On December 10, 2023, World Human Rights Day, Guo Song, the sister of Guo Hong, displayed a sign reading “Release Guo Hong Innocently” at the racecourse market in downtown Auckland, New Zealand. (Provided by Guo Song)
October 17, 2024 – Not long ago, Qiushi, a publication of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), published an article by Xi Jinping. In it, Xi emphasized that the CCP’s education system must never cultivate “socialist saboteurs and gravediggers,” as that would signify a failure of the education system.
Recently, I came across a case in Shenyang City, Liaoning Province, which left me deeply unsettled. After reading it, I couldn't help but wonder: Are the officials involved in this case—those who are cold, ruthless, and lawless towards the people—the CCP's own gravediggers?
Let me now talk about this case.
The case is not complicated: Former Shenyang Municipal Petition Bureau official Guo Hong lawfully reported that Chen Guoqiang, the former director of the Petition Bureau, had opened personal bank accounts and privately stored over 100 million yuan in funds meant for maintaining stability. The report was confirmed to be true.
On September 12, 2024, however, the whistleblower Guo Hong was brought to court as a criminal suspect.
According to insiders, during the court session, the prosecution revealed that Chen Guoqiang had opened six private bank accounts. It was disclosed that 60 million yuan was deposited in one account at the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, 50 million in another account at the same bank, and 100 million in another bank. They listed six accounts and even provided the account numbers, implying that Chen’s wrongdoing had been discovered and dealt with. Internally, the Party had given him a warning, and administratively, he had been demoted.
Guo Hong’s lawyer argued forcefully: “We are all educated people. Now, I ask you: Adding up the amounts in these six accounts, does it exceed 100 million yuan? Was Guo Hong’s report not accurate? Did he provide any false information?” The question left the judge speechless. “Since Guo Hong’s report was factual, why was he arrested?” The judge had no response.
In court, Guo Hong, a law graduate, refuted each of the so-called pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution using relevant legal provisions.
Nevertheless, the prosecutor still recommended that the court sentence Guo Hong to less than five years in prison.
According to Article 41 of the Constitution, it is the right of citizens to report violations and misconduct by state officials in accordance with the law. Guo Hong’s lawful report of Chen Guoqiang’s serious disciplinary and legal violations was an act to uphold social fairness and justice. Since the report was factual, he should be commended rather than criminalized.
So, why did the Public Security Bureau arrest him? Why did the Procuratorate prosecute him? Why did the court put him on trial? On what grounds did the prosecutor recommend that the court sentence him to less than five years?
Guo Hong began his reports in 2014. Following his report, on December 17, 2015, he was suddenly and illegally arrested by the Shenyang Municipal Public Security Bureau and subjected to torture. According to Guo Hong, after being arrested:
"The police immediately put shackles and handcuffs on me and detained me in a basement for 48 hours without any formal procedures."
“They brutally tortured me, causing my left eardrum to rupture, an 8 cm wound on my head, nerve damage in my hands, tears and ruptures in the fibrous rings of my cervical and lumbar vertebrae, injuries to my joints, loose and bleeding teeth, and damage to my cervical blood vessels."
Why did the Shenyang Public Security Bureau illegally arrest him? Who ordered the Shenyang Public Security Bureau to arrest him? Who ordered the torture, and why did they torture him?
A month after his arrest, the Shenyang Public Security Bureau dropped the case. Why? Because Guo Hong maintained his innocence, insisting that his report was lawful, and despite the police’s torture, he refused to confess. The police also failed to find any evidence of his alleged crime, so they had no choice but to release him.
For the following eight years, Guo Hong repeatedly petitioned relevant departments in Shenyang, Liaoning Province, and central government bodies such as the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and the National Supervisory Commission. He did this more than 4,800 times, including contacting relevant leaders, but received no response.
Guo Hong said that after eight years of reporting, the public security, procuratorate, and court systems in Shenyang all protected Chen Guoqiang. He made thousands of complaints to the three levels of the Liaoning Provincial Procuratorate but received no reply. He also reported to the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection but heard nothing. His email addresses and WeChat accounts used to contact the media were blocked—dozens of email addresses were shut down.
In eight years and with over 4,800 complaints, every official, whom the Chinese Communist Party calls “public servants,” remained indifferent. Are any of these officials serving the people as the CCP claims?
On October 14, 2022, Guo Hong drove to Beijing for medical treatment and to hire a lawyer. While at a service area on the highway in Panjin City, Liaoning Province, he was surrounded by more than 30 people and over 10 vehicles, organized by the Shenyang Municipal Public Security Bureau and the Shenyang Petition Bureau. He was illegally detained for nine days and nights.
During this time, Guo Hong called the police over 40 times. While the Panjin Municipal Public Security Bureau received his reports, they claimed they had “no jurisdiction” and did not address the illegal acts on-site.
On October 23, as Guo Hong was on the verge of a breakdown, he had no choice but to ram the blockade with his car to escape.
On October 24, Guo Hong was criminally detained by the Yuhong Branch of the Shenyang Public Security Bureau on charges of “intentional damage to property.”
Guo Hong went to Beijing for medical treatment and to hire a lawyer, which is his legitimate right as a lawful citizen. Why did the Shenyang Public Security Bureau and the Petition Bureau mobilize more than 30 people and over 10 vehicles to blockade him? Who issued the order? On what grounds did the Shenyang Public Security Bureau and the Petition Bureau illegally deprive him of his freedom for nine days and nights?
According to the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law, illegal detention already constitutes a crime. Why did the Shenyang Public Security Bureau and the Petition Bureau knowingly break the law and seriously violate Guo Hong’s right to personal freedom?
Why didn’t the Panjin Public Security Bureau protect Guo Hong’s right to personal freedom, as required by law, after receiving his report?
Guo Hong, who was nearly driven to the point of collapse after being confined for nine days and nights, had no choice but to find a way to save himself. How is this a crime?
The maximum period of criminal detention under the Criminal Procedure Law is 37 days.
However, based solely on a notice of criminal detention, the Shenyang Public Security Bureau detained Guo Hong for 150 days.
The case handler at the Shenyang Public Security Bureau claimed that they needed to conduct a psychiatric evaluation of Guo Hong, and that the evaluation period would not count towards the investigation time limit.
However, firstly, Guo Hong is mentally sound. Secondly, according to Article 28 of the "General Procedures for Judicial Authentication," judicial authentication institutions must complete evaluations within 30 working days from the date the judicial authorization takes effect. Therefore, the maximum detention period in this case should have been 30 days for the evaluation plus 37 days for criminal detention, equaling 67 days.
Even if a psychiatric evaluation was necessary, Guo Hong should have been released on the 67th day. Why was he not released?
The only reasonable explanation is that someone deliberately wanted to torment Guo Hong, intentionally using this prolonged detention to either drive him insane, force him to confess, or make him admit guilt. This was likely to cover up the serious crimes of Chen Guoqiang, the former director of the Shenyang Petition Bureau, and his backers, as well as to hide the serious illegal acts of retaliation by the Shenyang Public Security Bureau and Petition Bureau against Guo Hong.
Chen Guoqiang previously served as the secretary to the director of the Shenyang Municipal People’s Congress at the principal rank; he also served as a member of the Shenyang Municipal Discipline Inspection Commission, its deputy secretary, and its secretary-general, serving the head of the commission; and he was the deputy secretary-general of the Shenyang Municipal Government, serving the deputy mayor of Shenyang.
Could it be that Chen Guoqiang is protected by an influential network of former leaders he once served, including officials from the Municipal People’s Congress, the Discipline Inspection Commission, the Municipal Government, and leaders in the Public Security Bureau closely associated with the Petition Bureau?
Guo Hong’s case of retaliation and persecution after reporting Chen Guoqiang has been repeatedly addressed by his lawyer, Li Aijun, to public security officials, the Yuhong District Procuratorate in Shenyang, the Shenyang Procuratorate, and the Liaoning Provincial Public Security Department six times. It has also been brought to the attention of the Liaoning Provincial Procuratorate and the Discipline Inspection Commission twice. Despite all this, the Shenyang Public Security Bureau seems to have a “get out of jail free” card, as it has not only refused to correct its mistakes but has continued to retaliate against Guo Hong.
Guo Hong, through his lawyer Li Aijun, sent a complaint to the Ministry of Public Security accusing former Shenyang Public Security Bureau chiefs Yang Jianjun and Xu Wenyou, as well as Jiang Guiguo, the deputy head of the Shenyang Public Security Bureau’s Criminal Investigation Division, of serious violations in handling Guo Hong’s case.
The complaint urged the leadership of the Ministry of Public Security to “supervise the Shenyang Public Security Bureau to immediately stop persecuting Guo Hong, grant him bail pending trial, or transfer the jurisdiction of the case to a public security authority outside of Shenyang.”
The complaint was accompanied by four pieces of evidence:
-
The Shenyang Municipal Party Committee inspection report, which confirmed that Guo Hong’s report of Chen Guoqiang privately storing over 100 million yuan of stability maintenance funds was true.
-
A report from the Liaoning Provincial Petition Bureau to the Ministry of Public Security, confirming that the Shenyang Public Security Bureau is the authority handling Guo Hong’s case.
-
A recommendation from the Procuratorate to the Public Security Bureau, stating that Guo Hong’s 2015 arrest was based on "unclear facts and insufficient evidence."
-
The notice of criminal detention dated October 24, 2022, and the notice of arrest dated March 30, 2023, both proving that the Shenyang Public Security Bureau’s 150-day detention of Guo Hong was a serious violation of the law due to prolonged detention.
-
From the trial of Guo Hong's case at the Yuhong District Court in Shenyang on September 12, it is clear that the Ministry of Public Security leadership has failed to supervise, correct, or investigate the serious disciplinary and legal violations of the officials Guo Hong accused from the Shenyang Public Security Bureau.
According to Guo Hong, the Shenyang Petition Bureau has a stability maintenance base in Qipanshan, specifically used to detain petitioners brought back from Beijing. There have been deaths there—some people hanged themselves, and others were persecuted by Chen Guoqiang and his group.
Was Guo Hong’s retaliation connected to attempts to cover up these deaths?
A lawful citizen reporting the disciplinary and legal violations of officials out of conscience has been subjected to constant retaliation and has now been illegally detained for 357 days. The prosecutor has already recommended a sentence of less than five years.
From the above, it is clear that Guo Hong’s case is undoubtedly a miscarriage of justice—one jointly manufactured by the Shenyang Public Security Bureau, the Shenyang Petition Bureau, and the Yuhong District Procuratorate in Shenyang.
Throughout this process, the officials involved have knowingly violated the law, mocked the legal system, trampled on human rights, and used the "People's Court" to persecute the people.
The supervisory authorities, such as the Yuhong District Procuratorate in Shenyang, the Shenyang Procuratorate, the Liaoning Provincial Public Security Department, the Liaoning Provincial Procuratorate, the Liaoning Provincial Discipline Inspection Commission, the Ministry of Public Security, and even the leadership of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and the National Supervisory Commission, have all failed to uphold the law. They have allowed these serious violations by officials to go unchecked.
These officials, long educated by the Party, show no regard for the Party Constitution, the Party's supervision regulations, disciplinary rules, or the clear provisions of laws such as the Constitution, the Criminal Law, and the Criminal Procedure Law. Not only do they disregard these laws, but they actively trample them as if they were worthless.
Conclusion
Chen Guoqiang, the former director of the Shenyang Petition Bureau, who was implicated in Guo Hong's report for mishandling over 100 million yuan, was merely given a Party disciplinary "warning" and a demotion in his administrative duties.
According to insiders, Chen Guoqiang has already fled abroad and immigrated to Australia.
A corrupt official involved in a case of over 100 million yuan was lightly punished. Is he receiving special protection from his backers? Did his superiors intentionally let him flee the country and immigrate to Australia?
Why wasn’t Chen Guoqiang, who was involved in such serious corruption and illegal activities, severely punished? Why are officials using the "People's Court" to retaliate against Guo Hong, the whistleblower? Is there more corruption behind the scenes?
Over the past eight years, from the agencies directly responsible for supervising the Shenyang Public Security Bureau and Petition Bureau to the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, there has been a consistent pattern of covering up for corrupt officials and persecuting good people. Their actions are entirely contrary to the CCP's claims of "acting in accordance with the law, administering in accordance with the law, and governing the country according to the law." The cold indifference, cruelty, and ruthlessness shown toward Guo Hong, day after day, month after month, year after year, have only caused Guo Hong, his family, his friends, and all those with a conscience who sympathize with him—both in China and abroad—to feel heartbroken, disappointed, and despairing of the CCP.
So, are they the gravediggers of the CCP?
First published by The Epoch Times
News magazine bootstrap themes!
I like this themes, fast loading and look profesional
Thank you Carlos!
You're welcome!
Please support me with give positive rating!
Yes Sure!