First trial in the Tangshan Anti-Corruption Case: The case of the Attorney-General for Corruption in the Far East has been controversial

On 17 September 2026, the first instance court of the People ' s Court of the canton of Tangshan City in the case of the alleged bribery of prosecutors.

Since September 2024, when the Tangshan Commission, together with the Public Security Service, travelled to Hainan to bring the matter back to the country for investigation, two years after a non-complicated “bribery” case over a decade ago, which was twice postponed, one time withdrawn and another time postponed, the details of the case were made public.

During the trial, the court denied all prior statements in their entirety, and the prosecution and the defence conducted multiple rounds of evidence about the legality and authenticity of the evidence, many of which were inconsistently presented, and the most crucial of which was the lack of evidence for the “moral forensic examination”.

In the early years, the town of Orchard, located in the northern part of Tangshan Road, was sentenced to imprisonment for numerous offences.

Ten years ago, the prison sentence ended in the far-reaching, led by the disciplinary commission, which originated in a frequent case in Tangshan in 2024.

The Deputy District Inspector, then Director of the Public Prosecution Service of the Tangshan People ' s Procuratorate, was reviewed by the Monitoring Board of the Tangshan City Disciplinary Commission in July 2024 for serious breaches of discipline.

The Court was involved in a frequent case because, on two occasions, Toss was asked to conduct “ex-custodial execution and bail pending trial” for him. The commission's investigation, which was referred to the prosecution, was found to be “bribery to State judicial staff for undue gain”.

Finally, on 24 September 2024, the Ninth Review Investigation Unit of the Tangshan City Supervisory Commission issued a decision on the designation of jurisdiction to the Changzhou City Supervisory Board, and on 25 September, the Chuzhou City Supervisory Board formally addressed the investigation into the case and took measures to retain it.

I. “Assisting crime”

According to the family, the court was initially headed by the regular crime unit, after which it was taken to the Yuda County Retention Centre in Tangshan City and then to the Tangshan Retention Centre in South Lake three days later.

At the time, Tangshan was undergoing a special promotion tour by the Central Patrol Unit, which, in this case, the most severe anti-corruption storm in history, was dealt with by a large number of staff members at the level of the Department.

Cases are often soared, locally made to be one of the best examples of anti-corruption and called “political missions”.

The court was involved in two criminal cases in 2004 and 2011, which were not the only one.

In both cases, in October 2006 and November 2011, respectively, the Chief of the Public Prosecution Service of the Tangshan People ' s Procuratorate was found in a friendly relationship, owing to his illness, and was expected to be released from prison and on bail.

Finally, Chang Piao offered to take matters forward for the Court.

In the case of the Shunzhou prosecution, these two requests were found to be “bribing State judicial staff for an undue advantage”, and the total amount of the bribes was 3 million.

On 3 January 2025, Fawting was arrested by the Public Prosecutor ' s Office of the city of Chuzhou, in accordance with the law, and is being held in the detention centre of the city of Chuzhou.

ii. Two different versions of the first out-of-charge execution

“The payment itself is subject to conditions of provisional release, bail and remand. The family clearly stated that it was not a good idea.

As to the reasons why Totsu was asked to do so in that year, Jute and his family provided a version that was completely contrary to the prosecution ' s allegations.

According to the evidence presented at the first instance hearing, the Shunzhou City Supervisory Commission and the Public Prosecutor ' s Office found that on 17 October 2006, Futing was sentenced to 10 years ' imprisonment by the Hebei Provincial People ' s High Court for intentional assault and on 13 April 2007 was sent to Tangshan Prison to serve his sentence.

While serving his sentence in Tangshan prison, the court learned that he could go outside of the hospital if he had a more serious illness.

In late 2007, Ting Ting was given medication and asked Chang Piao, then Director of the Prosecution Service of the Tangshan People ' s Procuratorate, to be the chief of the Sun Hongmin, Sun Tsing Cheng Cheng and Liu Chei, to provide instructions to the doctor of the Tangshan Workers Hospital, who had the qualifications of a judicial expert, Men Xiao Jing, the blood bank examiner of the Tangshan Workers ' Hospital, and to cooperate with the forensic medical examination.

In February 2008, with the help of a regular surge, the non-eligible payment of far-reaching travel expenses obtained the illegal benefit of out-of-insure medical treatment, after which the payment was extended to Changbao's $1 million in cash after a meal”.

The facts as presented by the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand are that the “inquiries” were not bribes, but bribes, which amounted to 600,000 instead of 1 million, and that the forensic medical examination of the year was not false.

According to the information, on 17 October 2006, he was sentenced to 10 years ' imprisonment by the Hebei Provincial High People ' s Court for causing serious injury to Yang Wedong by order of others, and on 13 April 2007 he was sent to the Tangshan prison to serve his sentence.

The conditions of the Court of Appeal, which were “high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, etc.” as far back as 1997, are more visible after admission to prison.

In July 2007, the medical conditions for medical treatment outside the home were tested at Tangshan Prison and sent to Tangshan Workers Hospital for medical assessment.

In November 2007, the Tangshan Workers ' Hospital issued a forensic medical certificate for the Court of Appeal, which concluded that it met the conditions for out-of-insured medical treatment.

In the course of medical treatment outside the home, the concerned staff at Tangshan prison informed him that he had been caught in the matter because Changpo and the victim Yang Weedong were closely connected and had not been able to obtain Yang Weedong understanding and resolve their conflict with Yang Weedong.

After the incident of the medical treatment of the Ting Yubaba was blocked, he asked his best friend, Ju Yug Yi, to be called to the prison in December

1. Ju Yug Yi asked Totheng to be asked by Wang Seung-hee (then Deputy Prosecutor General of Tangshan City) to retire, and took $300,000 in cash from Sun Hongmin to pay Chang Po, who promised not to pay any further hardship.

After paying the prison leave, Changbao again asked the court for another $300,000 in cash to pay him to pay him to settle the case against Yang Weedong, who had been the victim and prevented him from filing a complaint.

The family members of the court indicated that it was not an undue interest to leave the prison for execution and bail pending the year, and that they had legal, detailed and complete medical reports and clearance materials.

The reasons for the application for out-of-charge were: hypertension level 3 (high risk), coronary heart disease, and heart pain.

Based on this firm opinion, the family members of the Tangshan City Workers ' Hospital filed a request for provisional release from prison.

On 14 January 2008, the family of the family of the family of the Sant'aman signed the Bond for Temporary Extra-custodial Execution.

Subsequently, the prison district, the prison section, the jury team, Tangshan City Prison, the prison inspection section of the People's Procuratorate of the Tount-Zhuang District in Tangshan and the Hebei Provincial Prison Administration approved the opinion on the execution of the prison outside of the court

• in February 2008, the authorities took a final decision and agreed to take one year's stay in detention.

III. Two different versions of second out-of-charge execution

Three years later, in May 2011, he was again detained for criminal offences and arrested in June of him for illegal business and for fraudulent loans at the Public Security Division of the northern district of Tangshan City. On 11 November of the same year, the Public Prosecutor ' s Office of the northern district of Tangshan City decided to change it to bail.

This was the beginning of the second application for extra-custodial execution from the Far East.

The Shangzhou City Supervisory Commission and the Public Prosecutor ' s Office found that the facts were established, and that on 10 May 2011, he was detained in the relocation detention centre for having fraudulently obtained a loan and illegally operated a criminal case in the Lubei police station of Tangshan City.

While he was in custody in the detention centre of Tangshan City for the relocation of West County County, he entrusted the matter to the Sun Hongmin, who again requested Changbao, who was then the Director of the Public Prosecution Service of Tangshan People ' s Procuratorate, through Sun Tosheng and Liu Chei.

When moving to West Prison by means of a job-facilitated inspection, Chang Piao suggested that the Director of the Detention Centre, Kyu Tan, would introduce a change in the coercive measures imposed on the Court.

According to a statement from the regular stout, in November 2011, Sun Hongmin found Sun Sae-sheng, Sun Sae-sung found Liu Chei-yu, and Liu Sae-yui found Liu Shang and tried to bail him out for trial. “At that time, I found Meng Xiaoqing at the workers' hospital, who had to take out a medical certificate to keep him on bail. Me and Meng Xiaoqing said hi and sent him to the court. The government has been working on the issue of the human rights of women.

According to the frequent statements, the reason why the court was able to secure the bail was because Meng Xiaoqing had provided him with this medical certificate.

In March 2012, the court obtained a provisional release to perform illegal profits.

On 16 December 2011, 2 million yuan was transferred to Chang Pyeong's son's bank account through Han Gui Feng, who in turn gave 2 million dollars to the Chang Peng to pay the money back to the Tung Peng bank interest on the next day.

The facts alleged by the court in question are as follows: On 23 May 2011, he was detained for fraudulently obtaining a loan and illegally operating a loan, and was detained in the relocation facility by the police station of Tangshan City, Lubei. On 21 June, the Public Prosecutor ' s Office of the North Road in Tangshan City approved the arrest of the Futing Ting.

No contact with the outside world was possible after the detention of the Far East to the West County Detention Centre (under the law, neither the Far East lawyer nor the family or friends were allowed to meet at the time).

At that time, after the arrival of the Futingeing police station, the Public Prosecution Service of West County and the Detention Centre of West County had issued three recommendations, on 2 August, 26 August and 27 September 2011, respectively, for the protection of medical examinations and treatment.

It is understood that when he entered the premises, he described his history of coronary heart disease and hypertension, which showed blood pressure of 1,60/120 mm/Hg, with symptoms of chest depression, short-temporal and limb incapacitation. The Western Connary Hospital was then moved to Tangshan Workers ' Hospital to diagnose hypertension level 3 and coronary heart disease.

On 12 March 2012, the People ' s Court of the northern district of Tangshan City, in accordance with the law, handed down a criminal judgement No. 25 (2012), which sentenced the perpetrators of the crime of fraudulent lending to the north, together with the previous unexecuted sentence of more than four years, to two years ' imprisonment, and decided to execute the sentence of five years ' imprisonment, from 12 March 2012 to 9 October 2016.

Subsequently, the People ' s Court of the Northern Road of Tangshan City, on the basis of an opinion of assessment, took a decision to suspend the execution of the detention outside the prison.

On 25 April 2012, at the far end of the community correction regime, the people ' s court in the northern district of Tangshan City postponed the execution of a second sentence for “cronary artery parverine cirrhosis, unstable cardiac pain, cardiac artery-thinosis, hypertensive disease of level 3 (highly high risk)” until 24 April 2014.

In other words, before Meng Xiaoqing was often found to have a medical certificate for her visit, the relocation of the West County prison had already been conducted for a forensic examination of her visit to the court.

According to the Note on the Situation of Suspects in Prison in Relocation County, the situation in my custody is as follows:

When he entered the facility on 23 May 2011, he declared himself “a former resident of a hospital with a coronary heart disease and a history of hypertension”, and at the time of his examination he had blood pressure of 1,601 mm mercury.

As the civilian police were then called “involved” suspects, the Chief Kyuji Tei of the police expressly requested at the early call-up that “the civilian police shall not be allowed to enquire about any information except that the police chief and the prison doctor have access to him. I am not a writer.

In the 11th cell, the code name is “11”.

Upon admission, he was often told that he was very tired, short-tempered and infirmary, that he had high blood pressure and was mentally ill, and that he had been treated with medication.

During this period, the Director-General’s Kyu-chung called the unit to request medical and medical assessment of the case, but the unit has not yet done so.

In view of his condition, on 29 July I took him to Tangshan Workers' Hospital Group to relocate to the Western Connary Hospital, where the diagnosis concluded that “heat pressure disorder level 3, coronary heart disease” was “a major disease”.

To this end, I have been guided by the relevant provisions of my superiors and in consultation with the Office of the Public Prosecutor at the Institute, and have taken no measures in the case, in accordance with the recommendations of the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Road North on 2 August and of the Prosecutor ' s Office of Road North on 27 September, to deal with the change of coercive measures or to conduct medical examinations outside the home.

As I had no medical condition, he was hospitalized with Ankang Hospital on 27 October, at the request of the head of the county and city councils, and was informed of the situation at the Norte branch and the Lubei Public Prosecutor ' s Office. On 11 November, the Public Prosecutor ' s Office in Lubei was released on bail, and, after completing the release procedure on that date, his family was recently hospitalized at the Tangshan City Workers ' Hospital.

Forty, three million bribes?

According to the indictment of the Public Prosecutor's Office of the City of Zhongzhou, the extra-custodial execution of two cases concerning the payment of money to the court was characterized as an undue benefit by bribing a member of the State judicial service and criminal liability should be established for “bribery”.

The family indicated that the frequent requests for assistance during the year, despite the violation of the relevant discipline, in no way constituted a crime, since the court had earned and received the legitimate benefit it deserved.

According to the family members of the Qingding family, they went to the workers ' hospital after having completed their medical insurance and were hospitalized, and to date they have kept the information on the medical treatment they had received at the time.

“His illness is real. “and we do not believe that the facts of the bribery found by the unit in question exist. The blogger adds:

According to the indictment of the Shunzhou City Public Prosecutor ' s Office, the Government was able to thank the regular medical assistance and the out-of-charge assistance provided to them, which amounted to a total of 3 million in February 2008 and December 2011, respectively.

Of this amount, in February 2008, a cash payment of $1 million was made through an intermediary, and in 2011 an employee was authorized to pay $2 million to his son through bank transfers.

The family members who paid for the court did not accept the charge.

The first $1 million in bribes was known to have originated in a restaurant in February 2008 and to have been paid for by both the far and the high, and after that, the money was given to the regular by an intermediary in cash.

“The $1 million bribe in February 2008 did not exist, even for the meal. The family claimed that the police had been killed.

According to the Prosecution Prosecution Prosecution and Court Record, the participants in this meal were Ting Yu, Sun Hongmin, Liu Chee Yi, Chang Biao, Wang Kai Woo, who later paid 1 million cash to Chang Bong through Sun Hong and Wang Kai Woo.

The defence attorney for the court in court submitted new evidence written by Sun Hong, who claimed that Wang Kai-woo was a far-off member of his project, which began in late 2009 and early 2010 with the New Heaven and the United States project, and that Wang Kai-woo was a regular participant in the Sun Hong-min presentation, both before and after the establishment of Kay Jie Construction Materials in 2010.

Wang Kai-woo ' s wife also gave testimony and testified in court.

In February 2008, Wang Kai-woo and Chang-woo were not known.

According to the frequent statements, the remaining cash was deposited in the bank after the withdrawal of some of the money.

According to the family members of the Qingdao, the sum of 1 million is currently identified only by confessions, without any bank calls, how the money came, where it went, and without any relevant records.

The amount of $2 million at the end of 2011 was found relatively clear by the Zhongzhou prosecution.

In November 2011, after paying for the medical treatment of Ting Yiu, two million dollars were transferred from a bank card used for the day-to-day operations of the company to the account of the son of the Zhang Zhou, who then arranged for his son to take all the money out and return it to the Ting Yi Zheng company for interest.

The Tangshan Board transferred the $2 million bank flow from the Tangshan branch of the Chinese Agricultural Bank, and the transfer was admitted to having been made by the banker but the specific purpose of the transfer was unknown.

In response to this allegation, the family members argued that the 2 million were in fact the money of the son of the most violent, that two vehicles (a BMW 7 and a Lexus) had been handed over by the two sides at the compound of an enterprise located outside Tangshan.

V. Forensic forensic fraud? Both doctors denied it.

At present, the focus of the dispute between the parties — is it not an undue interest to pay two long-term out-of-insure visits to medical care? Did the forensics report of that year create any forgery?

According to the frequent statements, in 2007 and 2011, he received two out-of-instance medical examinations, both of which were addressed through Mun-Yi, then Director of the Patient Services Department of the Tangshan Workers ' Hospital.

It is questionable, however, that in 2009 the Judicial Accreditation Centre of the Tangshan Workers ' Hospital was transferred from the Medical Services Department to the Patient Services Department, i.e. at the end of 2007 Meng Yi was not in charge of the Judicial Accreditation Centre.

According to Men Xiaoqing ' s statement, from 2007 to June 2018, she was the head of the patient services department at the Tangshan Workers ' Hospital, and in the second half of 2009 the Centre was transferred to the patient services department under the management of the Medical Services Department. She and Chang-chiao also had limited contact in 2009 because of their working relationship, and Chang-chiao only spoke to her during her out-of-insure visits in the second half of 2011.

In his testimony, he said that he had spoken to Men Xiaoqing in late 2007 to take out medical care for the country. At the same time, Meng Xiaoqing was not in charge of forensics, nor knew Chang Piao, how did Chang Piao greet a Meng Xiaoqing who was not in charge of the relevant business and who was not known?

It was also stated that in 2009 she had begun to be in charge of the forensics, a series of political workers, who had no signature authority and qualifications, but had been responsible for organizing forensics with a senior deputy.

It was also reported that on 3 April 2026, the doctor at Tangshan Workers Hospital had provided a handwritten statement that in 2007 he was only a general examiner at the blood bank under the Department of Inspection, without any right or facilities to intervene and decide on the outcome of the out-of-instance medical examination (medical assessment). “The medical results of the tests for the three-stage hypertension, coronary heart disease and unstable heart pain and suffering are not required from the tests I was in. I am not involved in the medical treatment of the Zeng Yui-Chang, under the party guarantee. The blogger adds:

So who was helping with this forensics at the end of 2007?

With regard to the medical evaluation of the application for medical treatment outside the health insurance system, in 2011 the Tangshan Intermediate People ' s Court issued a letter of external judicial accreditation to the Tangshan Centre for Judicial Medical Accreditation in Hebei Province in early

1. Meng Xiaoqing admitted that the identification had been often greeted and that it would be arranged as soon as possible.

In practice, however, Meng Xiaoqing, as a political worker, did not have a qualification or signed the final report, which was issued by an expert expert who had the qualifications and who had never authorized a forensic examination to be false.

In addition to the assessment by the Tangshan Judicial Medical Accreditation Centre, the Tangshan Workers ' Hospital Group moved to the Western Connary Hospital, where it had issued a medical certificate for the purpose of paying the court a visit, which concluded that he was suffering from hypertension of level 3 and coronary heart disease.

According to the family members of the court, no expert who participated in the forensic examination had admitted to the present day that the forensic examination had been false.

Even more paradoxically, the expert ' s notes were not included in the far-reaching case file.

vi. Repeated adjournments of hearings and disputes over unlawful evidence

This stems from the unusual significance of the “sun-shut” bribery cases, in which the Court became a strange briber.

“We believe that there is a serious act of torture, inducing confessions, forcing convictions, fabricated the fact of paying bribes and forcing confessions. The fact of active bribery, as determined by the unit, is totally non-existent. “The family of the Qingdings claimed that the Qingding family was not the only one who was in the country.

In the case of the cases of the more than a decade ago, the case was highly similar to the written statements of all witnesses, and many of the relatives and friends who had been sent to the court during the proceedings and the doctors who had conducted the forensic examination for them in the year were questioned as witnesses, but none of the testimonies were entered in the case file, and the written statements of the court ' s further absence were kept for almost three months, followed by the last statement and placed in the case file.

It is understood that the author of a complaint was at a time when he was told to cross-examine the statement within 10 minutes of the statement, after the person concerned had been asked to read it.

The attorney in the Faraway case had requested the court to obtain the video from the unit in question within 10 minutes of each recording, but the unit had refused.

The family members of the court have repeatedly reported to the Shangzhou City Council for Discipline and the Public Prosecutor ' s Office that the unit had forced the court to confess guilt by torture and inducing confessions, and that it had deliberately concealed a large amount of evidence in favour of the court.

Following the investigation by the Shuuzhou City Council, the case was referred to the People ' s Procuratorate of the Shuuzhou City on 24 December 2024, with a period of one extension for the review of the indictment (3 February 2025-18 February 2025). The formal case was opened on 23 February 2025 by the Zhongzhou City Court.

The family of the King of Juteng Far Far Far Away disclosed that on 23 May 2005, the Chinese City Court of Tangshan reported that the first three-month recess of the court sitting was held, and on 23 August, that the Court of Cassation ' s hearing was again adjourned.

At the end of 2025, the case was returned to the prosecution for additional investigation, and according to the family members of the court, the withdrawal was only a refill of the testimony of a son who was often in trouble, nothing else.

The other family member was unable to understand that, at the end of 2025, after three days of continuous investigation by the disciplinary commission, the son of the most violent son had been removed from the investigation and had been asked not to participate in the matter.

During the first instance hearing, the defence testified against numerous contradictory statements made by the prosecution, which did not respond in court.

The absence of a key piece of evidence has further raised the challenge of the court and its family and counsel.

The Shangzhou City Supervisory Board has drawn from the Tangshan City Supervisory Board 86 pages of material from 1 million to 1 million pages, 83 pages of material from 2 million to 56 pages of material from 300,000 to 56 pages of material from the Court.

Curiously, the case file contains only one million and two million materials in the long run, and not 300,000 in the long run.

According to the attorney, “the 300,000 material was the 300,000 material that was given to Chang-chung through Ju Yug Yi and Wang Seung-hee from the very beginning of the trial, which was a omission on the part of the Disciplinary Commission's Supervisory Board, which, if not, would have asked the Disciplinary Commission and the Public Prosecutor's Office to explain it properly. The blogger adds:

Unfortunately, before the court, the lawyers ' applications for exclusion, access to evidence and the appearance of witnesses were rejected.