Hobin case: First-instance proceedings are messy, who will protect grassroots law enforcement innocents?

When legal procedures are broken one by one, when the right to litigate is stripped of, the so-called fair trial loses its foundation.

As a grass-roots civilian police officer and old party member with many years of party age at the Hongshan District Branch of the Wuhan Municipal Public Security Bureau, Hu Bin should have stood firm in the position of law enforcement as a people, but in the first-instance procedure of the Wuhan People's Court for Economic and Technological Development Zone, he suffered a systematic and subversive lawsuit.

From the jurisdiction of the case to the organization of the trial, from the rights guarantee to the publicity of the trial, seven core legal procedures have been successively breakthroughed, each touching the bottom line of the criminal lawsuit, each meeting the legal circumstances for the re-examination.

Why is such a trial fair?

A, the legal procedure is fake, the victim of fraud does not have a chance to appear in court

The victim's participation in the trial in accordance with the law is the statutory right expressly conferred on the victim in Article 187 of the Criminal Procedure Law and the obligation to notify the victim to appear in court.

After the open district court in the trial phase of the case, from the beginning to the end did not notify the victim of fraud to appear in the court, attempting to use the written note of the investigation phase, the trial of the court proof, completely replace the victim's appearance in the court procedure value, so that the explicit provisions of the law become a paper blank.

It is important to know that nine rulings have been clearly confirmed, only because the victim has not been notified to participate in the trial, the second-instance court will revoke the first-instance judgment on this basis and send the case back to re-trial.

This move by the district court is by no means a small procedural defect, but directly deprives the victim of the right to litigate, burying the hidden danger of judicial injustice from the source.

, jurisdiction overriding serious violations of the law, the supervisory committee investigates fraud crimes

According to the law, fraud crimes belong to the criminal cases under the legal jurisdiction of the public security organs, and do not fall within the scope of the supervisory committee's criminal investigation.

In this case, the public security organs have never fulfilled any case filing procedures, but directly obtained evidence by the unilateral investigation of the Hongshan District Supervisory Commission, completely breaking the legal jurisdiction boundaries.

In this case, the public security organs have never carried out any case filing procedures, but directly obtained evidence by the unilateral investigation of the Hongshan District Supervisory Commission, completely breaking the legal jurisdiction boundaries.

If the subject of the investigation is inappropriate, the investigation procedure is illegal from the root, and such illegal evidence obtained in accordance with relevant laws shall not be used as the basis of the case in accordance with the law, and the allegations of fraud crime cannot stand from the foundation, which is completely contrary to the legal principles of the jurisdiction of criminal cases.

* Third, arbitrary replacement of the "two court trials one case" in violation of the principle of trial

* by

The trial process of this case is chaotic and follows the absurd situation of two composite parliamentary sessions:

The trial procedure in this case is chaotic, and there is a absurd situation in the two composite parliamentary courts that follow the trial.

• the previous two pre-trial meetings, consisting of the joint committees of Pay Hai英, Nguyen Cao and Liu Ri Lu;

• On December 22, 2025, through the opening district court to change the members of the Chamber of Representatives, Liu Liu withdrew, Xu He joined, forming a new Chamber of Representatives;

• Third pre-trial session on January 16, 2026, the new Chamber directly continued the pre-trial procedure to continue the trial.

Article 31 After the replacement of members of the Chamber of Representatives, the trial should be reopened.The pre-trial meeting itself is an important part of the trial process, the Chamber of Representatives after the change did not participate in the entire trial process in the previous period, can not comprehensively and objectively grasp the facts of the case and the opinions of both defendants, seriously violates the principle of centralized trial, and the legitimacy of the trial organization is unreserved.

(4) The notice of the trial was abbreviated and the defendant's lawsuit rights were grossly deprived.

After the people's court determines the date of the trial, the hearing note and notice shall be delivered to the parties before the three days of the trial, which is the core bottom line of ensuring that the defendant and the lawyer are fully prepared to defend and exercise the right to litigate.

However, in this case, the district court did not notify the defendant three days in advance of the trial, significantly reducing the defendant's preparation time, resulting in Hu Bin's failure to fully grasp the details of the case, improve the defence opinions, and his right to self-defense and entrust defence was substantially deprived, which seriously affected the fairness of the trial of the case, completely contrary to the basic requirements of procedural justice.

(5) Investigators suspected of identity fraud, lack of work qualification, single supervision + interrogation of non-supervision personnel is seriously illegal.

Article 90: The interrogation shall be carried out separately, the investigators shall not be less than two, and the term "investigators" in the legal article refers specifically to persons with the status of employees of the supervisory authorities, which is a strict legal requirement for the collection of evidence for supervisory investigations, and does not allow any variation.

The court examined the key facts: the investigator involved in the case Li Ying, the employees of the enterprises under the Hong Kong State Funds Commission, were transferred only to the Hong Kong Discipline Commission, and not to the staff of the Hong Kong Supervision Commission.

During the investigation of the case, the investigation was carried out solely by one supervisor along with the non-supervisor Li Ying, which does not comply with the legal requirement of "two supervisors responsible for interrogation".

Even in reference to the norms of the public security organs to handle criminal cases, the interrogation of a formal civil police with an auxiliary police is clearly illegal, and Li Ying's identity as an enterprise personnel, even the qualifications of the auxiliary police for the case can not be reached.

More oddly, Mr. Li has absolutely no capacity to handle cases. "Registration Form for Applications for Interim Working Documents of the District Disciplinary Commission" shows that in October 2023, he was not involved in work, in February 2024, he was not only borrowed, but not only attended a very short working time, before never engaged in any investigation, investigation, interrogation related work, does not know about the supervision business, does not have the basic investigation and evidence capability at all.

According to Hu Bin, during the investigative conversation, Li I did not have any control over the unreasonable actions of the group's officers, and could not even objectively and truthfully record the entire process of the conversation, so that the evidence obtained by the investigation was untrue and legitimate.

In accordance with the provisions of the law, the participation of non-supervisors in the investigation, the questioning subject is not legal, and all the evidence obtained is illegal, and should be excluded in accordance with the law, and must not be used as the basis for determining the facts of the case.

(6) Avoiding the application for stone sinking sea, the legal avoidance system is publicly ignored

In the course of the investigation of the case, Hu Bin has repeatedly explicitly submitted an application for avoidance, pointing out that Li Mou, a member of the Hongshan Region Supervisory Commission, and the case organizer Li Mou have an interest relationship with themselves, and there are suspicions of fighting retaliation, and the Hongshan Region Supervisory Commission as a whole should avoid, and submitted relevant materials for proof appeals.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the "Supervision Law", supervisors and prospective relationships with cases, which may affect the fair treatment, should be rejected by themselves, the parties also have the right to apply for rejection.But in the face of the lawful compliance with the application for rejection, the district court and the Hongshan District Supervision Commission, neither reviewed according to law nor made the decision to dispose of the case, but did not give feedback to Hobin, directly violating the system of rejection, belongs to the statutory circumstances for re-examination.

Seventh, open trial becomes a form, and restriction of side listening violates the principle of judicial openness

This case is a criminal case that is openly tried in accordance with the law, and the core of judicial disclosure is to accept social supervision and allow the public to listen to the trial.

But after the open district court trial site, but man-made setting a side-listening barrier, only allowed Hobin's relatives to enter the side-listening, his friends, lawyer colleagues, legal learners were rejected without reason, even if the side-listening room still has a large number of empty spaces, also resolutely refused the ordinary public entrance.

This "selective disclosure" completely violates the principle of public trial established by the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law, deprives the public of judicial supervision, turns public trial into a clandestine operation, and completely deviates from the basic requirements of judicial fairness.

Conclusion: Adhere to procedural justice and also grassroots civil police innocence and fairness

The above seven procedures are illegal, each of which independently constitutes the statutory circumstances stipulated in Article 238 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which should be revoked by the judgment of the first instance, and which should be returned to the re-trial, and a number of overlapping violations are sufficient to prove that this case is not a fair trial in accordance with the law, but a serious misconduct of the procedure and a wrong case where the entity is unfair.

Hu Bin, as a grassroots people's police officer and old comrade within the party, has always adhered to his post and performed his duties and duties, but is now in an unfair situation due to a series of illegal procedures.

We urge the people's courts of the Wuhan Economic and Technological Development Zone to adhere to the bottom line of justice, adhere to procedural justice, comprehensively verify the illegal circumstances in this case, exclude illegal evidence in accordance with the law, clarify the facts of the case, and allow the people to truly feel fairness and justice in this case.

Never let the law enforcer be blamed and never let the authority of the law be compromised.