Three national security crimes have been established in a preliminary judgment decision, and what has been alleged to be implemented has not yet been disclosed.

The notice issued by the Macau Primary Court on July 9 has only four natural sections.

After completing the supplementary investigation and the preliminary debate, the Prosecutor’s Officeined the appeal and found that the Prosecutor’s Office was suspected of violating three crimes: subversion of the state regime, establishment of contacts with organizations or individuals outside of Macao to undermine national security, and violation of confidentiality.

From a procedural point of view, the first national security case in Macau has surpassed the prosecution dispute and entered the waiting phase of trial.

The public could not find out from the document to whom the information was referred; which words or statements were deemed subversive; what identity, documents or legal obligations the so-called "violation of confidentiality" involves; what evidence the prosecutor submitted; what objections the district prosecutor and defense lawyer raised; and why the pre-trial judge rejected these objections.

The courts used clear legal judgments such as “performing the wrongdoing” and “performing the wrongdoing”, but did not attach sufficient summaries of facts to allow the outside world to understand these judgments.

The Macao Judicial Police Department raised another set of comprehensive allegations in the detention of Jinhua District in 2025 alleging that he was in contact with overseas “anti-China organizations” and provided false and inciting information with the intention of provoking foreign hatred against the central government and the Macao government and interfering with the election of the chief executive in 2024.

A year later, the accusations of the case have been advanced from the police investigation stage to the court to maintain the appeal, and the concrete facts as the basis of the conviction are still not in the public eye.

According to the document, due to the need to protect the national security interests, the Macao National Security Council issued a binding review opinion, and the pre-trial judge granted special permission to continue the defense of a lawyer appointed by the court and recognised by the district.

This statement confirms that the process of deciding who can defend the defendant is not merely done by the defendant, lawyer and court. The National Security Council, led by the Chief Executive, has been involved in the process, and its opinions are binding on the judge.

Cohn told Associated Press that the lawyers the family sought were not allowed to meet with the father, and that the family had not been able to discuss the case with him for a year. The family knew that the preliminary trial had been held on July 2 until the court issued a notice. She also said that the police had taken books about the events of

1. There is currently no public material indicating whether the books were included in the prosecutor's evidence.

The procedures adopted in Macau this year allow national security cases to be tried closely under certain conditions. Lawyers participating in such cases are also subject to special review.

This leads the case to a clear and asymmetric state of openness: authorities have declared three serious crimes based on preliminary rulings and have publicly confirmed that the National Security Council has intervened in lawyer review; the acts, evidence, and legal arguments that constitute these crimes are still left out of public view.

The trial has not yet begun and, of course, the district must still be regarded as innocent.The first thing the Macau court needs to face is not only how to judge, but whether society can know what the case, known as the first national security case in Macau, is based on.