Alternative samples of Loyang anti-corruption field: procedural disregard, power transgression, man-made case

Song's case exposed the problems of Loyang anti-corruption field existing procedures, power cross-border, man-made cases, and became a highly controversial alternative sample in local anti-corruption practice.

Song Zhao Bao has been investigated by the Loyang Municipal Supervisory Commission of the province of Henan, to the Loyang City Old Town District Prosecutor's Office, until the judgment of the Old Town Court, passed through the rare "crossing car" in the country.

On September 14, 2026, the Loyang City Old Town District Court sentenced to a term imprisonment of seven years and six months, illegal business operations of the same type, a term imprisonment of one year and six months, a number of crimes and punishment for the execution of the crime for eight years and three months, and a fine of 400,000 yuan.

From the bribes of 8 million yuan “cases” not confirmed, to the “personally confessed” amount of 2.89 billion yuan, until the bribes of 2.5 million yuan (of which 182.2 million yuan attempted) determined by the old district court in the first instance, Song has undergone a “data” nightmare in less than a year. In the “data” nightmare of Song, the Loyang model of “God-making” movement has also become an alternative sample of domestic anti-corruption field.

$8 million to become “Ulon”

Song Zhao Bao, a PhD graduate student, has served as a member of the Party Committee, deputy general manager of China Construction Materials Science Research Academy Limited (hereinafter referred to as "China Construction Materials Academy") and deputy general manager, general manager, chairman and other positions.

On November 12, 2025, Song Zhao Bao was detained by the Loyang Municipal Supervisory Commission for review and investigation for alleged criminal offences.

After Song was detained for censorship investigation, the voice on the Internet has not stopped, the media (including from the media) public report, directly referring to Song's "victim" inside the Chinese Building Materials General Assembly. Song's wife Wang Feng Feng has also repeatedly posted on the Internet, and published a large number of call recordings with Loyang City Supervisory Commission personnel and relevant witnesses, to certify that "Song's Treasure Case" is the product of "black lights".

Song's "problem", which has attracted the attention of the disciplinary committee of the competent unit of the Chinese Building Materials Academy, involves the sum of 8 million yuan, after determining that 8 million yuan, then re-reported, designated by the Loyang Municipal Supervisory Commission for investigation.

In 2008, Wang (wife of Wang), Wang (wife of Song) and Wang (wife of Song) jointly funded Beijing Bongford Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Bongford Company"), Wang (wife of Wang) accounted for 40% of shares, Wang (wife of Wang) and Wang (wife of Wang) accounted for 30% of shares. It is worth mentioning that Song and Wang (wife of Song) are graduate students, so it can be assumed that Wang (wife of Wang) holds 30% of shares for Song. Song (wife of Song) does not participate in the business of Bangford, belongs to the purely shareholder status.

Since Song became a central company after 2010, he was unable to participate in the operation of the company, and on March 30, 2011, according to the resolution of the Board of Shareholders of the company, Wang Feng transferred the shares of the company to the couple of Wang Feng. At this time, the market value of the company has reached 20 million yuan. According to the equity agreement, the company should pay 6 million yuan to Wang Feng.

The $6 million shareholding transfer of Bonford Company was not directly transferred to Wang Feng (or Song Asha), but instead borrowed to Song Asha's brother Song Asha, who spent the $6 million to do business in Inner Mongolia, and continued to cooperate with Bonford Company.

Since Wang Feng Feng (宋作宝) withdrew from邦福德 company, the company jointly (6 million yuan) interest, plus profits, and so on, a total of about 8 million yuan transferred to Song Feng.

Starting in 2012.Song has been faithful for more than ten years, 14 times in a row transferring to Wang Feng 7.4 million yuan, transferring hundreds of thousands of yuan to Song Feng, a total of about 8 million yuan. Of these 8 million yuan, there are Song Feng couples borrowed to Song Feng 6 million yuan, and more than ten years of financial interest.And Song Feng couples until being detained in the investigation, did not know how much Song Feng repayed, how many times.

After the 8 million yuan clue was discovered by the Chinese Building Materials General House, it believed that Song is a "big fish", according to its level and the amount involved, which fully meets the conditions of the case investigation.

After the Loyang Municipal Supervisory Commission reviewed the investigation, it was not determined that the 8 million yuan belonged to the bribery, and the prosecution of the Loyang City Old Town Prosecutor's Office did not involve the 8 million yuan when the "case occurred".

2.89 billion “personal confession”

Song was detained for "eight million bribes", but the investigation verified that there was no evidence of illegal crime.The Loyang Municipal Supervisory Commission should revoke the case and lift the detention, but Song continued in detention, in the manner of "personal confession", a "script" of the amount of false crime of 2.89 billion yuan was compiled.

Song, a Ph.D. graduate student, who has served as the head of several central enterprises, knows exactly what happened during his detention and why he had to "personally confess" the amount of a false crime.

The defence opinions of the defense and the public statement of Wang Feng said that a variety of reasons led to the psychological collapse of Song Feng, he may think that as long as according to the meaning of the case organ "personally confession", can save the family.

The day after Song was detained by the Loyang Municipal Supervisory Commission, namely November 13, 2025, his home in Beijing was thoroughly searched, and Wang Feng was also taken to Loyang, detained by the Old Town District Supervisory Commission, with a retention period of up to three months.

During his detention, Wang Fang was forced to ask for the crime facts of Song's treasure, and as an ordinary technician, Wang Fang, designed by the case officers, asked a fog.

In the designated jurisdictional decision of the Hanoi Provincial Supervisory Commission, it is explicitly requested that "no longer be designated", but the Loyang Municipal Supervisory Commission distributed the case to the lower supervisory committees of the Old Town, Zhuhai County, Loning County, Mengzhen District, etc., and the lower supervisory committee filed cases, detained and guarded Wang Feng's family, and 5 other relevant witnesses. These witnesses are not official criminal subjects, and are not related to the scope of the supervisory committee's jurisdiction, but are restricted in the name of the supervisory committee, and questioned at the detention point of the supervisory committee.

Wang Fung remembers that during her detention, her two minor children, a recent old old man, and even her sister's "security", were all used as a code for compelling her to cooperate with Song's treasure problem.

For this reason, Song's "personal confession" of 2,8 billion yuan of his own funds in the case was born. Song's "personal confession", later also became other witnesses, "bribes" confessed to Song's "bribes".But this mysterious "personal confession" was not transferred by case, and even the defenders did not see, probably will be permanently stored in history with Loyang's relics.

2.89 billion "personal confession" is not an empty hole, other evidence can prove its existence. When the lawyer meets Song Zhao Tre, he stated to the lawyer that during the period of detention, the case officers through "threat, deceit, seduction, confession" and other means, the initial 8 million yuan up to 2.89 billion yuan, which is the background of the "personal confession" birth.

On June 3, 2026, the Loyang Municipal Supervisory Commission's case officer recorded a phone call with Wang Feng's sister Wang Li, which also confirmed the statement of 2.89 billion yuan: "He wrote the most time, he wrote more than two billion yuan."

This phone recording, also once spread on the Internet, although Loyang has been deleted, but the memory of big data remains.

It can be assured that if there is no "personal confession" of 2.89 billion yuan, then all the accusations against Song's treasure cannot be advanced. Because the Loyang City Supervisory Commission in the detention, supervision, reading and questioning the relevant witnesses, "bribes" used the same word: "Song's treasure has admitted, you honestly communicate."

The lawyer believes that the later formed "confession of guilt" of Song's treasure, with the accusation of witnesses, "bribes", its content is highly consistent, and some places even the mark mark symbols are the same, because these "innocents" certificates, all applied a template, that is, 2.89 billion "personally confessed."

It turns out that Song's false "personal confession" of 2.89 billion yuan is a passive product in a special environment, but it is also the basis for making Song's involvement in the iron case.

On July 6, 2026, the Loyang City Old Town District Prosecutor's Office, according to the findings of the Loyang City Supervisory Commission, filed a public prosecution with the Old Town District Court, accused of bribery, corruption crime, illegal operation of similar business crimes. the judgment found that the most serious crime in the Song's treasure case was "bribing", and was accused of receiving a total of more than 255 million yuan (of which 182 million yuan were attempted).

Choose “182 thousand yuan attempt”

Loyang City Old Town District Prosecutor's Court accused that the largest amount of bribery against Song Tzu Bao was more than 2.12 million yuan, of which 18.2 million yuan were attempted.

Between 2016 and 2017, Guizhou Tianjin Construction Materials Technology Limited Responsibility Company (hereinafter referred to as the "Guizhou Tianjin Company") borrowed the qualification of China Rock Technology Company CRCC, and conducted the water reducer purchase and sale business with Huizhou Tianjin Industry Company (李某峰).

The practical method is that Xi Jinping Industry Company will sell the water reducer to China Rock Technology Company, China Rock Technology Company will sell to China Rock Technology Company. This way, both can do the output value of China Rock Technology Company, and can solve the problem of the qualification of China Rock Technology Company CRCC, China Rock Technology Company will charge 5% of the management fee to China Rock Technology Company, while returning to China Rock Industry Company (Li Yoon Feng) 2% of the management fee.

Starting in the second half of 2017, Guangzhou Tianjin Company itself obtained the CRCC qualification, no longer need to borrow the qualification of China Rock Technologies, could directly do business with China Rock Technologies Company (Li Mou Feng) to reduce the middle link of China Rock Technologies, China Rock Technologies Company no longer need to pay the management fee of 5% to China Rock Technologies Company. But China Rock Technologies Company in order to retain this huge business volume, eventually negotiated with China Rock Technologies Company (Li Mou Feng) not to charge any management fees, continue to keep the original model.

After the Loyang Municipal Supervisory Commission grasp this information, it is considered to be the "breakthrough" of the huge amount of bribery received by Song, and it is believed that it should be charged 2% of the management fee, and the management fee did not enter the account of China Rock Technology Company, because Li Mou Feng bribed Song.

After Li Mou Feng was detained by the Loyang Supervisory Commission, he was not found to have bribed the previous management fees to Song Qiao, so according to the business volume after 2017, from 3 million yuan "reduced" to 182 million yuan, and also belonged to the attempt.

On June 11, 2026, Li Mou Feng recorded a conversation with Xi Mou Feng, a staff member of the China Rock Technology Company, showing that Li Mou Feng clearly acknowledged that "182 million yuan" were all compiled, and that 182 million yuan were also "talked about."

Li said in the conversation: "I must testify like Song's treasure, give me two options, 182 million or 3 million, then I of course choose 182 million, and spend money to eliminate disaster."

"From 3 million talks" "do not recognize does not let me go" "give money to go back". case officers with "do not recognize guilt does not remove the detention" threatened, "Song Zhao has recognized", "the money can go back", these are the contents of the recording of the conversation between Li and Xu.

Li Mou Feng admitted that he pledged to brib the Song's Treasure Bank $182 million thanks fee, and was removed for more than two months after paying the "payment of bribes."The recording of the call has been broadly disseminated on the Internet through audio, so that many netizens who are concerned about Song's Treasure case are sensitive.

Li Mou Feng was not only "admitted" to bribing 182 thousand yuan (a attempt), but also admitted to sending him ten boxes of Mou Taïwan wine, 300 grams of gold. 300 grams of gold was arranged by Song Mou Taïwan employees to give back. Song Mou Bao himself also "admitted", ten boxes of Mou Taïwan wine was carried back by him alone.

The preparation of the bribes of 182 million yuan (tentative) is not in line with the common sense, since Guizhou Tianjin Company has obtained the CRCC qualification, its dehumidifier buying and selling business with Jiangxi Industry Company (Li Mou Feng), no longer through the intermediate link of China Rock Technology Company, for Li Mou Feng is to save a small intermediate cost (the original business model generated the cost of the ticket difference, are all borne by Li Mou Feng).

Saving out the cost, Li Mou Feng should have obtained a 2% business management fee return point, but promised to serve as Song's treasure thanks fee, which is simply counter-theft. Li Mou Feng with China Rock Technology Company has no business exchanges, no "thank you" Song's treasure reason, the only reason is that Li Mou Feng "not bad money", can promise 182 million yuan thanks fee, can send ten boxes of Mou Feng wine, 300 grams of gold.

To this end, the Loyang City Old Town District Prosecutor's Office accused Song Zhao of helping Li to "exempt him from administrative fees" and was purely fake by the case-managing agency.

* Repayment of 440,000 “bribes”

Li Mou Feng bribed 2.12 million yuan to Song's treasure, "legendary color", is not an isolated incident, about Zhong Mou, White Mou, Zhang Mou Boo, Jiang Mou bribed 4.3 million yuan to Song's treasure, belonging to "the same recipe, the same taste".

Hunan Zhenjiang Construction Materials Technology Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Hunan Zhenjiang Company") is a private enterprise, on April 1, 2012, Hunan Zhenjiang Technology Company merged Hunan Zhenjiang Company, the former Hunan Zhenjiang Enterprise Zhenjiang third party company accounts for 49% of the shares, and Zhenjiang Technology Company accounts for 51% of the shares.

The Old Town District Prosecutor's Office determined that the subsequent merger of the Hunan Shinkansen Company, the subsidiary of the Hunan Shinkansen Company, was not wrong, which is also a rare affidavit in the entire prosecution.

The Old Town District Prosecutor's Office accused that between 2015 and 2023, Song Shaboo used the convenience of his position to assist his sister in his promotion, as well as in his daily business, and received a total of 160,000 yuan in cash from his sister.

The brother of Zhang is indeed the deputy chairman and general manager of the company in Hunan, which is also an objective fact, but this position is not given by Song Zhao care, but they must take up this position according to the rules.

The fifth article of the agreement signed by the two sides on April 1, 2012 clearly stated that Mr. Zhang is the general manager and responsible for the daily management of business. That is, Mr. Zhang's "general manager" status is not appointed by Mr. Zhang, but the substance of 49% of shares.

Strictly speaking, China Rock and Technology Company and Hunan Rock and Rock Company are not upper and lower-level relations but cooperative relationships. Song and Zhang have a generous exchange, for example, when the year passes, Song and Zhang will give Song to the year, when Song and Zhang have a child and a brother to marry, Song and Zhang also gave gifts.

In order to prevent the development of Hunan's "extra-living branches" of Hunan's central rock company, Shui admitted that she and her brother often gave Song's treasure cash for a total of 160,000 yuan.

After the case, Song's defense of the treasure once went to the meeting with Shui, Shui said: "I have no reason to send money to Song's General, I have made the biggest contribution to the technology company, to send is also he should give me" (with recording).

The employees of the research and technology company (hereinafter referred to as the "Chinese research and technology company") in the construction materials of the White Mou department, White Mou once introduced to the China Rock Technology Company a project for Beijing Southern Train Station, after the project was completed, the China Rock Technology Company in accordance with the industry practice, gave White some 300,000 yuan living fee.

White believed that he alone should not take the entire 300,000 yuan living expenses, so he left 200,000 yuan and sent another 100,000 to the office of Song's Treasure, he believed that should be distributed by Song's Treasure as a leader to other staff.

Zhejiang Science and Technology Company and Zhejiang Science and Technology Company, once joint bidding a "Saudi scientific research project" was successful, the representative of the Zhejiang Science and Technology Company, due to the strong business skills of Zhejiang, as a representative of Zhejiang Science and Technology Company, has struggled to hold a representative of Zhejiang Science and Technology Company responsible for the project.

During the ten-day period under the supervision of the supervisory committee, Mr. White acknowledged that after the completion of the "Saudi research project" intermediate report, he gave Mr. Song 50,000 yuan, allowing him to ask for the leadership of the "Saudi research project" at the time.

Zhang Kai-Bao is only the sales representative of Tianjin Leopard Sharing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Leopard Sharing Company"). The Old Town District Prosecutor's Office accused that in the decade from 2015 to 2024, Zhang Kai-Bao used his position to help Leopard Sharing Company to undertake concrete expander supply projects and project allocation, Zhang Kai-Bao 14 times sent to Song Kai-Bao 70,000 yuan.

The two companies' "supply projects" have an agreement, "project allocation" must also be paid in accordance with the agreed price, which is the minimum of the contract spirit, any normal business of the enterprise needs to "provide help" to do, which is a cognitive barrier to the integrity society.

The key is that Zhang Kai-Bao, as a sales representative of the Leopard Shong Company, can not change the supply agreement of the two families, the payment of goods is due, the condition for Zhang Kai-Bao "to provide help" is not established. Song Kai-Bao, Zhang Kai-Bao are more familiar, in the year-on-year festival, the two sides have mutual gifts, is an objective fact.

It is worth mentioning that the Leopard Corporation issued an explanation to the defenders, clarified that the two companies are doing business according to the market rules, and the financial department of China Rock Technology Company also issued a written proof to the defenders, confirming that Song has never greeted the leopard company's money transfer matters.

In the indictment only "2014 to 2024", there is no specific time and amount of "bribing", so it was determined that张某宝 bribed 70,000 yuan to Song.

During his tenure as Chongqing Technology Company’s general manager, Liaoning Cologne Fine Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Liaoning Cologne Company”), was once the supplier of the company’s dehumidifier raw materials. During this period, the Chongqing Technology Company complied with its payment obligation after filing a lawsuit against Liaoning Cologne for the company’s goods.

The Old Town District Prosecutor's Office accused Song of taking advantage of the convenience of office to help Liaoning Cologne Company in "supply of dehumidifier raw materials and allocation of goods", and in December 2017, in Beijing, charged Liaoning Cologne company legal representative Zhang Mou cash 50,000 yuan.

At the time, the market environment showed that the "reducer raw material" was the daughter of the emperor, belonging to the seller market rather than the buyer market, Jiang Mou did not have a reason to ask Song to increase the supply of goods. China Rock Technology Company owed Liaoning Cologne's goods, was settled through litigation procedures, according to such a logic, is not Song to let the court judgment, pay Liaoning Cologne's goods.

Qing Mou was overseen by the Loyang Municipal Supervisory Commission for ten days, during which time she admitted to sending 50,000 yuan cash to Song's Treasure. Qing Mou's notebook showed that sending money was "December 2017", the place where she was driving the car was her driver, she and Song's Treasure sat in the back row, and gave 50,000 yuan cash to Song's Treasure. The Song's Treasure Note formed through "Proprior Confession" was that he drove to see Jiang Mou, and Jiang Mou put the cash on the back seat of the Song's Treasure Car.

Jiang also said that she was "December 2017" to Beijing to participate in the meeting of China Construction Materials Group, taking advantage of this opportunity to send money to Song.But "December 2017", there was no record of China Construction Materials Group holding industry meetings, and there was no record of Jiang Qing buying high-speed train tickets and staying in hotels.

As the head of a company, Jiang Mou, during the supervision of the supervisory committee, was very badly insulted.

“Banded gun” offense.

The previous article has been detailed, Wang Feng (Song Sheng) on March 30, 2011 has left the Bundford Company, and 8 million yuan of "casus" funds are not in the hiding, which also fully shows that the Loyang Municipal Supervisory Commission has not determined that the 8 million yuan belongs to the bribery, but they have not forgotten to give 8 million yuan a "long tail effect", which is the illegal operation of similar business crimes.

Loyang City Old Town District Prosecutor's Court accused that from April 2011 to February 2012, Song Zhao Bao used the facilities of serving as the deputy general manager of China Rock Technology Company, along with Wang Mou, Song Zhao Liang and others in the name of Bangford Company, to operate the production and sales business of reducers similar to China Rock Technology Company. Song Zhao Bao and others operated the production and sales business of reducers in the name of Bangford Company earned a cumulative profit of more than RMB 790,000.

Facts have been confirmed that the Bonford Company operates the production and sales business of water-relievers, and China Rock Technology Company, which was the deputy general manager of Song Xing Bao, has no half-money relationship, but in order to realise the "long tail effect" of 8 million yuan, the Loyang City Supervisory Commission first made a retention on Van Mu.

The detention was cancelled only after Mr. Fang clarified the establishment of the Bonford Company, the transfer of shares, and the amount of $6 million, and provided all written evidence during his detention.

As stated in the full text, 6 million yuan and 8 million yuan of the "case" and 2 million yuan of the "difference price", through the "audit" method, determined that more than 790,000 yuan belonged to the operation of "similar business", and constituted a crime, at the same time the Song's Baoshin lively linked to the Bundford Company.

Regarding the corruption charge of 130,000 yuan, all the evidence in the case has been confirmed to be completely false. The old city district court has ultimately failed to recognize the corruption crime, which is also a "conscience discovery" under the upsurge of public opinion, and is not the original intention of the case agency, the prosecutor's office, the court.

Whether it is illegal to conduct similar business crimes, or ultimately unconfirmed corruption crimes, Song's treasure is "leaning gun" style is artificially bound.

*Procedure and facts

The "alternative" of Loyang Anti-Corruption Field is that the prosecutor's office of the old city district prosecutor's office is only "transport workers", and the Loyang Municipal Supervisory Commission has determined the "condemnation", and the independent judgment power of the old city district court is only conducted in the form of "open court" trial, and ultimately still the Loyang Supervisory Commission "condemnation" is determined.

On September 6, the Old Town Court openly held the trial of Song, but the court allowed only two family members to participate in the interrogation, which is also the "open" trial of the Loyang model.

The "open" trial began at 9:30 p.m., and at 5:30 p.m. the entire case was tried, and the lawyer defended Song Zhao's innocence on the basis of objective facts, but the court still determined that it constituted bribery and illegal operation of similar business crimes.

The lawyer applied for illegal evidence to exclude the refused, 17 people applied for appearance in court to be questioned was refused, and all five witnesses who have been waiting outside the court and asked to appear in court to testify were refused.

The judgment of the old city court, which sprinkled up to 50 pages, is a flowing book without facts and legal basis, and the defense of the defendant's innocence for each accusation, the six words "not to be adopted by the court", which is also the biggest "highlight" of this judgment.

Even more remarkable, when the Old Town Court had not yet received a written defence statement from the defence lawyer, it had already received a telephone notification from the House that the judgment had been sent.

Song Tzu Bao disobeyed the judgment of the Court of the Old Town District, on September 18, 2026 appealed to the Loyang Central Court in accordance with the law, requesting Loyang Central Court to reconsider his innocence in accordance with the law, combined with the entire procedure of violation of the law and factual errors, Song Tzu Bao's core appeal grounds have six core dimensions, comprehensively covering the conclusion of the case.

First, the evidence system of the first trial has fundamental flaws, the core evidence is illegally obtained evidence, and the illegal evidence exclusion procedure is false. in this case, the key testimony, witness testimony are all subject to the case by threat, induction, coercion, restriction of personal freedom and other illegal means to obtain, Loyang City Supervisory Committee staff acknowledged the existence of a large amount of involvement in the case, the parties also provided a clear clue of violent evidence collection, fake notes, fully in line with the illegal evidence exclusion criteria.

But the first instance court did not review the lawfulness of evidence collection behavior in accordance with the law, only according to the supervisory committee itself issued the "legal statement of evidence" rejection of the non-application, is equivalent to let the body of evidence collection "self-prove innocence", seriously violates the principle of justice and fairness. at the same time, the public prosecution agency hid, refused to transfer the key synchronous recording video, in the case of knowing the existence of the preliminary recording of the case, then forced the parties to sign the recording, still deliberately hide the evidence, the court of first instance refused to interrogate, directly examined the illegal recording, evidence collection is seriously illegal.

Second, the core accusations of the whole case are unclear, the evidence is insufficient, the basis for the conviction of bribery and the illicit operation of similar business crimes is not established. 1.82 million yuan attempted bribery, 4.3 million yuan small bribery, there are complete recordings, documentary certificates, enterprise certificates confirming that witnesses are compelled to compile, without any real bribery facts and commercial logic support; illegal business crimes are found to be separate from objective equity flow, business facts, belong to forced binding crime.

Third, the first-instance court seriously deprived the parties of the legal proceedings, deliberately avoided the court examination of the evidence, and clarified the facts of the case. The defense lawyer submitted the testimony application in accordance with the law, several key witnesses have arrived in the court waiting for the court to attend the cross-question, the first-instance court rejected all without legitimate reasons, deliberately avoided the core link of the court examination of the evidence, and verified the false testimony.

Fourth, in this case, there are multiple illegal acts of interfering with testimony, interfering with justice, witness testimony does not have authenticity and legality. case agency joint China Construction Materials Research Group disciplinary committee, pressure on key witnesses, coerce to obtain evidence, first through the disciplinary committee personnel to deter witnesses, then by public prosecution agency fixed false notes, coerce witnesses against objective facts to false evidence, seriously impede the normal order of criminal proceedings.

At the same time, the existence of a legal circumstance for the first-instance prosecutor has not been avoided, which has seriously affected the fair trial of the case.The case was initially handled by the relevant personnel of the Loyang Municipal Supervisory Commission, the prosecutor and the person in charge of the case have a long-term relationship of subordination, and there is an irregular meeting, compelling the parties to confess guilt, conceal the defence application, violate the collection of case material, the first-instance court has the power to reject the application, the procedure is seriously illegal.

Fifth, the first-instance court evidence collection rules applied mistake, created a violation of the law arbitration standards. More than thirty objective evidence submitted by the lawyer, the first-instance court is not adopted on the basis of "private recording, the source is not legal" "conflict with the evidence in the case."But in our criminal proceedings rules, the legality of evidence is limited to the subject of the public authority, the defense itself gathered evidence even if there are procedural defects, can also be used as the case reference basis, the first-instance court one-sided deny the defense evidence, bias the plaintiff, deviates from the court position, violates the core spirit of the criminal proceedings law.

Sixth, the source of the case is the existence of public apparatus private, the struggle against foreign people for intervention, and the first-instance trial procedure violates the legal rules. The initial clue in this case, originated from the individual leadership of China building materials general assembly to exclude foreigners, suppress cadres deliberately submitted false information, borrowing disciplinary supervision and public authority to private purposes, belongs to the typical abuse of power. At the same time, the core dispute in this case as the fact determined dispute, according to the provisions of the criminal proceedings law, the second-instance must open trial, in accordance with the law should comprehensively verify the facts, correct the one-instance trial error.

As one of the typical criminal cases of central executives, the Song's case does not reflect the strict, fair and prudent rules of anti-corruption cases, but instead exposes the problems of procedural disregard, power cross-border, artificial case creation and other problems that exist in the judicial process of Loyang anti-corruption practice, becoming an alternative sample of highly controversial local anti-corruption practice.

The first-instance judgment did not really clarify the facts of the case, adhered to the judicial bottom line, failed to reflect the judge's initial intention based on the facts and the law as the guideline. With the second-instance procedure advancing, many of the cases against the law and common sense will be gradually exposed. Hopefully the relevant departments will be able to comprehensively verify the facts of the case, correct the procedures and the error of the entity, restore the truth of the case, give a fair judgment that can withstand the law, facts and public opinion inspection, and protect the credibility of the judiciary and the rule of law bottom line.