Recently, the central publication of the Chinese Communist Party, “Qiushi,” published an article by Xi Jinping. Xi Jinping emphasized that the education of the CPC must not cultivate “socialist disruptors and gravediggers.” Otherwise, it would be considered a failure in education.
Shortly after, I came across a case that happened in Shenyang, Liaoning Province, and my emotions couldn’t calm down for a long time. After reading it, I couldn’t help but wonder, are those officials involved in this case, who treated the people with coldness, cruelty, and lawlessness, the gravediggers of the CCP?
Now, let’s discuss this case in detail.
The case is not complicated: Guo Hong, a former official of the Shenyang Letters and Visits Bureau, reported that the former director of the bureau, Chen Guoqiang, had privately opened bank accounts and stored over 100 million yuan of stability maintenance funds illegally. The report was found to be true.
On September 12, 2024, the whistleblower Guo Hong was taken to court as a criminal suspect.
During the trial, it was revealed that Chen Guoqiang had opened six bank accounts. It was disclosed which bank held sixty million, which bank held fifty million, and one bank held one hundred million. The lawyers argued that the total sum exceeded one billion yuan. If Guo Hong’s report was based on facts, why was he arrested? The judge remained silent.
In court, Guo Hong, a graduate with a law degree, refuted the so-called evidence provided by the prosecution using relevant legal statutes and provisions. However, the prosecutor still recommended a prison sentence of fewer than five years for Guo Hong.
According to Article 41 of the Constitution, it is the right of citizens to report illegal and disciplinary acts by state officials. Guo Hong’s report on Chen Guoqiang’s serious violations of law and discipline was to uphold fairness and justice, and since the report was proven true, he should be praised not punished.
Why was Guo Hong arrested by the Public Security Bureau? Why was he prosecuted by the Procuratorate? Why did the court judge him? On what basis did the prosecutor suggest a prison sentence of less than five years?
Guo Hong began reporting in 2014. Following his reports, on December 17, 2015, he was unexpectedly arrested by the Shenyang Public Security Bureau and subjected to torture. According to Guo Hong:
“After being arrested, they immediately put ankle and handcuffs on me, locked me in the basement for 48 hours without any legal procedures.”
“They tortured me severely, resulting in a perforated left eardrum, an 8 cm wound on my head, nerve damage in my hands, torn and fractured cervical, lumbar vertebrae fibrous rings, joint injuries all over the body, bleeding gums, and damage to cervical blood vessels.”
Why was Guo Hong illegally arrested by the Shenyang Public Security Bureau? Who ordered the Shenyang Public Security Bureau to arrest him? Who ordered the torture? Why was he tortured?
One month after Guo Hong was detained by the Shenyang Public Security Bureau, the case was dropped. Why was the case dropped? It was because Guo Hong insisted on the innocence of his whistleblowing, didn’t confess under interrogation, and no evidence of his guilt was found, leading to his release.
Over the following eight years, Guo Hong contacted various departments in Shenyang, Liaoning Province, national supervisory bodies, and the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection more than 4,800 times, but no results were achieved.
Guo Hong stated that after eight years of reflecting on the situation, the Shenyang Public Security Bureau, the Public Security Department, and the judicial system were all covering up for Chen Guoqiang. Despite his numerous efforts, no progress was made. His emails and WeChat accounts for whistleblowing were blocked countless times.
In 2022, Guo Hong went to Beijing for medical treatment and legal advice. However, he was intercepted at a highway service area in Panjin City, Liaoning Province, by more than thirty people and ten vehicles arranged by the Shenyang Public Security Bureau and the Shenyang Letters and Visits Bureau, unlawfully depriving him of his freedom for nine days and nights.
During this ordeal, Guo Hong made over forty police reports. Although the Panjin City police accepted the reports, they did not intervene in the illegal activities on site due to jurisdictional issues.
On October 23, almost on the brink of collapse, Guo Hong had no choice but to escape the scene by breaking through the blockade of vehicles.
On October 24, Guo Hong was criminally detained by the Shenyang Public Security Bureau Yunhong Sub-Bureau for “intentional destruction of property.”
Going to Beijing for medical treatment and legal advice was Guo Hong’s legitimate right as a citizen. Why did the Shenyang Public Security Bureau and Letters and Visits Bureau organize a blockade with more than thirty people and ten vehicles? Who issued the order? Why were Guo Hong’s freedom illegally deprived for nine days and nights?
According to the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law, illegal detention constitutes a crime. Why did the Shenyang Public Security Bureau and the Letters and Visits Bureau knowingly commit crimes, brazenly infringing on the citizens’ personal freedom?
Why did the Panjin City Public Security Bureau fail to protect the citizen’s personal freedom as required by law after Guo Hong’s distress calls?
Under extremely pressurized circumstances after being trapped for nine days and nights, was Guo Hong’s act of fleeing the scene a criminal offense?
The maximum allowable period for detention under criminal law is 37 days.
However, Guo Hong was detained for 150 days based solely on a detention notice issued by the Shenyang Public Security Bureau.
The investigating officers at the Shenyang Public Security Bureau stated that Guo Hong needed psychological evaluation, which would not count towards the investigation period. However, first, Guo Hong was mentally stable. Second, according to the General Rules for Judicial Expertise Procedures, the expert organization should complete the evaluation within 30 working days from the effective date of the assessment commission. Therefore, the maximum period of detention should have been 30 days for the evaluation plus 37 days for detention, totaling 67 days.
Even if a psychological evaluation was necessary, why was Guo Hong not released after the 67th day? The only logical explanation is that there was a deliberate attempt to torment Guo Hong by unlawfully extending his detention to cover up for Chen Guoqiang, the former director of the Shenyang Letters and Visits Bureau and his criminal activities, as well as the serious illegal actions taken against Guo Hong by the Shenyang Public Security Bureau and the Letters and Visits Bureau.
Chen Guoqiang has served in various high-ranking positions within the Shenyang Municipal Government and Shenyang Discipline Inspection Committee. Is there a protective umbrella provided by his past leaders, including those in the Municipal People’s Congress, Discipline Inspection Committee, and Public Security Bureau, to safeguard him?
In connection with his report on Chen Guoqiang, Guo Hong’s lawyer, Li Aijun, repeatedly communicated with police officers, reported to the local procuratorate, and raised concerns about the illegal actions during the handling of Guo Hong’s case.
Li Aijun sent a formal complaint to the Ministry of Public Security accusing Yang Jianjun, former head of the Shenyang Public Security Bureau, Xu Wenyou, the former chief, and Jiang Guiguo, the deputy director of the Criminal Investigation Division, of serious illegal conduct in handling Guo Hong’s case.
The complaint demanded that the Ministry of Public Security “supervise the Shenyang Public Security Bureau to immediately cease persecuting Guo Hong and either release him on bail or assign him to a public security agency outside Shenyang.”
A copy of the following documents were attached to the complaint:
(1) A report from the Shenyang Municipal Committee’s inspection unit verifying Guo Hong’s report of Chen Guoqiang’s secret fund exceeding a hundred million yuan.
(2) A report from the Liaoning Letters and Visits Bureau to the Ministry of Public Security confirming the case handler for Guo Hong’s case as the Shenyang Public Security Bureau.
(3) A procuratorate suggestion to the police in 2015 that there was “unclear facts and insufficient evidence” regarding the detention of Guo Hong.
(4) The detention notice from October 24, 2022, and the arrest notice from March 30, 2023, showing that the Shenyang Public Security Bureau detained Guo Hong for 150 days, a severe and illegal overextension of the detention period.
Based on the September 12th trial, it is evident that the Shenyang Yunhong District Court failed to monitor and correct the serious legal breaches of the Shenyang Public Security Bureau officials involved in Guo Hong’s case.
Guo Hong mentioned that the Shenyang Letters and Visits Bureau had a stability maintenance base on Qipanshan Mountain, specifically used to detain petitioners brought back from Beijing, some of whom died from persecution.
Given the above context, the case of Guo Hong is undoubtedly a miscarriage of justice, created jointly by the Shenyang Public Security Bureau, the Shenyang Letters and Visits Bureau, and the Yunhong District Procuratorate.
Throughout this process, officials have been knowingly breaking the law, enforcing the law illegally, treating the law as a game, violating human rights, and exploiting the “people’s court” to persecute the people.
The authorities responsible for overseeing the officials in question, such as the Yunhong District Procuratorate, the Shenyang Procuratorate, the Liaoning Province Public Security Department, the Liaoning Provincial Procuratorate, the Liaoning Discipline Inspection and Supervision Commission, the Ministry of Public Security, and even the leaders of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and the National Supervision Commission, have failed in their duty to uphold the law and have allowed serious violations of the law by the relevant officials.
These officials have received education from the party for a long time, yet none of them have taken party regulations and laws seriously. They have not only ignored but also trampled on the regulations and laws found in the Party Constitution, Party Supervision Regulations, Disciplinary Regulations, as well as the Constitution, Criminal Law, and Criminal Procedure Law.
Chen Guoqiang, who was reported by Guo Hong for being involved in over a hundred million yuan in illegal acts, only received a “warning” for Party discipline and demotion for administrative discipline.
According to sources, Chen Guoqiang has escaped abroad and immigrated to Australia.
Why was someone involved in such severe corruption of over a hundred million yuan only lightly disciplined? Did he receive special protection from his higher-ups? Did his escape and immigration to Australia happen with their approval?
Why wasn’t Chen Guoqiang, who was involved in such serious corruption and legal violations, severely punished? Why did the authorities use the “people’s court” to retaliate against Guo Hong for whistleblowing? Is there more to this than meets the eye?
Over the span of eight years, starting with the departments directly responsible for overseeing the Shenyang Public Security Bureau and the Letters and Visits Bureau, extending to the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and the National Supervisory Commission, everyone has been shielding corrupt officials and persecuting the righteous individuals. Their actions run contrary to what the CCP propagates as “governing according to the law,” “administrating according to the law,” and “ruling the country according to the law.” Their indifference, cruelty, and brutality towards Guo Hong day by day, month by month, year by year, only cause sorrow, disappointment, and despair for Guo Hong, his family, his friends, and all fair-minded individuals sympathetic to him, both domestically and internationally.
Are they the gravediggers of the CCP?
*This article is based on a report by Da Ji Yuan.*