi Law Council and the National Law Council have also listened to the attention, they have also expressed their opinions through different channels.

Waiting to watch the national netizens voice, or let the national netizens surrender, or wait for this wave of wind to pass, continue to repeat your past arbitrary traps of guilty innocent people?

No need to wait, because we are also waiting.

Lawyers are waiting, because it’s about the boundaries of their practice, why a risk agent case becomes a case of concern for lawyers nationwide, because it really touches the bottom line of lawyers.

Media journalists are waiting, they want to see, what exactly is the end of this case that has triggered fierce public opinion?

The business people are waiting, and they accumulate rubbish accounts, hoping that more of the Chinese will stand out and give them a little more hope.

Netizens across the country were waiting, they saw the process of the Chinese families' struggle, and they were trying to find that effort with hope of results.

段华 was waiting, he saw a glimpse of light in the darkness, striving to catch a grass, being dragged by it, to that light to find back the lost freedom.

The families of段华 were waiting, they spent more than a thousand days without段华 accompaniment, but stubbornly thought that he was next to him, never far away, but the footsteps around.

Application for Li Xiaoyang's rescue.

Applicant: Li Xiaoyang, woman, Chinese wife of the defendant.

Application * Matters: Request for the defendant to be held in custody.

Facts and Reasons *

In the case of the suspected fraud, bribery, and bribery, the people's court of Guilin City has made a second-instance decision on July 9, 2025, with "part of the facts of the crime unclear" to send this case back to the court for re-trial.The case is in the trial stage, according to the provisions of Article 67 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the applicant as the spouse of the party, specifically to the court to apply to the party for a reservation, for the following reasons:

The original conviction in this case has been re-issued by the second-instance court for some unclear facts, the evidence system accused of the crime has significant flaws, and there are major doubts whether the accusation can be established.

As regards the allegations of fraud, this case is in essence a civil-economic dispute arising from a lawyer’s risk agent or credit transfer, and is not a criminal fraud crime.

Guizhou Co., Ltd. in 2013 reached an oral risk agent agreement with Guizhou Co., Ltd., the creditorship at the time has been internally sold, account value is zero, Guizhou Co., Ltd. is aware of the implementation of the risk, agreed to execute the return of Guizhou Co., Ltd. to obtain 300,000 yuan, the rest of Guizhou Co., Ltd. as a risk agent remuneration, subsequently subsidized the written "Risk Agent Contract", "Credits Transfer Agreement". all legal documents are confirmed by Guizhou Co., Ltd. guarantee, several certificates, mail exchanges, and conference records confirm Guizhou Co., Ltd. from the beginning to the end is aware of the progress of the case, there is no situation of fraud, misunderstanding and punishment of property.

The Guilin City Lawyers' Association and the Criminal Lawyers' Committee have issued professional opinions twice, making it clear that this does not constitute a crime of fraud.

Regarding the allegations of bribery, in this case only the defendant's confession and Liu's testimony, the two verbal evidence contradicts each other in the amount of bribery, circumstances, no bank transfer, material evidence, witnesses and other objective evidence to prove.

In the autobiographical materials written during the detention, Guawei indicated in the Tibetan form that the contents of the confession were not objective facts, and that false statements were made under coercion. In the counter-crime, Liu, who was accused of bribery, was only handled by the party discipline and was not prosecuted for criminal liability.

(2) The defendant is not socially dangerous, and the case belongs to the non-violent economic class, so that the trial will not interfere with the subsequent trial of the case.

In the case, all the documents have been fully fixed, relevant witness testimony has also been all collected in the case, even if the change of compulsory measures, there is no real risk of destruction of evidence, string confession, escape. In the case, China and family members have a fixed place of residence in the local area, the person is willing to strictly observe the provisions of custody and supervision, to ensure that the course of the trial of the case is accompanied, in cooperation with all the trial activities of the court, can ensure the smooth progress of the criminal proceedings.

During the period of detention, there was a severe hypertension, there was a significant risk to his physical health, and continued detention was not conducive to his life and health security.

In the course of the initial pre-trial session in this case, the medical staff at the court place measured the high blood pressure in the section 182, low blood pressure in the section 110, which belongs to the third degree of high blood pressure, and there is a real risk of cerebrovascular rupture. During the detention, due to a long period of fixed sitting in the interrogation chair, the skin ulceration of the section appeared, and the body has suffered noticeable damage.

In this case, there is a major dispute in the investigation of evidence collection, jurisdiction evasion and other procedures, the second-instance ruling issued a re-trial, indicating that there is still a lot of facts and evidence to be verified and clarified in this case.

In summary, the original judgment in this case was re-examined by the higher court on the grounds of unclear facts, accusing the criminal evidence of major doubts, the defendant is not a social danger, and at the same time suffers from serious high blood pressure and other basic diseases. In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the Special Court applied to the Chamber to take compulsory measures against the defendant. The applicant is willing to provide a guarantor in accordance with the legal conditions, or in accordance with the court's request to pay a guarantee, strictly fulfill the guarantee obligations.

In this regard

Chief Executive Officer of the People's Court of Chongqing Autonomous County People's Procuratorate Liu Center

Applicant: Li Xiaoyang

22 August 2026

Original information

Title: We All Saw What Are You Waiting For?

Source: WeChat Public No. “Legal Perspective”