From the revocation of a lawyer's certificate to the compulsory withholding of money after the completion of the sentence: the Luths case reflects the political control of the near-Pen period of the bar

A fine of $10,000, which is the subject of a criminal sentence that has entered into force in the execution proceedings before the Chenghua District Court of Chengcheng; However, for the position of human rights lawyer, Luth, who has continued to complain, this amount re-links him from the professional disqualifications, exit restrictions, transnational deportations and criminal sanctions he has experienced in the past few years.

According to reports by the Network on 29 September, Zhang Chun-hsiu, the wife of Luthy, disclosed that the court had recently imposed a compulsory deduction of $10,000 from her husband ' s bank card. According to Luthor, the criminal treatment he had previously been subjected to was politically persecuted and alleged that the execution was related to the recent reports of Sichuan Chengdu, Sichuan and many officials.

From representation in sensitive cases to loss of legal capacity

Luthor has defended persons involved in politically sensitive cases, including the Hong Kong 12 cases in 2020.

In 2021, his legal capacity was revoked. In July 2023, he was detained by local police while passing through Laos to join his wife and children in the United States and subsequently deported to China on a Chinese passport and a valid United States visa.

On 18 April 2025, the Chengchenghua District Court of Chengcheng City sentenced him to 11 months ' imprisonment and a fine of $10,000 for the crime of crossing the border.

This timeline shows how decisions of different State bodies continue to function in the same lawyer: professional qualifications, departure from the country, criminal responsibility and property enforcement.

The political context of the system cannot be understood without ignoring the changes in Chinese law-making policy since Xi’s administration.

From the 709th arrest to the party's overall leadership of lawyers

In July 2015, the Chinese police carried out a massive investigation and detention of human rights lawyers, paralegals and defenders, later known as “the 709th major arrests”.

Human Rights Watch ' s tenth anniversary report, published in 2025, indicated that some 300 people were under police investigation, detention or interrogation during the year. Since then, several lawyers have continued to face disqualification, surveillance and other restrictions. It considered that the Xi Jinping Government continued to undermine the influence of independent defenders by strengthening political and organizational governance.

More notably, this political management requirement has entered the formal legal profession.

In December 2018, the Ministry of Justice issued a decision to amend the Law Offices Act, which was in force since 15 January

1. The third of the amendments requires the law firm to adhere to the socialist philosophy of Xi Jinping's new Chinese identity, to strengthen the party's overall leadership of the work of lawyers and to make it a basic requirement for the pro-communist leadership of China to practice their profession.

“As a basic requirement for the practice of pro-communist leadership and pro-social rule of law, the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) has been established. “—Excerpt of article 3 of the Law Offices Act, as amended by Order No. 142 of the Ministry of Justice.

This provision raises an important systemic question: how can professional independence be guaranteed when political loyalty is a formal regulatory requirement for the legal profession, when counsel is represented in cases involving party bodies, and when public challenges are made to administrative acts?

While Luths is not the first person arrested directly, Human Rights Watch has included his experience in its study of the continuing political control of the profession after 709.

One lawyer has served his sentence, why has his legal dispute not been ended?

The Luthor case has another dimension that deserves to be pursued.

From the time of disqualification to becoming a party to a criminal case, his status had changed from that of a lawyer who was providing legal defence to a complainant who was continuously seeking judicial relief.

He challenged the facts, evidence and procedure in the original judgement, sought cassation, a reversal of the acquittal and alleged that the follow-up, harassment and exit restrictions that had been imposed for a long time before were important contexts in which he had opted for departure from the country of his choice through a third country. The latest deduction on 29 September, however, indicates that the property penalty established in the original judgement is still being executed, despite the completion of the sentence.

This further extends the original dispute: Is an effective remedy available to a lawyer when he continues to challenge the original judgement and how will the complaint affect the continuing legal consequences of his life?

The case process in question involves at least four interlinked nodes:

Ruth lost his legal capacity and was subject to restrictions on his departure.

• 2023: Detained in Laos on the way to the United States of America for family reunification and subsequently repatriated to China.
• 2025: The Chengdu Court sentenced 11 months to imprisonment and a fine of $10,000; After his release, Ruth continued to file a complaint.
• September 2026: His wife informed the court that the original fine of $10,000 had been imposed on her by compulsory deduction from the bank card.

In its statement on the tenth anniversary of the arrest of 709 persons in 2025, Amnesty International considered the surveillance, professional restrictions, family involvement and ongoing criminal sanctions that Chinese human rights lawyers have faced for a long time as an important component of the issue of human rights and the rule of law in Xi Jinping.

The allegations of political persecution and reprisals made by Roth himself should be responded to in the light of specific facts and procedures, and not only in public statements by the person concerned and the person supporting them.

From the 709 arrests to the strengthening of the party ' s organization of the bar by the Ministry of Justice, to the controversy over the Luth ' s status today, the events have brought together a question of a system that has not disappeared: to what extent can the legal challenges to the authorities allow lawyers to enter criminal proceedings and to what extent is the independent defence function of the legal profession guaranteed?