Hebei police suspected of abuse of public authority in Kunming case

On August 28, the first trial court of the Yunnan District Court in Hebei Province opened a trial on a "bribing and bribery case against non-state employees" triggered by a Yunnan real estate transaction of $1.19 billion.

City District Court, Liu Tzu

From the facts alleged in the Prosecution, this is an economic crime case. However, the defendant and several defense lawyers pointed out that it was originally only a civil contract dispute, but the police personnel were willing to be bought by the buyer Hebei Shengxiang Commercial Management Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Shengxiang Commercial Management Limited") and effectively controlled by Liang Qing, which served as a "public power strike".

Municipal Public Security Bureau Forever Division.

01 is

1.19 billion commodity transactions and 970 million commissions of "crimes and non-crimes"

The event took place in Yunnan Kunming in the second half of 2024.

The Prosecutor's Office of the Permanent District "The Prosecution Paper" shows that the actual controller Liang Qing, appointed the company's employees Huizhou Heng, Yang Rao Shipping to Qingming, to negotiate the purchase of the property of Yunnan Anxiet Real Estate Brokerage Co., Ltd. by Yunnan Anxiet Real Estate Brokerage Co., Ltd.

The actual control of the real estate of Yongdao Yongdao is a peak, the intermediary Wang Ventao, Wang Feng Phu and other people interacted.After several rounds of business negotiations, in October 2024, the buy-and-sell two sides finally settled this total price of 1.19 billion yuan in real estate transactions.

The court record shows that the seller's representative Ding Weiwei stated that the buyer paid a deposit of 13 million yuan on October 19, 2024, and then settled all the purchase items in November and December.

After the main transaction is completed, followed by the settlement of the 3 million yuan intermediary fee. In accordance with industry practices and the preliminary agreement between the two sides, Dingweiwei paid to the intermediary Wang Feng 2 million yuan (after deducting the relevant tax fee actually paid 194 million yuan). The remaining 1 million yuan was transferred by Wang Feng Dingwei directly to the buyer's counterpart.

District Prosecutor's Office, Liu Tzu

Deng Weiwei confessed at the trial: "The other party sent two bank accounts, and after deduction of taxes a total of 970,000 yuan, two payments. these three money together, is a total of 3 million yuan of intermediary fees."

This 970,000 yuan payment, but a year later, became the central entry point for the police to initiate criminal prosecution against the transaction.

The public prosecution agency accused: The employee of the buyer, Jiang Zhou Yuan, told the seller's representative, Ding Weiwei, through the intermediary Wang Zhou Yuan, to "benefit fees". In January 2025, Jiang Zhou Yuan transferred 470,000 and 500,000 respectively to the two private accounts provided by Yang Zhou Yuan and Wang Zhou Yuan. The amount was subsequently internally allocated: Yang Zhou Yuan divided 17,500,000, Jiang Zhou Huan divided 18,500,000 and Wang Zhou Divided 31,000.

The public prosecution organ believes that the use of the position of Jiang Zhou and Yang Rao Air to illegally receive assets constitutes bribery of non-state employees; Ding Weiwei, Wang Feng, and Wang Ventao gave assets to seek undue interests, constitutes bribery against non-state employees.

During the trial, several lawyers such as Zhu Zhu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu and Jin, Wu, Wu, Wu and Jin, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu, Wu

Hebei Shengxiang Companion and Qingdao Gas Thermal Power Company are both located in Yangtze Building.

The advocate pointed out that in large commercial real estate transactions, charging residential commissions or business proposals is a legitimate business act. If the intermediary's subjective will to "hope the transaction to succeed" is directly equivalent to "seeking unfair interests" in the sense of criminal law, the entire residential service industry will be at risk of criminal prosecution at all times.

The more central fact is that the $97 million was initially claimed by the buyer's staff, and the seller did not therefore obtain excess profits or undue competitive advantage in excess of the agreed contract. In particular, Wang Wang Tao in this case only passed the words of Wang Tao to Ding Tao, nothing else is known, this fact was recognised by the Prosecution. The defense lawyer cited the provisions of Article 389 of the Criminal Code: "There is no undue benefit given to the property because of the extortion, not bribery."

The lawyer stressed that alienating normal commission deductions in commercial activities, and even the unilateral behavior of the buyer's employees, as bribery crimes by the seller and the intermediary, is a violation of the principle of humiliation of the criminal law.

02 is

Buyers report “fraud”

The core reason for the criminal procedure was initiated, the applicant Liang Qing claimed that the seller and the intermediary conspired to raise the price of the house, fictitious rent income, resulting in its company suffered significant economic losses, with this claim suffered "commercial fraud" and intention to destroy the contract.

Objective evidence such as confessions of several defendants and WeChat chat records show that there is no "specific fraud" against Liang Qing in the price of the property in the case. in December 2023, the bid for the property in the relevant industry group chat was 150 million yuan; in August 2024, with changes in the market situation, the bid was changed to 1,2 billion yuan.

Liang Qing and his team arrived in Kunming on August 29, 2024, and made the first visit to the house on August

1. The final deal price of 1,19 billion yuan was the market price reached by the buyers and sellers after two months of repeated field inspections, business accounting and business consultations. In the trial, Wang Feng also stated that, as an intermediary, in order to facilitate the transaction, not only did no fictional facts raise the price of the house, but continued to seek reasons for the price reduction, and did not harm the interests of the buyer.

The lawyer at the court pointed out that the so-called "conspiracy to raise the price of housing" claims are completely lacking factual basis, purely to want the public security to create the fraud case.

During the trial, the question of the “shadow contract” also emerged.

In addition to the real transaction price of 1.19 billion yuan, in order to avoid huge transaction taxes, the buyers and sellers signed a "Yang Contract" with a price significantly lower than the real transaction amount, which was specifically used to declare taxes to the real estate administration and tax authorities.

“A company that is deeply involved in tax evasion operations, enjoys tax avoidance dividends, and has never submitted a contract withdrawal or objection to the tax authorities or trade authorities, can it claim that there are ‘major misunderstandings or fraud in the transaction’?” the defence said that the objective existence of the contract not only proves the buyer’s knowledge and recognition of the entire transaction structure and the flow of funds, but fundamentally disrupts its so-called “fraud” criminal accusation logic.

According to the report, several defendants said that there is a real reason: Liang Qing originally wanted to buy Kunming's more than 20 acres meeting house and found a hotel, but the result could not be increased, and the investment desire was blurred, so he dissolved the money in the way of reporting fraud.

03 is

Special Police Cross Border Case and Disappeared Approvals

In addition to the entity qualitative dispute, the issue exposed in the investigation procedure in the case is accused of serious violation of the Criminal Procedure Law and the internal jurisdiction of the public security organs.

According to the clear requirements of the "Regulations on the Division of Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases of the Ministry of Public Security", economic crimes such as bribery and bribery by non-state employees should be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the economic crime investigation department (by the Detective Corps). However, the case material shows that the applicant on July 18, 2025 will submit the reporting materials to the staff of the Special Police Unit of the Public Security Bureau of the Foreign District, and the Special Police Department of the People's Police issued the "Receiving Evidence List". Until September 12, the case was officially investigated by the Foreign District Public Security Bureau through the Detective Corps.

The defense lawyer requested to call for documents for approval of cross-police proceedings.

In response to this obvious cross-police and multilateral case issue, lawyers in court and in court have repeatedly requested the public prosecution authorities and courts to obtain the key "request report" and the public security bureau's leadership to approve the internal approval documents for cross-police joint cases.

In the face of the lawyer's legal transfer application, the police issued a contradictory statement: on March 19, the Special Police Corps issued a statement stating that "it was not possible to provide relevant documents because of the failure to file the case"; and on March 21, the instructions issued by the Detective Corps only mentioned the written approval document, with a sentence "by the Demonstration Bureau's leadership drawing (Intervention of the Special Police)" as a conspiracy, always refused to provide the court with any legal authorization document.

The defense lawyer pointed out in court that this misleading case model ignoring the division of labor regulations of the Ministry of Public Security is by no means a simple “procedural defect”, but a disruption of the principle of the legal distribution of investigative powers.

The lawyer raised reasonable doubts: the reporting material was not in the jurisdiction of the special police brigade was "Sky-Tibet" and "preliminary inspection" for two months, during the case material was filtered, transformed and even artificially artillery? the case's filing accusations from the initial reporting "contract fraud" silently changed to the final "trafficking bribes", behind this is there the applicant manipulation of the investigation direction, specific cases person to meet the illegal operation? the investigation organs refused to provide written approval documents, does it mean that the relevant documents existed after the incident, subsidy, or even not at all the possibility?

by 04

Police arrests and fake records.

The court information shows that the police assistant Liu Yongxi, who should be strictly excluded from the core evidence-gathering work in the criminal case, has dominated the vast majority of the investigation.

Article 118 of the Criminal Procedure Law of China clearly stipulates that the interrogation of criminal suspects must be carried out by the prosecutor's office or the public security organ's investigators, and the investigators must not be less than two people.The State Council Opinions on regulating the management of police assistant personnel of public security organs and the regulations on the management of police assistant personnel of public security organs in Hebei province are clearly stipulated that the assistant police must not engage in the core law enforcement work such as "case investigation evidence collection" and "interrogation / questioning criminal suspects".

The defense lawyer requested to recruit detectives from Kunming's expedition to approve materials.

In the "Situation Explanation" issued by the detective brigade of the Yuan District Public Security Bureau, Liu Yongxi, one of the main officers of the case, was clearly acknowledged as an auxiliary police officer.H, the auxiliary police name appeared clearly in the more than a dozen interrogation notes of the defendants of Ding Weiwei, Wang Feng, Yang Rao, Jiang Zhou and others, and appeared not only as a "recorder", but also in several notes as a "interrogator" for the leading interrogation.

Several defendants stated during the trial that Liu Xiaobo not only substantially participated in most of the key interrogations, but also completed the recording by Liu Xiaobo alone during the vast majority of the interrogation time. Another formal investigator signed on the recording, often in the middle of the trip, or simply signed after the incident. The actual interrogation, pressures and recordings were arranged by Liu Xiaobo.

This not only seriously violates the legal bottom line of the Criminal Procedure Law "detective personnel must not be less than two", but also considers the legal prohibition of "additional police must not participate in the interrogation" as nothing.

In addition to the illegality of the evidence subjects, the volume also exposed major suspicions of counterfeiting legal documents.

The lawyer pointed out that the "interrogation note" made on January 16, 2026 for the defendant Wang Ventao, the "interrogator" and "recorder" columns in the scanned electronic volume are empty, there is no signature of any investigators, which seriously violates the mandatory provisions of Article 122 of the Criminal Procedure Law on the note must be signed by the interrogator.

Faced with this vulnerability, the investigative agency argued in the description of the situation: "The scan volume has not been signed, because the scan was neglected, and the paper volume of the civil police has been signed."

The lawyer rejects that the scan volume should be a precise physical copy of the original paper volume. If the paper volume has a signature and the scan volume does not exist at the same time, the only logical and factual explanation is that these signatures do not exist at all when the original scan volume is archived; the signature on the paper volume is a counter-signature carried out by the investigators after the transfer of the volume to review the prosecution and even after the lawyer has filed an exclusion application.

According to Article 74 of the Supreme Criminal Procedure Law, evidence obtained is unlawful or suspected of falsification of the record, should be excluded as illegal evidence. The lawyer requested the court to obtain all synchronous recordings of Liu Xiaobo's participation in the interrogation to determine the actual situation at the scene of the interrogation, as well as whether there were illegal evidence obtaining acts such as confessions, insinuations, but the court did not respond positively.

by 05

Police hand over documents and public letters ordering suspects to go to the public office for mediation

According to the defendant Wang Feng Phu in the trial stated, at the beginning of the investigation of the case, it has not been taken criminal coercive measures, only in the capacity of witnesses and associates, in Kunming local accept the questioning of the persons in the permanent district.

In the meantime, in order to obtain a key public document concerning the real estate transaction in the case, the case police handed over his police certificate, as well as legal documents such as the "Procurement of evidence notification" of the Public Security Bureau, and ordered him to go to the relevant public document office to collect the core evidence related to the case for the public security organs.

The King's friend copied the calling of evidence notices, police certificates and introductory letters.

Article 54 and 115 of the Criminal Procedure Law clearly stipulate that the collection of evidence by public security organs must be carried out by statutory investigators in accordance with statutory procedures.

Wang said that because he realized that the action of the officers was extremely absurd and extremely unreasonable, for the instinct of self-protection, he took photos of the relevant documents and documents with his mobile phone and kept them in the cloud while carrying police certificates and legal documents to the publication office.

The defence lawyer pointed out in the court that the investigation agency will obtain the legal, non-transferable investigation, transfer the right of evidence to the person involved in the case, instructing the suspect to “prove his crime” or “transmit itself”. This is no longer a problem that can be covered with “procedure defects”, but the suspected abuse of office. The defence firmly argues that this part of the evidence must be excluded according to the law because of the evidence subject is seriously illegal, the procedure is fundamentally illegal.

06 is

The “black window” surveillance.

According to the statement of the court, during the actual detention in the perpetual district detention, on November 12 and December 3, 2025, the case officers twice illegally transferred him from the detention district to the law enforcement center of the public security bureau, and conducted external interrogation.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 118 of the Criminal Procedure Law, in addition to exceptional circumstances (such as the indication of the scene) and following strict approval procedures, the interrogation of suspects who have already been detained must be carried out in the interrogation room fixed within the detention facility, in order to ensure that the interrogation process is under full monitoring and prevent the forced confession.

However, the interrogation of the perpetual police, neither issued to the detention lawful compliance "reporting certificate", nor found in the case volume any of the office leadership approval records about the outside interrogation.

During this “black window” of the detention surveillance system, what did Mr. Wang experience? he stated that the law enforcement center of the civil police had insulted and seduced him, explicitly asking him to “tell some criminal facts about Mr. Wang (another defendant).”

Wang said that one of the police officers involved in the two "black window reports" was an auxiliary police officer named Wei Yuyun, and that the auxiliary police was Liang Qing's "Bid the Brother" (Bid the Brother).

For this serious violation of the provisions of detention and interrogation, the defense lawyer lawfully requested the court to obtain the "report certificate" of the two interrogations, the registration records of the detention facility and the full synchronous audio recording of the law enforcement case center.

The defence lawyer requested the request for the application of the "Certificate of Appeal" and the synchronized recording of the "Certificate of Appeal".

The lawyer said: “If there is no “Certificate of Interrogation,” this cannot be called a “Certificate of Interrogation,” which is called an illegal kidnapping of detainees. If the public security authorities cannot provide a synchronous video of the two “black window interrogations” to prove their legitimacy, then all verbal evidence obtained during this period must be completely excluded based on the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence.”

07 is

“Payment for the entire period.”

According to the lawyer who asked the defendant in court, it was revealed that from September 2025 to January 2026, for almost half a year, the case officers of the perpetual police, frequently traveled to Hebei and Yunnan Kunming for cross-provincial cases.

However, the advocate's clues and the defendant's statements indicate that the high costs of accommodation, transportation, car rental and other expenses of the case officers during Kunming were allegedly all arranged and paid by the reporting unit.

The lawyer thus raised the question that if the investigators live in the high-end hotels arranged by the reporting person, travel by the vehicle provided by the reporting person, this “short-handed, soft-mouthed” case model, its objective neutrality of law enforcement has long been blurred, the case from the beginning of the case has become a “public power striker” hired by the reporting person.

The defense lawyer requested to call for the investigator's proof of financial compensation for the case.

The accused Wang Ventao also accused in court, during the case, the assistant police Liu Yongxi at the Hilton Hotel with the "can not catch Wang Ventao" as an exchange code, to extortion him 100,000. he then took the car to find Zhang Zhou friend Chen Ventao borrowed 100,000, sent to Liu Yongxi in the car to Liu. Liu Yongxi in the later call did not deny, this has recorded evidence.

Wang Ventao further stated, Liu Yongxi, during the Qingming exit case, also repeatedly asked him to go to high-end KTV entertainment, consume expensive wine, and requested to provide paid service. Liu Yongxi once played in the side of the official treasure sea park, once consumed Wang Ventao 1.8 thousand yuan, the drinker also insulted the beauties, and even went out to eat at night while still drinking and cheating people, causing extremely bad effects.

In addition, the arrest of Wang Ventao was also filled with "shares".

Wang Ventao said that after receiving the police notification to go to Qingdao to accept the investigation, he had explicitly promised to go to cooperate with the investigation on his own. However, the Forever Police phoneed him not to go, instead sent up to seven-eight people a large squad, far to Qingdao to "catch" him.

Based on the aforementioned serious disciplinary infringement clues, the defense lawyer has formally applied to the court to request that all the financial reimbursement credentials, travel approval materials, travel fee flows, and related KTV consumption records and surveillance videos of investigators during the Kunming case be retrieved.

08 is

Collective “hypersensitivity” in the court

The court should have exercised a strict jurisdictional scrutiny in the face of such intensive procedural allegations, but the reality is quite the opposite:

The lawyer proposed to summon Special Police Officer Zhang Biao, Assistant Police Officer Liu Yongqi, and Wei Yuanmen to testify in court to determine the legality of their proof-collecting entity qualifications and the proof-collecting process, the court did not agree;

The lawyer applied for synchronous video recordings of all disputed interrogations to verify whether the auxiliary police overshadowed the interrogation, whether there were black window reports and forced confessions, and the court also refused to call.

The lawyer applied for the collection of cross-provincial travel reimbursement credentials to ascertain whether the public authority was corrupted by the applicant's money, the court still did not collect.

Defence lawyer recorded perpetual district prosecutor's office at the pre-trial meeting of the "classic vocabulary."

The lawyer said during the trial that several lawyers had responded to the prosecutor Liu Zhenzhe, who was responsible for the proceedings, and applied for insurance. Liu Zhenzhe, who was responsible for the trial, informed the lawyer directly: “I would like to contact the victim (the applicant) Liu Qing and communicate with him. He agreed to do so.” But Liu Zhenzhe no longer acknowledged that he had said this.

The defense lawyer said that as a legal supervisory body, the prosecutor's office not only failed to perform its legal duties in the face of a series of absurd and serious procedural violations in the case, but still prosecuted the case to the court in the event of major problems in the case; even linked the suspect's personal freedom to the reporting person's private will.

09 is

The criminal case “manipulator” was requested to be transferred to the public security organs

In addition to the case, a "Rejection of the execution of the judgment and the conviction of the crime to transfer the investigation application to the public security organs", revealed another important face of the reporting person Liang Qing, also revealed the deep economic motives behind this alienation case.

According to enterprise industrial and commercial credit information and court executive network data showed, Liang Qing is not only the actual controller of this purchase of housing, but also the chairman of Hebei Zhejiang Zhejiang Gas Group, and actually controls Hebei Huang Zhejiang Zhejiang Gas Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Hiang Zhejiang Zhejiang"), holding up to 97% of the shareholding of the gas company.

It is worth noting that the $1.19 billion spent in Qingming to buy real estate, its registered capital is only 5 million yuan, and the legal representative is registered as the daughter of Liang Qing, which is essentially entirely controlled by Liang Qing individuals, and is a company under its capital scheme.

The above-mentioned "application" stated that in the same period of Liang Qing's purchase of 1.19 billion buildings, its holding company, Hua Feng Long, was charged with two compulsory enforcement cases by the Wuhan City Court (executing the measure of 241 million yuan) and the Yuan District Court (executing the measure of 247 million yuan). In total, up to 24.88 million yuan in effective judgment debt, all due to the "no property can be enforced" under the name of Hua Feng Long, and the court decided to terminate the execution procedure (final).

The applicant and related creditors pointed out that Liang Qing knew that its core controlling enterprises had large amounts of expiration debts, and was compelled by the court to execute, not only did not fulfill the statutory clearing obligations, but instead used its controlled, no business-risk-related companies to consume huge amounts of money to purchase high-value real estate in another place, suspected of malicious reduction of liability property, and escaped the court's enforcement.

According to the provisions of Article 313 of the Criminal Law, such acts of refusal to execute a people's court's judgment or ruling are capable of enforcement, and serious circumstances have been suspected of constituting a refusal to execute a judgment or a conviction.

During the trial, after several defenders insisted on the exclusion of illegal evidence, and the application for the acquisition of key evidence such as audio recordings, the court immediately declared the case suspended and re-examined.

Why is China's first case of illicit operation of industrial platforms not delayed in trial?

* by *

Trembling broadcaster alleged fraud arrested by Hainan across the province, mobile phone data extraction accidental exposure operation throughout the process

* by *

Robbery after a desert beach turned into a good place: a 20-year nightmare of the country's first coastal salt land and farmers' workstation

* by *

became a private enterprise in the name of the Chinese-Russian border streets, assets are robbed by state-owned enterprises and the government

* by *

The case of "internal contractual profits accused of corruption" by the Military Examining Institute, questioning the 20-year state-owned contractual system