Saturday, September 19, 2009

Hong Kong Chief Executive Scolded in Open Letter

September 18, 2009

His Excellency Donald Tsang
The Chief Executive of the Government
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Hong Kong

Re. Open Letter to Call for Awareness of the On-Going Forfeiture of Hong Kong’s Administrative and Judicial Independence to Beijing

In Re. Matter of Zhou Yongjun

Dear Mr. Tsang:

We, the undersigned, a group of Chinese and American Human Rights Campaigners, are here to express our deep concern over the fate of Mr. Zhou Yongjun, one of the most prominent student leaders of the 1989 Tian An Men Square prodemocracy Movement.

Mr. Zhou has been held in custody behind bars, virtually incommunicado, by the government of the People’s Republic, mostly because the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, under your administration, volunteered the service of extradition of Mr. Zhou, a prisoner of conscience, to the Central Government in Beijing, without even summary judicial proceedings. As the whole world watches, the Hong Kong government’s police action assists Beijing’s on-going, and accelerating human rights abuses targeting political dissidents in and out of China, and has set a bad precedent in forfeiture of Hong Kong’s judicial and administrative independence, having seriously compromised the fundamental freedoms of the people of Hong Kong.

In September, 2008, Mr. Zhou entered Hong Kong from Macao. He was intercepted, detained, and held incommunicado by your government. Shortly afterwards, the Government of Hong Kong, under your administration, secretly and promptly turned Mr. Zhou into the hands of Beijing government, knowing the latter is an internationally condemned murderer and persecutor of Tian An Men Square prodemocracy activists. This serious development occurred one year ago and has come to light only recently. Such a violation of all well recognized international protocols may have shocked all hearts of the international human rights community. We, the undersigned resolutely condemn such an outrageous offense and affront to freedom loving people all over the world. In the wake of such a disgraceful betrayal, we the undersigned call for the international community to launch an immediate investigation into this serious development.

We are here to call for awareness; for the international community to pay close attention such an indecent and disgraceful police cooperation between the government of the P.R.C. and the current Government of Hong Kong, the former British Colony, in their dirty trade of extradition of political prisoners demanded by Beijing in return for forfeiture of Hong Kong’s administrative and judicial independence.

We are here to call for the Hong Kong Government’s immediate self-restraint from continuing such ignominious deals with Beijing, and for it to take all necessary steps to remedy the grave consequences of such lapses in procedure. We are here to appeal to people, the voters of Hong Kong, to stand up and speak out, in urging the government of Hong Kong to preserve its administrative and judicial independence.

Respectfully signed by:

/s./ Ye Ning, attorney and human rights campaigner

/s./ Li Jinjin, attorney and chair of China's Judicial Watch

/s./ Zhang Yuewei, family member of Zhou Yongjun

/s./ John Kusumi, founder of China Support Network

Zhou Yongjun's Family Impact Statement

We Haven't Seen Zhou Yongjun (Majer) for One Year Already; We're Quite Worrying about His Health
——from Yongjun's families, written by fiance Yuewei Zhang

Yongjun left Los Angeles for China Last year to visit his disabled father and his earthquake-hit hometown, on his 41st birthday, September 26, 2008. Then immediately, he went missing and we couldn't hear from him at all! About two months later in November, 2008, we were relieved to learn that he was arrested secretly in Hong Kong by the Chinese police and then was secretly transferred to Shenzhen and put in secret custody. However, the Chinese police denied that they held him. As we learned about Yongjun's situation on the inside from released inmates, we realized that he was experiencing a replay, quite similar to the last time in 1998, when he was secretly arrested and the Chinese government tried to block all the information about him, until they found a pretext to charge him with a crime. For example, in his 1998 arrest, he was charged with "Secretly Entering China." In May of 2009, he was charged with fraud, a crime that he never committed.

Based on Chinese government officials' harrassment, threats, and intimidation for our family (since the end of November, 2008), we knew that Yongjun was in custody again, but we had no way of knowing his condition (dead or alive?) inside the prison. So we began to write to the Chinese government repeatedly begging them to release Yongjun. Three months, four months, five months passed with no answer -- until seven months passed, there was no reply! Helplessly, we had to cry for help from God, from the media and human-rights-protecting groups and people, from the U.S. government. Ridiculously, we got Yongjun's Arrest Warrant from them--the Chinese government--on May 13, 2009. Then we retained Mr. Mo Shaoping, a well known human rights attorney. But soon thereafter, we received a lot of pressure to fire Mr. Mo.

Under the pressure, Yongjun had to dismiss Mo. In the time since Yongjun's whereabouts were disclosed, we haven't been allowed to visit him. We learned from the released cellmates that Yongjun suffered migraine, chest pain, and extremities pain in Suining Detention Center. Yongjun's sister is herself a government employee and had called international attention to Yongjun's case. She has received warnings and she has to keep silent about Yongjun's case.

It will be Yongjun's 42nd birthday soon, and we don't know how he will celebrate it in China on September 26. He loves his family and his motherland China, however, this motherland, an oriental big "DEMOCRACTIC AND LAWFUL" country has treated him with three imprisonments and cruel tortures within 20 years. Yongjun has been just a hot-blooded youth working hard to seek democracy. What's wrong with this? It's nothing wrong!

Since 1989, Yongjun suffered both mental tortures and physical injuries in the Chinese prisons and the serious consequences. We're quite worrying about his health. We really miss him now, however, we're not allowed to see him. His 80-year-old upright parents need him, and his children need him more. We've been looking forward to his return to the U.S.A.

I am, hereby, expecting everybody here present who loves and supports democracy, freedom, human rights and world peace to keep an eye on Yongjun's third imprisonment by the Chinese government.

Thank you very much,

Yuewei Zhang on behalf Yongjun's daughter, parents, sister and brother

Zhou Yongjun's Defense Attorney's Memo (English translation)

Beijing Mo Shaoping Law Firm
The Southwest Yard Zhong Shan Park, Beijing, 10031 P.R. China
Tel/Fax: 86-10-66058311 Email:

Attorney’s Memorandum
June 4, 2009
To: Suining Bureau of Public Security, Sichuan Province
Cc: Economic Investigation Branch
Branch Leader: Desheng Xie; Police Officer: Bo Wang:

We are the attorneys from Beijing’s Mo Shaoping Law Firm, representing Yongjun Zhou, who is the suspect of an alleged fraud case handled by your bureau. We are retained by Mr. Zhou’s family, which was confirmed by Mr. Zhou himself. After the retaining, we met with Yongjun Zhou and acquired information about the case. Here we offer our opinions as to this case based on our knowledge about this case and relevant laws for your reference.

I. Regarding the jurisdiction

We believe the Public Security agency of mainland China has no jurisdiction over this case.

1. The Public Security agency of mainland China has no jurisdiction pursuant to the principle of locality jurisdiction

According to the information provided by Yongjun Zhou, which was confirmed by the police officers handling this case, the basic facts relevant to this case are: When Yongjun Zhou entered Hong Kong from Macau, the Hong Kong police suspected him of being involved in a money laundering scam. The police presented to Mr. Zhou a letter addressing Hong Kong Hang Seng Bank from overseas when he was interrogated. The letter was pursuant to a demand for transfer of money from Hang Seng Bank, and the signor of this letter is the same as the name in English spelling present on Yongjun Zhou’s passport: Wang Xingxiang. It is quite clear that the act and its consequence of this case did not happen within the boundaries of mainland China. Pursuant to “The People’s Republic of China Criminal Law” (“Criminal Law”), Section 6, “This law is applicable to all who commit crimes within the territory of the PRC except as specially stipulated by law ….When either the act or consequence of a crime takes place within PRC territory, a crime is deemed to have been committed within PRC territory,” which is the principle of locality jurisdiction, and “The Basic Law of the People’s Republic of China Hong Kong Special Administrative Region”, Section 2 says, “The People’s Congress authorizes Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to have high level of autonomy, owns the power of administrative management, legislating and independent judiciary and final review,” China’s Criminal Law is not applicable to this case and China’s Public Security agency has no jurisdiction over this case.

2. The agency of Public Security of China has no jurisdiction pursuant to the principle of personam jurisdiction.

Yongjun Zhou obtained his green card in the United States on February 4, 1993, and has lived in the United States for 16 years. Considering his Chinese passport had expired, Yongjun Zhou repeatedly applied for the Chinese passport with China’s consulate general in the United States. He also asked his family to help him get a Chinese passport in China. However, his requests were declined, which should be deemed as the denial of his Chinese citizenship by the Chinese government. Without alternative, Yongjun Zhou applied for the U. S. citizenship with the U.S. Immigration and got it granted. According to Yongjun Zhou’s family, the U.S. Immigration has mailed “the notice for taking oath” to Yongjun Zhou’s home in the United States. Pursuant to “The People’s Republic of China Nationality Law”, Section 6, “the Chinese citizen living in foreign countries should be deemed to lose his/her Chinese citizenship when he/she voluntarily applies for or acquires foreign citizenship,” Yongjun Zhou, who lived in the foreign country for a long time and voluntarily applied for United States citizenship, has no longer had his China citizenship. Pursuant to Criminal Law, Section 7, “the crime committed by the Chinese citizen outside China shall be governed by this law. However, the crime subject to the imprisonment for less than three years shall not be prosecuted under this law. The crimes committed by the employees of The People’s Republic of China and servicemen shall be governed by this law,” which is personam jurisdiction principle, the Public Security agency of mainland China cannot exercise its jurisdiction over this case. Here, we need to bring your attention to “the Rule Related to Cases Involving Foreigners,” issued by Foreign Affairs Ministry, The Supreme Court, the Supreme Procuratorate, the Public Security Ministry and Justice Ministry, on June 20, 1995, Section 2, Subsection 1 (1) “as to the administrative detainment, criminal detainment, judicial detainment, detainment questioning and investigation, arrest, surveillance, bailment, attachment of passport and expulsion within limited time of a foreigner,….public security agency, state security agency, people’s prosecutor, the court and other related agencies should report the case, its handling and the way to handling media to its superior agency within 48 hours after taking the abovementioned measures and also inform the foreign affairs agency.” And Section 3, subsection 4(7) “If no valid ID that could be used to identify the dead or the citizenship of the suspect under bailment, surveillance, detainment questioning and investigation, detainment and arrest,….the handling agency should inform the foreign embassy or consulate general via inquiry,” your bureau should report this case to your superior and notify the foreign affair agency of the government at the same level. In the same time, the relevant agency should notify the United States embassy or consulate general pursuant to the “Vienna Treaty regarding Consulate Relationships.”

3. The agency of Public Security of China has no jurisdiction pursuant to the principle of protection jurisdiction.

As stated above, the victim of this case should be Hong Kong Hang Seng Bank or other overseas individual or organization, neither a Chinese citizen nor China as a country. Therefore, pursuant to Criminal Law, Section 8, “Foreigners who commit crimes against a Chinese citizen or China as a country, subject to imprisonment for more than three years, could be governed by this law, except for that such act is not punishable pursuant to the law of the locality where the crime is committed,” which is the principle of protection jurisdiction, the agency of Public Security of mainland China has no jurisdiction over this case.

II. Regarding the evidence in this case

We believe there is insufficient evidence to charge Yongjun Zhou with fraud.

As stated above, the basic facts relevant to this case are: When Yongjun Zhou entered Hong Kong from Macau, the Hong Kong police suspected him of being involved in a money-laundering scam. The police presented to Mr. Zhou a letter addressing Hong Kong Hang Seng Bank from overseas when he was interrogated. The letter was pursuant to a demand for the transfer of money from Hang Seng Bank and the signor of this letter is the same as the name in English present on Yongjun Zhou’s passport: Wang Xingxiang. There is no other evidence to show that Yongjun Zhou had something to do with this letter or Yongjun Zhou was involved in the fraud. According to Yongjun Zhou, he obtained this Malaysian passport from an immigration service company. Although the name on the passport is the same with the name of the signor of that letter, he did not write such a letter and did not see this letter before. Therefore, we believe, without any other corroborating evidence, it cannot be ascertained that Yongjun Zhou is the person who wrote this letter. It is also worth noting that, according to Yongjun Zhou, after verifying the above, the Hong Kong police not only released Yongjun Zhou but also apologized to him. It indicates that the Hong Kong police, who have the jurisdiction over this case, have already excluded Yongjun Zhou as the suspect!

III. Regarding the procedure used in this case

We believe there is a grave problem of overtime detainment.

Yongjun Zhou was detained by Shenzhen police in early October 2008, when Yongjun Zhou did not disclose his real identity. On November 7 or 8, 2008, Suining City, Sichuan Province Bureau of Public Security sent police to meet with Yongjun Zhou in Shenzhen. According to Zhou, some of the police from Suining City Bureau of Public Security know him from before and at that time Yongjun Zhou had disclosed his real identity to Shenzhen Police. Thus, his real identity could be ascertained no later than November 8, 2008. Pursuant to “The People’s Republic of China Criminal Procedural Law” (“Criminal Procedural Law”), Section 128 (2), “The number of days of the detainment should be counted starting from the day when the real identity of the suspect is ascertained if the suspect refuses to disclose his/her name and address,” Yongjun Zhou has been detained 144 days more than that allowed by the law, starting from November 8, 2008, the day when his real identity was disclosed, to May 8, 2009, the day when the Suining Peoples’ Procuratorate granted the arrest of him, subtracting 30 days, the longest for criminal detainment, and 7 days, the days for the review by the People’s Procuratorate, pursuant to Criminal Procedural Law. Pursuant to Criminal Procedural Law, Sections 75 and 96, “the suspect, defendant and his/her legal representative, relative or the attorney or other defender retained by him/her have the right to demand the release of the suspect or defendant or cancellation of the surveillance or household watch if the court, prosecutor or Bureau of Public Security detains them for longer than that allowed by the law” and “the suspect may retain his/her attorney to provide legal counsel, complain or appeal after he/she is detained or interrogated for the first time,” we will complain on behalf of Yongjun Zhou to Shenzhen Police for their overtime detainment of Yongjun Zhou.

Considering the above, we believe:

1. The Agency of Public Security of Mainland China has no jurisdiction over this case pursuant to Criminal Law, Sections 6, 7 and 8 regarding the jurisdiction of the criminal cases;
2. There is insufficient evidence to charge Yongjun Zhou and his case should not stand;
3. There is a grave problem of overtime detainment of Yongjun Zhou.

Yongjun Zhou was the first president of Autonomous Students Federation of Beijing Universities during the [Tiananmen Square uprising of 1989]. Due to the 20th anniversary of the June 4 event, his prominent case may receive great attention from the international community. We hope that your bureau will enforce the law in compliance with the law, ascertain the case as soon as possible and dismiss the case.

Shaoping Mo, Attorney
Zerui Chen, Attorney
Beijing’s Mo Shaoping Law Firm

Zhou Yongjun's Jailhouse Interview (English translation)

Date: May 25, 2009, Monday

Location: Detention Center, Suining, Sichuan

Interviewers: Attorney Shaoping Mo; Attorney Zerui Chen [also transcriber]

Interviewee: Yongjun Zhou

Mo: Are you Yongjun Zhou?

Zhou: Yes. I am Yongjun Zhou.

Mo: I am Attorney Shaoping Mo from Beijing. This is Attorney Zerui Chen.

Zhou: I have heard of Mr. Mo. However, I am not sure that you are really he.

Mo: We are entrusted by your family to be your attorney. It is your father who signed the agreement. Please see if it is your father’s signature.

Zhou: It should be.

Mo: Please sign it if you agree.

Zhou: But I don’t think my family could afford to pay a great attorney like you. I don’t want my father to sell his house for me.

Mo: Oh. Your case has something to do with politics. We haven’t charged your family one cent for this special case as of right now. Don’t need to be worried. Please sign it if you agree. Let’s continue. Were you a student of China University of Political Science and Law? What is your major?

Zhou: Political Science.

Mo: Are you familiar with China’s current law?

Zhou: I know the basics, but the law changes constantly, the specifics of which I don’t know.

Mo: Please check the agreement and sign it.

Zhou: I first have to make sure how much you charge us.

Mo: You don’t need to be worried about it. Your case is special and I will treat it in a special way.

Zhou: I learned politics at China University of Political Science and Laws. I heard about human rights attorneys in China when I was overseas. I never thought that you would be my attorney.

Mo: Let me give you a rundown about your current legal status. Pursuant to “Criminal Procedural Law,” you are still a suspect. Although you have been arrested, you are still in the hands of the Public Security Bureau’s investigation. You are a suspect rather than a defendant. From the date you were detained, you would be detained for 37 days at most. Since you were authorized to be arrested by the prosecution, the Public Security Bureau could detain you for two more months. After then, they have to obtain the authorization from the superior prosecution to detain you for one additional month. If your case is important and complex and the Public Security Bureau wants to detain you for longer, the Public Security Bureau has to obtain the authorization from the provincial prosecution in order to make your detainment extended for two more months. Then the case goes to the prosecution for their review. The prosecution has to make the decision on indictment in one and half a months, during which there are two chances for supplemental investigations, one month each chance. If the evidence is not sufficient, the prosecution may make the no-indictment decision. There was so-called being relieved of indictment, under law which is outdated. If they cannot find sufficient evidence, the only decision they can make is no-indictment.

[The director of the detention center came in unexpectedly.]

Zhou: Good! Director Xie is also here. Mr. Xie told me that I could see all my incoming letters. Please give them to me.

Director: I don’t have any letters for you.

Mo: Oh, let’s continue. We are your attorneys when you are under investigation so your family can engage us on behalf of you. Our job is to provide evidence to prove your innocence, lesser offence or being eligible to be relieved of criminal penalty. The authority law entrusted to the attorney is different from authorities given to the Public Security Bureau, prosecution and court. We can file complaints for you if you were coerced to confess by harsh interrogation or the law enforcement violated the law. We have this authority.

Zhou: I see.

Mo: Are you tortured to confess?

Zhou: Well, I was kind of entrapped to confess. Now, let me take three minutes to give you a clear introduction of this case.

Mo: You are good; you can take only three minutes to give us a clear introduction? Oh, even I cannot do it.

Zhou: This case is political. I went to Hong Kong from Macau on September 28, 2008, with a Malaysian passport, which they said was falsified. I bought this passport from an immigration service company, with which I went to Taiwan and Macau without any problem. The name on the passport is not Yongjun Zhou. It is quite accidental that I was detained in Hong Kong.

Mo: Do you have a U.S. green card?

Zhou: Yes, my green card started from February 4, 1993. I haven’t been naturalized. Since 9/11 the hurdle of immigration was getting higher. I applied for citizenship in 2002. It took a longer time. At the time I left the U.S., I was ready to be a citizen except for an oath taking. Therefore, I am only a national [permanent resident], a “quasi-citizen.” But I was very much homesick because my parents are in China, especially when the big Sichuan earthquake occurred last year. I tried to get a passport via my sister Sufen Zhou, but she tried in vain. Later I applied for a visa through China’s consulate general but was refused. The Chinese government took this matter politically rather than criminally. On September 28, I went to Hong Kong from Macau with the Malaysian passport. I thought there should be no problem with going to Hong Kong. However, the customs officers of Hong Kong found a problem with my passport. I did not disclose to them who I was. At noon of September 30, the Hong Kong Immigration office gave me a notice of denial of entry. I stayed at the police station at Hong Kong-Macau entry for 48 hours, when I was sick and treated. Later they said ‘sorry’ to me that they misidentified me and turned me back over to immigration. The immigration said they needed to verify my identity before letting me go. Then I was sent to a small hotel in Shenzhen by a vehicle, where I was shown a notice of detainment, on which the name shown on the passport was listed. I did not tell them my real name. On November 7 or 8, someone from Suining Public Security Bureau came to Shenzhen. Two of them came, one elder and another younger, one of whom was known to me. They interrogated me continuously on Saturday and Sunday, with Shenzhen police aside. On the 27th, they transferred me to Yantian detention center and forcefully changed my name to Hua Wang. I had told them of my real identity, but they wanted me to sign Hua Wang as my name, to which request I disagreed. I signed my name as Yongjun Zhou. Since November 27, I wrote many letters to my family and asked the police officers to forward. I went on a hunger strike when they refused to forward them for me. However, they refused my requests. They did not interrogate me any more and such situation continued until April. Later, the director told me that someone from superior authorities demanded them to detain me here. Thereafter, Shenzhen police came again to verify something, after which they showed me a notice of detainment. Later, I was moved to Suining on May 4.

Mo: Yes, your family told us all already. Your former cellmate told your family after he was released.

Zhou: Shenzhen Public Security police went to the hotel room in Macau where I lived and took away my belongings without my permission, against my will. They lost my belongings in the process. The list of attached belongings was lost because a new list was issued every time I was transferred. However, Hong Kong Immigration is in possession of an original list of attached belongings. It was shown on that document that my bank cards, credit cards, computer and documents were all gone.

As to the financial fraud case, the only reason for my investigation was something in the transcript of the interview conducted on me by Hong Kong police. My mistake is that I brought with me one copy. It was Hong Kong police who gave me such a copy. If I had not brought it with me, probably nothing would have happened. Hong Kong police showed me a copy of a letter, addressing Hong Kong Hang Seng Bank from an overseas address. They said the name on the letter is the same as that on my passport, and the letter demanded Hang Seng Bank to transfer 2 million Hong Kong dollars to an account with Citibank. I have nothing to do with this letter. I did not write the letter and I’ve never seen it. I denied involvement related to this letter when I was in the Public Security Bureau. I have nothing to do with it. (So they detained me.)

Mo: This is the only matter you are involved in?

Zhou: As to the financial fraud, this is the only reason why they accuse me.

Mo: Is what you told me here consistent with what you told the police? Any changes?

Zhou: Consistent. There is no change in the story; I have said it as it is consistently.

Mo: That is to say, you did not see this letter before, and you had nothing to do with this letter?

Zhou: No. I’ve never seen this letter.

Mo: You are suspected of committing criminal financial fraud. Pursuant to the Chinese law, the financial fraud is to make false representation or conceal material facts to induce others to rely on them to dispose of property.

Zhou: I did not do it. Hong Kong police did not think I had a problem. However, the Mainland police continued to pursue this case because it is related to politics.

Mo: According to what you said, you failed to disclose your identity to Shenzhen police. Pursuant to the law, the dates of the detainment would not be counted if the identity was not verified. The dates of the detainment would be counted from the date when the identity could be verified.

Zhou: Suining police came to Shenzhen in mid-November and they should have known my identity by then at the latest. As to why they detained me, the only thing I can say is for political reasons.

Mo: Okay, this is all for today. Please take care of your health. If you want to see us, you may tell Mr. Xie. How is your health? What do you want your family to send to you?

Zhou: My heart has a problem. Last time my sister mailed me some money [On May 8 the police called Zhou’s sister to deposit money for him]. I still have them now; I don’t need anything else.

Mo: Your friends overseas and the media paid attention to your case. What do you want to say to them?

Zhou: I thank them very much! Although I am in jail now without any freedom, I wish them living a happy life.

Mo: Ok. Please sign the agreement. Take care!

Zhou: Yes. Thanks!

Zhou Yongjun's Indictment (English translation)

People’s Procuratorate of Shehong County, Sichuan Province


No. SPCL (2009) 097

Defendant Zhou, Yongjun, a./k./a. Zhou, Yazhou, male, born on September 15, 1967 in Pengxi County, Sichuan Province. Zhou is an ethnic Han Chinese, and his identification number is 11010819670915631X. He received undergraduate education and his recorded address in his household registration book is Unit 3-5, 39 South St., Chicheng District, Pengxi County, Sichuan. On April 10, 2009, he was detained by Shenzhen municipal Public Security Bureau as a suspect of committing fraud. On May 8, 2009, he was arrested by Suining municipal Public Security Bureau, with the order of arrest approved by Suining People’s Procuratorate.

The investigation of this case was completed by the Public Security Bureau of Suining, and it was determined that defendant Zhou, Yongjun is suspected of committing the crime of fraud. The case was refered to Suining City People’s Procuratorate on July 7, 2009 to review for pending prosecution. The Procuratorate appoints this court for prosecution. This court received the case, questioned the defendant according to the law, has heard the opinions and defense of the defendant and his representative, and reviewed all the materials pertaining to the case.

It has been determined according to the law:

On May 8, 2008, Defendant Zhou, Yongjun fraudulently used the name Wang Xingxiang to have sent a letter in to Hong Kong Hang Seng Bank, requesting the bank to transfer 4 million Hang Kong Dollars in Account 239-082258 (0002) belonging to Wang Xingxiang at the said bank into Account 031027915031 at HSBC’s Australian Branch. On May 19, 2009, Defendant Zhou, Yongjun once more fraudulently used Wang Xingxiang to have requested via a letter to Hong Kong Hang Seng Bank for a wire transfer of 2 million Hong Kong dollars from Account 239-082258 (0002) at the said bank into Account 89730410 at Citibank’s Hong Kong Branch. On May 24, 2009, since the Defendant Zhou Yongjun saw the said two transfers were unsuccessful, he once again fraudulently used the name of Wang Xingxiang to send postal letters to Hong Kong Hang Seng Bank, requesting that the bank send 4 million Hong Kong dollars in Account 239-082258 (0002) at the said bank into Account 031027915031 at HSBC’s Australian Branch and also requesting that the said bank to transfer 2 million Hong Kong dollars from the said account into Account 89730410 at Citibank’s Hong Kong Branch. Since the signatures did not match with the record, the requests were denied.

On October 1, 2008, Defendant Zhou Yongjun used a Malaysian passport with Wang Xingxiang’s name, attempted to enter Hong Kong, and was detained by Hong Kong’s Immigration Affairs Bureau.

The evidence admitted in support of the said facts includes: physical evidence, correspondence, expert opinions, testimonies from witnesses and the defendant’s personal confession, etc.

This court has determined that Defendant Zhou Yongjun has committed fraud, and the amount is considered very significant. The deeds have violated the statutes stipulated Article 266 of Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, and have committed the crime of fraud. The expected outcomes were not fulfilled due to causes unrelated to his original intent, which conforms to Article 23 of Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China and should be considered criminal attempt. The facts pertaining to his crime are clear and recognized, the evidence sufficient, and his criminal liabilities should be prosecuted under the crime of attempted fraud. According to the statutes in Article 141 of Criminal Procedural Law of the People’s Republic of China, the case should be prosecuted according to the law.


People’s Procuratorate of Shehong County, Sichuan Province

Acting Inspector: Hongzhi Li
Acting Inspector: Mingzhe Lan
August 3, 2009

Zhou Yongjun's Arrest Warrant (English translation)

Suining Public Security Bureau

Arrest Warrant

No. Sui Gong Bu Tong [2009] 04

Zhou Guoqing:

For Suspected Crime of Fraud, Yongjun Zhou was arrested by Suining Public Security Department at 17:00pm, on May 8, 2009, under the approval from Suining People's Procuratorate, and he has been detained at Suining Detention Center.

Suining Public Security Bureau

If a person is arrested and his/her families or his/her employer can’t be notified within 24 hours, please give reasons here:

Person in charge of this case


This page should be given to the person’s families or employer.

Zhou Yongjun's Case Report, by attorney Li Jinjin


Zhou Yongjun, a./k./a. Zhou Yazhou and Majer Zhou, a student leader of 1989 pro-democracy movement of China, who is a legal permanent resident of the USA, was sent back to China from Hong Kong by Hong Kong’s immigration authorities with no legal reason on or about September 30, 2008 and was secretly detained without any legal action under the law over seven months. Zhou’s whereabouts were not released by the Chinese authorities until May 8, 2009 and he was then officially arrested by the local police department with a charge of fraud. He was recently indicted and the trial was postponed due to the coming event of the PRC’s 60th Anniversary.

This is Zhou’s third arrest since 1989, when he was first arrested as a student leader (Zhou was the first elected leader of the Autonomous Students Federation of Beijing Universities) and as a leader of the Beijing Autonomous Workers Federation. Unfortunately, his third arrest has not gained much attention in the international community. His family has not been allowed to visit him; his circumstances in detention were unclear; his right to counsel has been interfered with; and his family members have also been threatened.

Who is Zhou Yongjun

Zhou Yongjun was born in Pengxi County, Sichuan Province, China on September 26, 1967. He was the first elected chairman of the Autonomous Students Federation of Beijing Universities in the student movement which occupied Tiananmen Square in 1989. At the time, he was in his last year of study at the University of Political Science and Law of China. In May of 1989, he joined the Beijing Autonomous Workers Federation (BAWF). Just before the June 4 massacre, he was elected a member of the Standing Committee of the BAWF.

After the June 4 massacre, he was arrested and detained from 1989 to 1991. In June 1992, he fled to Hong Kong. He was then admitted as a refugee by the United States after arriving there in February 1993. Based on his refugee status, he was subsequently adjusted to the status of Legal Permanent Resident (Green Card Holder) of the United States. He had already applied for and had been awaiting the citizenship swearing-in. He is the father of two US citizen children.

Zhou Yongjun’s Previous Arrests

Zhou’s First Arrest

Zhou Yongjun’s first arrest took place in June, 1989 after the June 4 massacre, when he was placed in prison along with other movement leaders. In March 1990, he was officially charged with a crime of Counter-revolutionary Propaganda and Incitement. However, under pressure from the international community, Mr. Zhou was released without prosecution in January 1991. After the release, he was under surveillance of the local Chinese government until his flight to Hong Kong in 1992.

Zhou’s Second Arrest

In December 1998, Zhou secretly entered China via Hong Kong and was arrested in Guangzhou. He was intensely interrogated by Chinese police about his political activities in the United States. After six months of arbitrary detention in Guangzhou, he was transferred to the police of his hometown in Sichuan province. The local authorities there sentenced him to three years of Re-education-through-labor, an administrative punishment without trial, for the original illegal exiting of China in 1992. During the three years in the labor camp, he was subjected to degrading conditions, forced to labor, and was also tortured. After being released, he was not allowed to register in the Household Registration under his real identity and therefore could not obtain proper identification under the Chinese Resident Identification Regulations. With the help of the US Embassy in China, he returned to the US in 2002.

Zhou’s Current Arrest, Detention, and Charge

Zhou left Los Angeles on September 26, 2008 to attempt to return to China to visit his family, particularly when his father who is stricken with debilitating heart disease. Because he was not able to obtain a return permit from the Chinese consulate in the US, he tried to enter Hong Kong from Macau with a Malaysian passport. However, Hong Kong police held him at the airport to investigate several alleged fraudulent letters under the name on his Malaysian passport, Wang Xingxiang, which requested two transfers from Hang Seng Bank to two separate accounts of the same owner at other banks. The Hang Seng Bank found out that the signature did not match their records. The Hong Kong police got involved. After a few hours of questioning with the signature verification, Hong Kong police authorities released Zhou with a conclusion that Zhou did not engage in fraud. However, the Hong Kong immigration authorities notified him that he was not allowed to enter Hong Kong, but also was not allowed to return to Macau or the US. He was held for 48 hours at the airport, when he became sick severely.

On September 30, 2008, Zhou was secretly sent to Shenzhen, a city in mainland China over the border from Hong Kong, and his case was handed over to the Chinese police authorities or State Security authorities. From then, Zhou was put into secret detention.

Mr. Zhou revealed his real identity on November 7, 2008, but the Chinese authorities refused to book him under his real identity in the jail despite knowing his real identity as Zhou Yongjun from the beginning. He was given a prisoner number of #20 in the First Detention Center of Shenzhen city. In late November 2008, he was transferred to the Yantian Detention center of Shenzhen city under the name of Wang Hua, an alias given to him by the police. Mr. Zhou refused to sign the transfer papers under the name of Wang Hua, and instead signed his real name, Zhou Yongjun. Nonetheless, he was still booked under the name of Wang Hua after the transfer to the Yantian Detention Center.

His family had been looking for him after his disappearance in late September 2008. In November 2008, Zhou through his cellmates passed information to his sister, who is a judge in Chengdu in Sichuan Province. Zhou’s sister flew to Shenzhen, trying to visit him in the First Detention Center. The jail authorities denied her visit application with the reason that there was no such inmate of Zhou Yongjun or under number 20 in the facilities.

After seven months of secret detention, Zhou Yongjun was transferred to Suining city in Sichuan province. On May 8, 2009, Suining police processed the arrest procedure under the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC (official arrest) with the charge with fraud related to the fraudulent letter that Hong Kong police had already investigated and dismissed. The police department of Suining City notified Zhou’s sister about his arrest. This was the first time that Chinese authorities admitted to holding Zhou Yongjun.

The case was later transferred to Shehong County. The Shehong County People’s Procuratorate indicted Zhou on August 4, 2009. Zhou was charged with attempted fraud under Article 266 of the Criminal Law of PRC with the allegation that Zhou sent several letters to Hang Seng Bank of Hong Kong under the name of Wang, Xingxiang attempting to transfer two sums of the money under Wang’s account in Hang Seng Bank. Please refer to Indictment in the attached Appendix.

The Chinese authorities have refused to let Zhou’s family visit him since he was detained, and had not allowed him to meet with an attorney until May 25, 2009. His family hired Mo Shaoping, an attorney renowned for defending political dissidents in Beijing. Mr. Mo and his associate lawyer Chen Zerui met with Zhou on May 25, 2009 at the Suining detention center. From the attorney’s notes at the meeting, please refer to Transcript of Interview in the attached Appendix. However, Mr. Mo Shaoping was dismissed from the representation while his assistant Mr. Chen has remained counsel of record.

Concurrently, a local attorney Mr. Tang was also retained to represent Zhou. The local Suining authorities refused to let Mr. Tang review Zhou’s file and meet him until August 6, 2009. After meeting with Zhou, however, this attorney became fearful to take on the case, expressing that this involved complicated political matters, though he did comment that there is no evidence to support the criminal charge of fraud. Further, Shehong county court did not let Mr. Chen and Tang review the complete file. Many important documents listed as evidence in the Court file were withheld.

Zhou’s sister, a judge in Chengdu, tried to represent him as a family member, which under Chinese law is allowable. The local Suining authorities refused her to represent Zhou, alleging that she did not establish the sister-brother relationship. Further, Zhou’s sister has received threats to her life and her job.

From Zhou’s cellmates, we learn that Zhou was severely tortured in the detention center.

Legal concerns

Zhou Yongjun’s case alerts us about the legal treatment accorded to political dissidents in the following aspects, which demonstrate that the Chinese authorities are more aggressively violating its law and regulations and ignoring the international criticisms, even involving the cooperation of Hong Kong authorities in violation of Hong Kong’s law and international responsibility to protect human rights.

1. No reason but the political motivation is behind the case. Hong Kong police’s investigation on alleged counterfeit signatures on letters looks like a normal criminal investigation, which was one of hundreds of such investigation. The Chinese government would not have been interested in such a routine criminal investigation unless the Government of China was interested in the person, a political dissident. Zhou’s political background and contacts with groups such as Falun Gong and Zhong Gong are the true reason behind it.

2. This is the first case in which the HK immigration directly transferred a political dissident to Mainland China from the airport. Hong Kong authorities have no legal basis for directly handing Zhou Yongjun to the Chinese police. There is no question of extradition or rendition (on which there is no agreement between Hong Kong and the Chinese Central Government) as Zhou never entered into Hong Kong. Normally a non-HK resident refused entry to Hong Kong would be sent back to his place of origin i.e. the place from which he travelled to Hong Kong. In this case, Zhou would be sent back to Macau, Malaysia, or to the US. For this legal concern, the HK government shall have to answer.

3. The Mainland China has no jurisdiction for prosecuting Zhou. Zhou is currently charged with attempted fraud with alleged letters requesting a Hong Kong bank to transfer a sum of money to two other bank accounts. If Zhou were a criminal suspect, only Hong Kong police have jurisdiction to make investigation and/or referral to prosecute this case. The Hong Kong police in this case questioned and lost interest in Zhou and returned him to the care of HK immigration authorities.

Even if under the jurisdiction of person under Article 7 of the Criminal Law of the PRC, there are some contradictions in this case. First of all, Zhou held a Malaysian passport. The Chinese government would not have jurisdiction over a Malaysian where the alleged crime occurs in Hong Kong. Second, if the Chinese authorities knew Zhou’s identity, the Chinese government should notify his family and the U.S. consulate under protocols. Third, Zhou has maintained U.S. legal permanent resident status and his domicile is in California, USA. He had no relationship to Shehong County.

Further, personal jurisdiction must relate some interests. The crime was alleged in Hong Kong. The potential victim is Hang Seng Bank of Hong Kong. There is no explanation of why a county government in Sichuan would take on a case that Hong Kong authorities declined to prosecute.

4. The Chinese police authorities had secretly detained Zhou without disclosure of his identification for over seven months. According to the procedure law of China, the police authorities must inform Zhou’s family with 48 hours and prosecute Zhou in 7 days or 37 days by extension. This time limit for prosecution might be tolled when the identity of the suspect remains unclear. However, the Chinese government claims the jurisdiction of person in this case, indicating that the Chinese authorities knew the identity of Zhou at the very beginning. From the record, it is also clear that police officers from Sichuan province met Zhou on November 27, 2008. One or two officers knew about Zhou when Zhou was arrested in 1998 and served in a labor camp in Sichuan for over two years. Thus, from November 27, 2008, this prosecution time limit should start running. However, Sichuan local police did not disclose the arrest until May 8, 2009, over seven months into this case.

5. The Chinese authorities have violated Zhou’s right to counsel by pressuring Zhou’s family and Zhou, disallowing the services of Mo Shaoping from Beijing. Further, the Court did not permit Zhou’s attorney to review the complete file.

Friday, September 18, 2009

Prepared remarks for 9/18 news conference

For those who are with us today, welcome and thank you for your interest in human rights, freedom and democracy for Mainland China. Today's event highlights the continuing ordeal for those who are persecuted by Mainland China.

We are focused on the case of Zhou Yongjun, who chose to be known as Majer to the English speaking world. He continues to struggle against ongoing mistreatment at the hands of Chinese authorities, and those Chinese authorities -- the Communist Party -- are displaying their arbitrary side. From time to time, Chinese authorities give lip service to the rule of law, but that's when it suits them. I repeat that today, they are displaying their arbitrary side.

In the case of Majer Zhou, we see capricious, mercurial, arbitrary, and absurd behavior by the authorities, because even while they are prosecuting Mr. Zhou, they in fact have no case!

Before we delve into details, let me step back and provide a quick overview -- an orientation for those who aren't familiar with some basic points of background.

In 1989, Majer Zhou was a student at the University of Politics and Law in Beijing. On April 15 that year, a significant Chinese leader died. His name was Hu Yaobang, and he was known to be reform-minded. Out of mourning for Mr. Hu, on April 17, Majer Zhou led his campus to parade into Tiananmen Square.

That march into Tiananmen Square began a whole series of events generally known as the Tiananmen Square or "June 4" uprising. Once they occupied Tiananmen Square, students didn't leave. They issued demands of the government, looking for the reform that seemed lost with the death of Mr. Hu.

As the student action became a pro-democracy movement, multiple campuses in Beijing joined together to form the Autonomous Students Federation of Beijing Universities. Majer Zhou was elected to be the first President of that Federation. As we see it here, Majer Zhou was pivotal as an early Tiananmen Square student leader.

At roughly the same time, Li Jinjin was another early leader in the students' actions. Li Jinjin is with us here today; he is a presenter who will continue our program after my introduction.

The Tiananmen Square democracy movement led to the Tiananmen Square massacre. The Chinese government declared martial law and sent troops to Beijing to retake Tiananmen Square. June 4, 1989 was the date when troops shot their way into the Square, using live ammunition and killing about 3,000 Beijing residents on their way in. That date is reason why Chinese people refer to it as the "June 4" movement and massacre.

Now, Majer Zhou has a post-movement history that is briefly recounted as follows: He was arrested soon after the massacre in 1989, and jailed until his release in 1991. He then made his way to the United States, where he became a legal U.S. permanent resident, and the father of two children who are U.S. citizens. In 1998 he attempted a return to China. He was captured -- jailed a second time as a political prisoner -- and sentenced to three years in a labor camp. He was released in 2001, and returned to the U.S. in 2002.

Last year in late September, he attempted another return to China. The authorities have captured him again, and he is now jailed for his third time as a political prisoner. He has been held for almost a year already. The authorities have arrested him on trumped up charges, and plan to soon prosecute him in a trumped up case.

Ultimately, this case is Tiananmen Square political persecution, carried forward into the present day. However, there are legal nuances and that is why we have Li Jinjin to be our next presenter. Li Jinjin became an attorney, and the editor-in-chief of China Judicial Watch.

I believe that when we analyze the nuances as he will present, it can be concluded that the behavior of the Chinese government in this case is laughably absurd. I've said it once, and I'll say it again: They have no case! As will be presented, they lack a leg to stand on, and they have no business prosecuting Majer Zhou, who is a political prisoner and not a criminal.

The China Support Network demands the immediate, unconditional release of Yongjun ‘Majer’ Zhou.

Now it is my pleasure to now give you --- Li Jinjin.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Media alerted about upcoming news conference



Co-hosts: China Support Network (CSN); China Judicial Watch (CJW);Rescue Alliance for Zhou Yongjun (RAZY); and theTear Down This Wall Foundation (TDTWF)

Pro-Chinese democracy campaigners, legal experts, and dissidents will hold a news conference on Friday, September 18, 2009 with specific focus on the "outrageous" case in which Chinese authorities now hold Tiananmen Square student leader Zhou Yongjun, a U.S.-based father of two U.S. citizen children, in prison for his third time as a political prisoner under Chinese state repression.

WHO: Presenters include -Li Jinjin, a student leader from the Tiananmen uprising, who became a lawyer and chief of China Judicial Watch;Ning Ye, a prominent dissident attorney, accomplished commentator and public speaker;John Kusumi, the founder and director emeritus of the China Support Network;Yuewei Zhang, the fiance of Zhou Yongjun on behalf of his U.S. and China-based families.

WHAT: Presenters will make it clear that China's government lacks a leg to stand on as they incarcerate Zhou for a third time.

Attorney Ning Ye will explore the ominous legal precedent for Hong Kong -- a challenge posed by this case -- where HK immigration authorities acted against the rule of law by extraditing Zhou to Mainland China with no legal basis or proceedings whatsoever.

The fiance of Zhou Yongjun will bring out examples of persecution -- threats, harrassment, and intimidation -- directed against Zhou's family, and the impact of the case there.

In the upshot, this capricious, arbitrary instance of rule by fiat will be decried as direct continuation of Tiananmen Square political persecution, and there will be announcement of next steps as the Rescue Alliance pursues justice in this case.

Communist China and Hong Kong immigration authorities will certainly be criticized. As time permits, the U.S. State Department might be criticized. And, the New York Times and its columnist, Tom Friedman, might be criticized.

WHERE: The National Arts Club, 15 Gramercy Park South, New York, NY 10003In Manhattan, that's E. 20th St between Park and 3rd Avenues.

WHEN: 12:00 to 2:00pm on Friday the 18th of September, 2009.

BACKGROUND: The Tiananmen Square massacre is a famous occasion in Chinese history, also broadcast to the world by television networks. Beginning on April 17, 1989, the college students of Beijing Universities occupied Tiananmen Square and became the vanguard of a nationwide uprising in favor of freedom, democracy, human rights, and less corruption. The Communist Party of China, which still rules today, sent its army and used live ammunition to clear the square, killing about 3,000 unarmed protestors in Beijing. This is also known as the "June 4" massacre for the day--June 4, 1989--when the army ended the uprising.

Books about Tiananmen Square have plenty to say about the prominent roles played by Zhou Yongjun, the political prisoner who is the focus of concern at this newser; and Li Jinjin, one of the presenters slated to appear at this Friday's news conference. Zhou was first arrested in 1989 and jailed until 1991. He moved to the United States, and attempted a return to China in 1998, when he was arrested again and sentenced to three years in a labor camp. Released in 2001, he returned to the U.S. in 2002. Now is his third prison term in China; for details of the case, attend the news conference.

The China Support Network was among hundreds of groups that sprung up to protest, to push back, and to respond after the massacre. In less than two months, it rose to become the only American-run group that was integrated among Chinese dissidents, functioning as political handlers for top Chinese dissidents. Its other credits include coordinating simultaneous activities in over 150 cities; organizing thousands to march on the Chinese embassy in Washington; and collecting hundreds of thousands of signatures on a joint petition with Amnesty International.

The Tear Down This Wall Foundation is a Chinese dissident group which is running an art exhibit and they have provided the venue at the National Arts Club for this news conference. They are commemorating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Foundation has been co-sponsored by numerous well known Chinese dissidents, including Fang Lizhi, Liu Gang, Wang Dan, Wang Juntao, Wei Jingsheng, Xiong Yan, and Xu Wenli.

Their point is to say that The Wall is still there for those under Communism in China. We still need to tear down this wall. About the art exhibit, see also an earlier announcement from the Foundation, at:
# # #