Translation: The Notes That Led to Journalist Shi Tao's Imprisonment

 On April 27, 2005, the Intermediate People's Court of Changsha, Hunan sentenced Shi Tao (师涛), director of the editorial department at the Hunan Contemporary Business News Publishing House, to ten years imprisonment for disclosing a state secret. Specifically, the court said:

[F]ollowing a routine article review and pre-editorial meeting, deputy editors-in-chief surnamed Wang and Yang of the Hunan Contemporary Business News Publishing House again assembled the persons responsible for the headline news, mobile hot-line, editorial, and other departments, to participate in a specialized meeting. In this specialized meeting Wang verbally passed on a summary of the important contents of the top secret state secret, "Notice Regarding Current Stability Work" (Party General Office Document (2004) No. 11) of the Communist Party of China Central Committee General Office and the State Council General Office, and stressed that this document was top secret, and it was not permitted to take notes on or spread it. Defendant Shi Tao, however, secretly took notes on this summary of important contents. Between 7:00 p.m. in the evening of that same day and 2:00 a.m. the following morning, defendant Shi Tao in his office used his personal electronic mailbox [INTENTIONALLY DELETED]@yahoo.com.cn to transmit the notes he had secretly taken of the summary of the main contents of the aforementioned Party General Office Document (2004) No. 11 to the electronic mailbox [INTENTIONALLY DELETED]@aol.com of Hong Zhesheng, one of the organizers of the "Asia Democracy Foundation" located in New York, USA, and editor-in-chief of the foreign website "Democracy Forum" and the electronic periodical "Democracy Newsletter," and provided "198964," as the provider's alias. At the same time, he asked Hong Zhesheng to think of a way to disseminate it as quickly as possible, but not to use Shi Tao's name. On that day the summary of the important contents of the aforementioned Party General Office Document (2004) No. 11 provided by the signatory "198964" was distributed on "Democracy Forum," and afterwards it was also redistributed by foreign websites such as "Boxun" and the "Chinese Democracy and Justice Party."

A full translation of the court judgment (师涛刑事判决书, (2005)长中刑一初字第 29 号) can be found in "State Prosecutions of Speech in the People's Republic of China: Cases Illustrating the Application of National Security and Public Order Laws to Political and Religious Expression" (中華人民共和國政府對言論的訴追：有關國家安全及公共秩序相關法律適用於政治及宗教言論的案例彙編), available for free download at www.feichangdao.com.

Below is a translation of the version of Shi's notes published on the Boxun website on April 22, 2004 at https://news.boxun.com/news/gb/china/2004/04/200404220629.shtml.

Summary of Document No. 11 of the Central Office of the Communist Party of China (VI) State Office ("Notice Regarding Current Stability Work")

Provided by 198964

On April 20, China's Propaganda Department urgently conveyed to all news agencies the document No. 11 from the Central Office and the State Office, the content of which is the "Notice Regarding Current Stability Work.” The summary is as follows:

1. Analysis of the current situation:

(1) This year marks the 15th anniversary of "6.4", and some overseas pro-democracy activists are more active, and they plan to take action to break through the blockades during the "6.4" anniversary, and prepare to forcibly break through the blockades;
(2) On the issue of liberalization, it is mainly about denying the leadership of the Communist Party, denying the socialist system, engaging in so-called "civil learning," and some hostile forces politicizing criminal cases;
(3) "Falun Gong" cult members are engaging in sabotage activities;
(4) The dissemination of various harmful information on the Internet;
(5) Mass incidents are relatively prominent, mainly manifesting around issues such as demolition and petitioning;
(6) Overseas hostile forces are using religious and other channels (printed materials, the Internet) to win over young people, or conduct academic activities in schools, help students, etc., to engage in illegal activities;
(7) The Hong Kong issue.

The focus is on "6.4", about "Falun Gong," and about “mass incidents."

2. All departments at all levels should take preventive measures:

(1) Resolutely prevent pro-democracy elements from breaking through obstacles and getting inside the borders;
(2) Strictly prevent various activities;
(3) Strictly prevent hostile elements from using the Internet to engage in activities;
(4) Strictly prevent the occurrence of mass incidents;
(5) Strictly prevent the "Falun Gong" cult organization from engaging in sabotage;
(6) Strictly guard the safety of key departments and personnel;
(7) Strictly guard against various factors that affect stability and unity.

3. Five tasks to be paid close attention to at present:

(1) Adhere to the correct theory and sense of responsibility;
(2) Effectively strengthen intelligence work and grasp the situation of various activities;
(3) Adhere to the correct orientation of public opinion, effectively prevent sabotage by foreign hostile elements, and resolutely refrain from making any remarks that are inconsistent with the policies of the central authorities;
(4) Highlight key points and do a good job of prevention and control in a targeted manner;
(5) Reduce mass petitions.

(At the same time, you should pay attention to contacts between overseas pro-democracy activists and individual editors and reporters of domestic media. Once discovered, report it immediately.)

中共中办(六)国办11号文件摘要(《关于当前稳定工作的通知》)

198964提供

4月20日,中国的宣传部们紧急向各新闻单位传达中办和国办的11号文件,内容是《关于当前稳定工作的通知》,摘要如下:

一、关于当前形势的分析:

(一)今年是“6.4”15周年,境外一些民运分子比较活跃,他们准备在“6.4”纪念日期间采取闯关行动,准备强行闯关;
(二)关于自由化的问题,主要是否定共产党领导,否定社会主义制度,搞所谓的“民间学习”,还有一些敌对势力把刑事案件政治化;
(三)“法轮功”邪教分子搞破坏活动;
(四)互联网上各种有害信息的传播;
(五)群体事件比较突出,主要表现在拆迁、上访等方面;
(六)境外敌对势力利用宗教等渠道(印刷品、互联网),拉拢青少年,或在学校里开展学术活动、助学等等,搞非法活动;
(七)香港问题。

重点是关于“6.4”、关于“法轮功”、关于群体事件”。

二、各级各部门要做好防范措施:

(一)坚决制止民运分子闯关入境;
(二)严密防范各种活动;
(三)严密防范敌对分子利用互联网搞活动;
(四)严密防范群体事件的发生;
(五)严密防范“法轮功”邪教组织搞破坏;
(六)严密防范重点部门和人员的安全;
(七)严密防范一些影响安定团结的因素。

三、当前要狠抓的五项工作:

(一)坚持正确的理论和责任意识;
(二)切实加强情报工作,掌握各种活动情况;
(三)坚持正确的舆论导向,有效地防范境外敌对分子的破坏,坚决不发任何和中央政策不一致的任何言论;
(四)突出重点,有针对性地做好防范控制工作;
(五)减少群体性上访。

(同时要注意境外民运分子与境内媒体个别编辑、记者的联系,一旦发现,立即报告。)
 

Translation: The Writings of Liu Fenggang Deemed "Intelligence" by China's Courts

On August 6, 2004, the Intermediate People's Court of Hangzhou, Zhejiang found Liu Fenggang guilty of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad, and sentenced him to a fixed term imprisonment of three years  and three years deprivation of political rights. See: https://blog.feichangdao.com/2004/08/liufenggang-espionage-judgment.html. 

The court's judgment stated: "The National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets verification opinion proved that the three articles 'What I Understand About the Facts of Liu Baozhi's 'Cult' Case in Anshan, Liaoning,' 'Reports from the Motherland,' and 'Interrogated by the Police for Preaching the Gospel in Mountain District Outside of Beijing" are intelligence.'"

In order to provide context for Liu's conviction, a translation of the article "What I Understand About the Facts of Liu Baozhi's 'Cult' Case in Anshan, Liaoning," is provided below.

Source: https://www.cclifefl.org/View/Article/608

What I Understand About the Facts and History of the "Cult" case of Li Baozhi in Anshan, Liaoning

Liu Fenggang

Life Quarterly, No. 20, December 2001
 
Dear brothers and sisters in the Lord, I'm here to tell you about something. In Anshan, Liaoning, some brothers and sisters in the Lord were gathering at someone's home. As a result, three brothers and sisters were subjected to re-education through labor. Many brothers and sisters were fined for the offense of being "cultists." They say that our brothers and sisters are cultists, simply because someone (maybe someone at the public security agency who thinks that they are cultists) has the contact information of one of our sisters and a notice from a higher-level public security agency requested assistance in an investigation. These brothers and sisters in the Lord deny that they are "cultists." They have defended themselves through reconsideration, litigation, appeals, and other legal channels, and they are currently appealing. The detailed process is as follows.
 
1.

There is a Christian church on Lvhua Street, Tiexi District, Anshan, Liaoning. There are more than 2,000 believers. In 1993, the believers were dissatisfied with the "Three-Self Society" because it went against the wishes of the believers. Arrangements were made for Elder Zhang Doe, who had serious financial problems, and Father Shi Doe, a fourth-ranked priest who had been expelled from the Catholic Church, to serve as president and secretary of our church, and some believers left the church. People met in their own homes and studied the Bible.
 
On November 11, 2000, when the brothers and sisters were meeting at Niu Zhongfang's home, some police officers from the Anshan Public Security Bureau arrived and took the brothers and sisters who were gathering to the Religious Affairs Department of the Anshan City Public Security Bureau to interrogate the brothers and sisters.

Later, I learned that the host of the meeting, Sister Li Baozhi, had contact with a person named Ma Yanling in Weihai. She had met with Ma Yanling once or twice about a job for her son. Ma Yanling may be regarded as a member of the "All Ranges Church" or involved in the "All Ranges Church." Until now, no one knew what kind of person Ma Yanling was. It's just that Li Baozhi's name was in Ma Yanling's address book. For this reason, the Public Security Bureau determined that the gathering of these brothers and sisters was also a gathering of the " All Ranges Church." These brothers and sisters had never heard of any "All Ranges Church." Their gatherings are completely organized in an orthodox Christian manner. They study the Bible together, and there engaged in anything evil or twisted. We talked with these brothers and sisters, and everyone is also critical of heretical and extreme religious activities.
 
However, these police officers determined that these brothers and sisters were gathering as the "All Ranges Church" and a "cult." They resorted to "fascist" tactics against these brothers and sisters, extorting confessions by torture, and beating them. Various punishments were used including slaps, punches and kicks, "small ropes," wooden sticks, bamboo poles, electric batons, and electric grills. I will not go into details here because we have the materials from the brothers and sisters. In the end, on December 25, 2000, the Anshan Public Security Bureau sent sister Li Baozhi to reeducation through labor for two years, and brothers Sun Derong and Hou Rongshan for one year each, and fined many brothers and sisters between 1,000 and 4,000 yuan, all for participating in the "All Ranges Church" cult.

Sisters Li Baozhiand Sun Dexiang, and Brother Hou Rongshan were dissatisfied with this, and on February 20, 2001, applied to the Provincial Re-education through Labor Committee for reconsideration. On March 19, 2001, the Provincial Re-education through Labor Committee decided to affirm the imposition of reeducation through labor in the name of illegally organizing cult activities. Sister Li Baozhi was dissatisfied with this and filed an administrative lawsuit at Anshan Lishan District People’s Court. On July 20, 2001, Anshan Lishan District People’s Court held that "the actions of the plaintiff completely violated the 'Regulations on the Administration of Religious Affairs of Liaoning Province' and seriously interfered with the normal order of religious life in the city, and created a somewhat bad influence." Sister Li Baozhi refused to accept this and appealed to the Anshan Intermediate Court.

2.

For this reason, I, Liu Fenggang, an ordinary Christian in Beijing went to Anshan to participate as an observer.
 
The Anshan Intermediate People's Court is located on the north side of the northwest corner of the Anshan Center Square. The hearing time was 1:00 pm, October 18, 2001, and I arrived at the gate of the courthouse on time. There were three or four believers looking up at the main entrance, and I asked them if they had come to attend Li Baozhi's court hearing. They said yes. I went up to the third floor with them. When we got to the third floor, we found that the whole corridor was full of believers who were attending as observers. There were more than 100 people. After a while, the lawyer came to tell everyone that because there were too few seats, it was changed to the sixth trial hall on the fourth floor. When everyone arrived on the fourth floor, everyone stood quietly on both sides of the passage so as not to affect the offices in the building. About ten minutes later, it was reported that because the hall was still too small, it could only accommodate more than 20 people. The lawyer would not agree to that and went to contact the court officials again. Finally, it was changed to a hall on the second floor that could accommodate more than 100 people. Everyone entered the hall, and there were no empty seats in the auditorium.
 
In the courtroom, there were three seats positioned above the rest. On the left was a male judge, and on the right was a female judge. The presiding judge in the middle had not yet arrived. The clerk had not yet arrived. The appellant and lawyer Hao Qinghua and Liu Chaodong sat on the right. The appellant and sister Li Baozhi had not arrived. The police said that there were insufficient police present and Li Baozhi could not appear in court. The appellee's representative, Ma Yi from the first section of the Public Security Bureau, and another policeman sat on the left.
 
At 1:40, the clerk and the presiding judge came in. The presiding judge announced the opening of the hearing. He first asked the clerk to announce the court rules, and then he read the court procedures, and then asked the appellant and appellee whether they wished to request the recusal of any trial court personnel. Then, let the appellant and lawyer Hao Qinghua read out the letter of appeal on behalf of the appellant Li Baozhi.
 
The appeal statement stated: (1) The appellant never participated in the "All Ranges Church," and the appellant cannot be deemed to have participated in a "cult" just because the appellant's name is in a certain address book. The decision on reeducation through labor, the reconsideration decision on reeducation through labor, and the administrative judgment of the People's Court of Lishan did not provide facts and evidence of the "cult" activities that the appellant participated in. (2) The decision on reeducation through labor and the reconsideration decision on reeducation through labor penalized the appellant on the grounds of cult activities, but the court of first instance maintained the punishment on the basis of the "Regulations on the Administration of Religious Affairs of Liaoning Province" which has nothing to do with cults. The two contradict each other. (3) The court of first instance found that the plaintiff's "wailing and spiritual dancing" violated the "Regulations on the Administration of Religious Affairs of Liaoning Province" and severely disrupted social order, which was inconsistent with the facts. The appellant never behaved in this manner.
 
The appellee stated that their handling of Li Baozhi was done in accordance with top-secret documents issued by the Ministry of Public Security which could not be produced, that the legal procedures were reasonable, and the court was requested to uphold the original verdict.
 
The lawyer asked: "Did you have any real evidence when you were investigating Li Baozhi's participation in the ‘cult’ organization? Is it because she had the two books "The Key to the Mountain" and "Morning Light" in her home?"
 
The police said: "We sentenced Li Baozhi to reeducation through labor because she disrupted social order, not because of those two books."
 
The lawyer once again asked the police to give evidence of Li Baozhi's involvement in a "cult."
 
The police said: “When we captured Li Baozhi and others, they were organizing believers to cry and laugh, and dance a spirit dance.” Then, the police read a someone's confession.
 
At this time, the lawyer asked the presiding judge to call witnesses in the courtroom. The presiding judge asked: "Can your witnesses prove that Li Baozhi did not participate in the cult?"
 
The lawyer said: "The appellee's representative maintains that Li Baozhi was participating in the cult. They should produce evidence. My witnesses can only prove that they did not cry and laugh or dance a spirit dance on the day they were arrested."
 
The presiding judge pondered for a while and agreed to call witnesses.
 
Witness Sister Doe came to the courtroom, and the presiding judge said word by word: "You will be legal liability for your testimony."
 
Our sister said: "I know."
 
The lawyer asked the witness: "When did you and Li Baozhi leave the church and start to run a house church?"
 
Answer: "It was 1993 when the church was fighting (dialect: fighting) when we left."
 
Question: "Do you know the ‘All Ranges Church’?"
 
Answer: "No, I don't."
 
Question: "Did Li Baozhi cry, laugh, and danced in your meetings?"

Answer: "No."
 
The presiding judge also asked the police officer (the appellee's representative) to question the witness.
 
The police officer came up and their first question was: "Is your meeting place approved and registered by the government?"
 
Answer: "I don't know."
 
Question: "Your home is so close, why go to a house so far away for a meeting?"
 
Answer: "Big churches and home gatherings - I go to both."
 
Question: "Have you never cried during a gathering? Christians should not lie."
 
Answer: "I haven't cried."
 
The presiding judge ordered the witness to step down. The lawyer again called up a believer, and the presiding judge told him in the same harsh tone: "You have to bear legal responsibility for your words." After that, the lawyer asked: "Please tell us about the situation on the day you were arrested."
 
The believer said: "After we were arrested, we were all locked up in different rooms of the Religious Affairs Office on the eighth floor of the Public Security Bureau. They tortured us and screams were often heard from the rooms."
 
The lawyer asked: "Was there crying? Was there screaming?"
 
Answer: "It was the screams caused by beatings."
 
The lawyer said, "Go on."
 
The believer said: "I saw Ma Yi (Religious Affairs director) walking in the passage holding the female believer's hair with his hands. They also slapped my face and made me sign a confession that they had already written out."
 
Question: "Did you sign?"
 
Answer: "If I didn't sign, they would beat me. It was all forced."
 
The presiding judge said to the witness: "Step down." Then he asked the judge to read a transcript of an interrorgator who came to the church to question the elder Zhang Doe:
 
Question: "What position do you hold in the church?"
 
Answer: "I am the elder of the church."
 
Question: "Is Li Baozhi a believer in your church?"
 
Answer: "Since leaving the church in 1993, she has not been our congregant."
 
Question: "Do you know whether Li Baozhi participates in the 'All Ranges' cult?"
 
Answer: "After she left the church what she participated in had nothing to do with us."
 
Question: "Are the "Morning Light" and "the Key to the Mountain" confiscated from her books from your church?"
 
Answer: "Believers read the Bible, and there are no other church books."
 
After reading, the lawyer immediately produced a receipt showing that the book was sold by the church, and handed over to the court an  audit report regarding the elder Zhang Doe's serious economic problems.
 
The presiding judge was obviously a little impatient. He took out the notice from the Ministry of Public Security instructing the Provincial Public Security Department to investigate Li Baozhi's cult and read one section. The lawyer pointed out that this notice only ordered an investigation, and there was no conclusion. It did not say that Li Baozhi was a cultist. The Municipal Public Security Bureau designated Li Baozhi as a cultist solely because she had the name of Ma Yanling from Weihai, which is not right.
 
The presiding judge said the court would now hear final arguments.
 
The lawyer said: "In the above trial process, the appellee never produced any piece of evidence that Li Baozhi participated in a cult. China is constantly improving its legal system and has signed the the United Nations' 'Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights' and the 'Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.' It is hoped that the court's adjudication will be just and this Christian will be given a clean slate."
 
The appellee stated: "The nature of the cult is anti-government. The characteristic of anti-government is that it does not comply with the administration of the "Three-Selfs." Although the State allows believers to gather in their own homes, they are limited to their own homes. We believe that Li Baozhi's treatment was legal."
 
The lawyer immediately pressed the question, since it was a disturbance of social order, she would only be fined a fine of less than 1,000 yuan, and she should not be re-education through labor.
 
The presiding judge interrupted the lawyer's speech and announced that the court had listened extensively to the opinions of the appellant and appellee. A judgement would be rendered after review and discussion, and the court trial had concluded.
 
3.
 
On October 23, 2001, before dawn, Li Baozhi's son and I went to the Anshan Railway Station to visit his mother in the correctional home. At this time, the sky was already bright. Although the weather was fine, the sun was shining, and there were no clouds in the sky, my mood was always heavy. I couldn't stop thinking about the scene of the court hearing on the 18th. Why did the public security agency not have any evidence, and rely solely on a higher-level public security agency's co-investigation notice to sentence our sister to two years of reeducation through labor? Why was an elderly sister who is a mother subjected to humiliation and beatings? Why is normal religious life being tarred as a cult?
 
The train moved forward rhythmically. Sister Li Baozhi’s son had gotten up too early and so took a nap on a small table. This child who had lost his mother's love did not have a job after graduation. His father was an honest man working as a gatekeeper at a factory. His mother was arrested. His father was always afraid and did not dare to appear in court. He is the only one who travels between Shenyang and Anshan every month taking with him the warmth of the brothers and sisters in the church.
 
At nearly ten o'clock in the morning the train pulled into Shenyang Station. We took a bus in front of the square to the suburbs, and then we changed to a small bus going to the Masanjia Correctional Institution 30 kilometers away from the city.
 
There is no high-walled electrified fence and no armed police standing guard. The sign says "Ideological Education Base of Liaoning Province." Two security guards sat in the front room. We greeted them and entered the gate of the "base."
 
After entering the gate and walking a long way, we came to the First Brigade of the Reeducation-through-Labor Women's Institute where Sister Li Baozhi was located. After negotiating with the police, the police promised that we could see Sister Li Baozhi. At about 12 noon, Sister Li Baozhi was taken to the canteen by a "captain" who did not wear a police uniform and handed her over to the female policeman in charge of the canteen. The policewoman pointed to the table where we were sitting, and Li Baozhi came over. She is not a tall woman, she had a round face, and her small eyes showed a gentle joy. I hurried forward, held her hand, and hurriedly introduced myself, and said: "I am a brother from Beijing. I was invited by your church and entrusted by our brothers and sisters in Beijing to come to Anshan to participate in your appeal court hearing. I am here to visit you today."
 
At this time, I noticed that Sister Li Baozhi's eyes were welling up. My hand is held tightly.
 
I asked Sister Li to sit down and told her in detail the whole process of the hearing at the Anshan Intermediate Court on October 18. When she heard that the lawyer went all out to ask the other party for evidence of Li Baozhi's involvement in a cult, but the other party still could not produce it, Li Baozhi said: "I did not appeal on behalf of myself. I suffered and was beaten for the Lord. I can bear it.  But to call the Lord’s church a cult, I will never agree to that."
 
I asked Sister Li Baozhi: "Have they beaten you?"
 
Answer: "I was beaten in the Religious Affairs Office of the Public Security Bureau, but I was never beaten in the correctional center. Ma Yi from the Religious Affairs Office came to the correctional center and threatened me twice."
 
I said to Sister Li, "Would you please tell me about the assault in the Public Security Bureau?"
 
Answer: "Very well. On November 11, 2000, I was arrested during a gathering and detained in the Religious Affairs Office on the eighth floor of the Public Security Bureau. That night, I heard the screams of two brothers, Hou Rongshan and Sun Dexiang, accompanied by the sound of electric shocks, and two sisters were beaten by them that night. Sister Zhang Yaru was taken to the hospital for resuscitation that night and then brought back to the Public Security Bureau, and the used handcuffs on sister Niu Zhongfang."
 
Sister Li Baozhi cried and couldn't speak anymore. I put some food in Sister Li's bowl and let her calm down.
 
Sister Li went on to say: "They handcuffed Sister Niu's hands to the heating pipes, and her feet were tied. The hateful thing is that the policemen sat on Sister Niu's body and shocked Sister Niu's upper body and the soles of her feet with electric batons. In the second half of the night, they used a small rope to tie the sister's shoulders, so that the sister vomited blood, they forced her to confess that I once said, "The church cannot be saved", and when we gathered I cried and danced. Sister Niu was tortured like this just because she would not say anything. Since you came you can go and ask about it."
 
I nodded. Then I asked: "How did they treat you?"

Answer: "They also used electric shocks, slapped my face, and slapped my mouth. The interrogators knew that I had a heart condition and had prepared a box of rescue medicine for me. Religious Affairs Office Director Ma Yi also said: 'Do you know what fascism is?' the implication was to let me know that he was a fascist, so all I could do was succumb. I was held for a month without confessing, and then I was interrogated for three days and two nights, and I was not allowed to sleep, and my hands were handcuffed until I could no longer bear it. In my delirium, they wrote out a statement and had me sign it without letting me read the contents, and even said: 'You can only revise it, you can't rewrite it. So just sign it!'"

Time passed quickly, and our visit with Sister Li was over.
 
Saying goodbye to Sister Li Baozhi, we walked out of the door of the labor camp.
 
Liu Fenggang, a Christian from Mainland China, now living in Beijing.

 

我所了解的辽宁省鞍山市李宝芝“邪教”一案的事实和经过

刘凤钢

生命季刊 第20期 2001年12月

    亲爱的主内弟兄姊妹，在这里我向您述说一件事情。在辽宁省鞍山市，一些主内弟兄姊妹因为在家中聚会，结果三个弟兄姊妹被劳动教养，很多弟兄姊妹被罚款，罪名是“邪教”。说我们弟兄姊妹是邪教，仅仅因为在某个人（可能公安部门认为他是邪教的）的通讯录上有我们一个姊妹的名字和上级公安机关要求协查的通知。这些主内弟兄姊妹否定自己是“邪教”，他们已通过复议、诉讼、上诉等法律途径为自己申辩，目前正在上诉之中。详细过程如下。
 
一
 
    辽宁省鞍山市铁西区绿化街有所基督教堂，有信徒二千多人，1993年信徒不满“三自会”违背信徒心愿，安排有严重经济问题的长老张XX和被天主教开除的四品神甫史XX到本堂担任会长和秘书，一部分信徒离开了教堂。大家自己在家中聚会，学习圣经。
 
    2000年11月11日，正当众弟兄姊妹在钮中芳家聚会时，一些鞍山市公安局的警察到来，将聚会的弟兄姊妹带到鞍山市公安局宗教科，对弟兄姊妹进行审讯。
 
    事后得知，聚会的主持人李宝芝姊妹以前曾和威海的一个叫马燕玲的有过接触，曾为儿子工作的事情找过马燕玲，见过一、两面。马燕玲可能被认为是“全范围教会”的，或者与“全范围教会”有关，到现在大家也不知道马燕玲是什么样一个人。只是在马燕玲的通讯录中有李宝芝的名字。为此，公安局认定这些弟兄姊妹的聚会也是“全范围教会”。这些弟兄姊妹从来没有听说过什么“全范围教会”，他们的聚会完全是按照正统的基督教方式聚会的，大家在一起学习圣经，从来没有什么邪的歪的。我们曾与这些弟兄姊妹交谈过，大家对异端、极端的宗教活动也是持批评态度的。
 
    可是这些警察就是认定这些弟兄姊妹的聚会是“全范围教会”，是“邪教”；对这些弟兄姊妹采取了“法西斯”式的手段，刑讯逼供，屈打成招。打嘴巴、拳打脚踢、“上小绳”、木棍打、竹竿抽、电棍、烤电等，用了各种刑罚，因有弟兄姊妹的材料，我这里不再细说。最终，2000年12月25日鞍山市公安局以参与“全范围”邪教活动为名，将李宝芝姊妹劳动教养两年，孙德荣、侯荣山两位弟兄各劳动教养一年，并对众多弟兄姊妹予以罚款，少的一两千元，多的三四千元。
 
    李宝芝姊妹、孙德祥和侯荣山弟兄对此不服，2001年2月20日向省劳动教养委员会申请复议；2001年3月19日，省劳动教养委员会以非法组织邪教活动为名维持劳动教养的决定。李宝芝姊妹对此不服，到鞍山市立山区人民法院提起行政诉讼，2001年7月20日，鞍山市立山区人民法院以“原告的行为完全违背了《辽宁省宗教事务管理条例》，严重干扰了我市正常宗教生活秩序，造成较坏影响”为由，维持劳动教养的决定。李宝芝姊妹对此不服，到鞍山市中级法院提起上诉。
二
 
    为此，本人，刘凤钢，北京一个普通的基督徒去鞍山参加了这次旁听。
 
    鞍山市中级人民法院坐落在鞍山市中心广场的西北角的北侧，开庭时间是2001年10月18日，下午一点，我按时来到法院的大门前。大门口有三四个信徒仰头张望，我问他们是来参加李宝芝开庭的吗？他们说是，我和他们上了三楼，到了三楼一看，整个楼道内，已站满了参加旁听的信徒，有一百多人。过了一会儿，律师来告诉大家，因座位太少，改在四楼第六审判厅，大家到了四楼，大家安静地站在通道两侧，以免影响楼里的办公。大概又过了十分钟，传出因该厅还是小，只能容下20多人旁听，律师不同意，又去找院方联系。最后改在二楼能容下 100 多人的大厅。大家进了大厅，旁听席上座无虚席。
 
    在公堂上，上面有三个位子，左边坐着一个男审判员，右边坐着一个女审判员，中间的审判长还没有来。书记员也还没有来。上诉代理人、律师郝庆华和刘朝东坐在右侧，上诉人李宝芝姊妹没有来，警方称警力不够，李宝芝不能到庭。被上诉代理人，公安局一处的马义和另一个警察坐在左侧。
 
    一点四十分，书记员和审判长先后来到。审判长宣布开庭，他先让书记员宣读了一下法庭纪律，然后由他宣读了法庭程序，又问了上诉人和被上诉人是否要求法庭审判人员回避。然后，让上诉代理人、律师郝庆华代替上诉人李宝芝宣读上诉书。
 
    上诉书申明：（一）上诉人从来也没有参加过“全范围教会”，不能因为某通讯录上有上诉人的姓名就认定上诉人参加“邪教”。劳动教养决定书、劳动教养复议决定书、鞍山市立山区人民法院行政判决书都没有提供上诉人参加的“邪教”活动的事实和证据。（二）劳动教养决定书、劳动教养复议决定书以邪教活动为由对上诉人进行处罚，而一审法院却以与邪教无关的《辽宁省宗教事务管理条例》来作为依据维持处罚，两者相互矛盾。（三）一审法院判决认定原告“大声哭泣和跳灵舞”违背了《辽宁省宗教事务管理条例》严重扰乱社会秩序，是与事实不符的，上诉人没有这些行为。
 
    被上诉人称，我们对李宝芝的处理是按照公安部有关下发的绝密文件作出的，不能出示，在法律程序上是合理的，请法庭维持原判。
 
    律师发言问：“在你们侦察李宝芝参与‘邪教’组织，有没有真凭实据？是否是因为她家中有《上山之钥》和《晨光》这两本书。”
 
    警察称：“我们判李宝芝劳动教养是因为她扰乱了社会秩序，不是因为这两本书。”
 
    律师再次请警察举出李宝芝参与“邪教”的证据。
 
    警察称：“在我们抓获李宝芝等人时，他们正在组织信徒又哭又笑，跳灵舞。”接着，警察念了某某某的口供材料。
 
    这时律师请求审判长传证人到厅。审判长问：“你们的证人能证明李宝芝没参加邪教吗？”
 
    律师说：“被上诉代理人认定李宝芝参加邪教，应由他们拿出证据，我的证人只能证明他们被抓的那天，他们没有又哭又笑，也没有跳灵舞这件事。”
 
    审判长沉思一会儿，同意传唤证人。
 
    证人某某某姊妹来到厅上，审判长一字一句地说：“你的证词是负法律责任的。”
 
    我们的姊妹说：“我知道。”
 
    律师问证人：“你和李宝芝是什么时候开始从教堂出来办家庭教会的？”
 
    答：“是1993年，教堂打仗（方言：打架）时出来的。”
 
    问：“你知道‘全范围教会’吗？”
 
    答：“不知道。”
 
    问：“李宝芝与你们聚会时是又哭又笑又跳吗？”
 
    答：“没有。”
 
    审判长又请警察（被上诉代理人）问证人。
 
    警察上来第一句就问：“你们的聚会点是经过政府批准登记的吗？”
 
    答：“不知道。”
 
    问：“你家离这么近，为什么到很远的家庭聚会？”
 
    答：“大教堂，家庭聚会我都去。”
 
    问：“你们聚会时没哭过吗？基督徒不要打谎话。”
 
    答：“是没哭过。”
 
    审判长令该证人下去。律师又叫上来一位信徒，审判长用同样严厉的语调告之：“你的言辞，要负法律责任。”之后，由律师问话：“请你把被抓当天的情况讲一下。”
 
    这位信徒说：“我们被抓后，都分别关在公安局八楼宗教科不同的房间内，他们对我们进行拷打，房间里时常传出叫喊声。”
 
    律师问：“是哭声？是喊声？”
 
    答：“是被打发出的喊叫声。”
 
    律师说：“继续说。”
 
    信徒说：“我看到马义（宗教科长）用手抓着女信徒的头发在通道里走，他们还扇我的脸，让我在他们写好的供词上签字。”
 
    问：“你签了吗？”
 
    答：“我不签，他们就打，全是他们逼的。”
 
    审判长对证人说：“下去吧。”然后请审判员念一份法院到教堂询问长老张XX的笔录：
 
    问：“你在教堂担任什么职务？”
 
    答：“我是教堂的长老。”
 
    问：“李宝芝是你们教堂的信徒吗？”
 
    答：“自从1993年离开教堂就不是我们的信徒了。”
 
    问：“李宝芝参加‘全范围’邪教，你知道吗？”
 
    答：“她离开教堂，参加什么，跟我们无关。”
 
    问：“从她那里收缴的《晨光》、《上山之钥》是你们教堂的书吗？”
 
    答：“信徒除了读《圣经》，都不是教会的书。”
 
    念完后，律师立即出示，此书是教堂卖过的书的发票，而且交给法庭有关长老张XX有严重经济问题的审计报告。
 
    审判长明显有些不耐烦了，拿出了公安部责令省公安厅协查李宝芝邪教的通报，念了一遍，律师指出，此通报只下令协查，并没有结论，并没有说李宝芝是邪教，市公安局仅凭李宝芝有威海马燕玲的名字，就定为邪教，这是不对的。
 
    审判长说，现在法庭最后陈诉。
 
    律师说：“以上审理过程，被上诉人始终没有拿出一条李宝芝参加邪教的证据，我国正在法制轨道上不断健全，又在联合国签署了《经济、社会、文化权利公约》和《公民权利和政治权利公约》，希望法庭公正审理，还基督徒一个清白。”
 
    被上诉人称：“邪教的本质是反政府，反政府的特点是不服从‘三自’的管理，国家虽然同意信徒在自己家里聚会，只限于在自己的家里，我们认为，李宝芝的处理是合法的。”
 
    律师紧接着逼问，既然是扰乱社会秩序，也只处罚1000元以下罚款，也不应劳动教养。
 
    审判长打断了律师的讲话，宣布法庭在广泛地听取了上诉人和被上诉人的意见，经核议后择日宣判，法庭审理结束。
 
三
 
    2001年10月23日，天还没有亮，我与李宝芝的儿子来到鞍山火车站一起到教养院看望他的母亲。这时候天已经大亮，虽然天气很好，阳光明媚，万里无云，但我的心情总是沉甸甸的。18日法院庭审的场面，总使我挥之不去。为什么公安机关没有任何证据，只凭一张上级公安机关的协查通知，就判我们姊妹两年劳动教养？为什么已为人之母的老姊妹惨遭侮辱和殴打？为什么正常的宗教生活，却被打成邪教？
 
    列车有节奏地前行着。李宝芝姊妹的儿子，因起的过早，扒在小桌上小睡。这位失去母爱的孩子，毕业后没有工作，父亲是一个老实巴交的人，在一家工厂看大门，母亲被抓，父亲一直很怕，开庭时也没敢到庭。每个月只有他，带着教会弟兄姊妹的温暖往返于沈阳和鞍山之间。
 
    将近上午十点，列车驶进了沈阳车站，我们在广场前乘坐一辆公共汽车到了郊区，然后，换乘一辆小公共汽车到了离市区30公里远的马三家教养院。
 
    这里没有高墙电网，也没有武装警察站岗，牌子上写“辽宁省思想教育基地”，门前屋里坐着两个保安，同他们打了招呼，就进了“基地”大门。
 
    进了大门，走了很长一段的路，我们来到李宝芝姊妹所在的劳动教养女所一大队。经过与警察交涉，警察答应我们可以见李宝芝姊妹。中午12点左右，李宝芝姊妹被一名没有穿警服的“队长”带到食堂，交给了管食堂的女警察。女警察指了一下我们坐的桌子，李宝芝走了过来，她身材不高，圆脸盘，不大的眼睛里露出温和喜乐，我快步上前，握住她的手，忙自我介绍，说：“我是北京来的弟兄，受你们教会的邀请，和我们北京的弟兄姊妹的委托来鞍山参加您的申诉庭审的，今天特来看望您的。”
 
    这时我发现李宝芝姊妹的眼睛湿润了。我的手被握得很紧。
 
    我请李姊妹坐下，详细地向她讲述了10月18日鞍山中级法院开庭的全过程。当她听到律师为她全力以赴追问对方拿出李宝芝等参与邪教的证据，对方始终拿不出来时，李宝芝讲：“我上告不是为了我自己，我受苦挨打，是为了主，我可忍受。但把主的教会说成是邪教，我决不答应。”
 
    我问李宝芝姊妹：“他们打过你吗？”
 
    答：“在公安局宗教科打过我，在教养所没有打过我，宗教科的马义到教养所威胁过我两次。”
 
    我对李姊妹说：“请把在公安局被打的事情讲述一下好吗？”
 
    答：“好。2000年11月11日，我在聚会中被抓，关押在公安局八楼的宗教科，五个人关在不同的房间内，当天晚上，我听见侯荣山、孙德祥两弟兄的叫喊声，伴随着电击声，还有两个姊妹当晚被他们打得很厉害，张雅如姊妹当晚被送到医院抢救后又带回公安局，钮中芳姊妹被他们用手铐┅┅”
 
    此刻李宝芝姊妹哭着说不下去了。我往李姊妹碗里夹了菜，让她平静一下。
 
    李姊妹接着说：“他们用手铐将钮姊妹的双手分别铐在暖气管上，双脚被绑，可恶的是那些警察们坐在钮姊妹的身上，用电棍电击钮姊妹的上身和脚心，后半夜用小绳勒姊妹的双肩，直打得姊妹口吐鲜血，硬逼着她交代我曾说过‘大教堂不得救’，和我们聚会的时候，哭过跳过。钮姊妹就是不说，才如此被折磨。你这次来，可以去问问。”
 
    我点了点头。然后我问：“他们是怎么对待您的。”
 
    答：“他们也同样用电击，扇耳光，扇嘴巴，审讯人员知道我有心脏病，给我准备了一盒抢救药。宗教科长马义还说：‘你知道什么是法西斯吗？’言外之意，让我知道他就是法西斯，让我只能屈服。我被抓了一个月没有口供，然后对我连提审三天两夜，不让我睡觉，两手被铐得让人难以忍受，在我神志不清的情况下，做笔录，不让我看内容就签字，还说：‘我只能轻写，不能重写。你就签了吧！’”
 
    时间过得很快，我们和李姊妹的见面结束了。
 
    告别了李宝芝姊妹，我们走出了劳教所大门。
 
 
 
刘凤钢  中国大陆基督徒，现居北京。

Southern Group’s Expression of Support for Journalist Liu Wei Deleted, Baidu Censors "Southern Metropolitan Reporter Liu Wei"

On October 16, 2015, the state sponsored Beijing News published an article entitled "Southern Metropolitan Daily Responds to Criminal Detention of Journalist Liu Wei on Suspicion of Illegally Obtaining State Secrets" (南都回应记者刘伟涉非法获取国家秘密罪被刑拘). Some excerpts:

This afternoon (October 16), Beijing News reporters (Weixin ID: bjnews_xjb) received information that Liu Wei, deputy editor of investigative reporting at the Southern Metropolitan Daily, had been held under criminal detention by Jiangxi police for eight days. According to people close to Liu Wei, at around 8:00 in the evening on October 8, Liu Wei left his home in Chengdu to head to the airport to fly to Beijing. After 10:00 pm that evening, contact with Liu Wei was lost.
. . . .
Beginning in 2013, Liu Wei began reporting on the Wang Lin affair. On October 23 of that year, the Southern Metropolitan Investigative Weekly published a four page report on the affair. Liu Wei was named the Southern Publishing's Group's Journalist of the Year in 2014.
. . . .
At 10:00 pm this evening, this reporter called Southern Metropolitan Publishing, which said the following:

1. Liu Wei is a senior investigative reporter with this news organization, and was assigned by us to investigate and report on news relating to the case of Wang Lin's suspected criminal activity. All of his interviews, reporting, and researching into Wang Lin's case was done entirely in his professional capacity in the execution of work related responsibilities. This news organization has provided a formal response to the Jiangxi police on October 9.

2. This news organization was deeply shocked and surprised that Liu Wei would be faced with deprivation of his liberty for carrying out his professional responsibilities. We immediately undertook emergency measures and got to work assisting Liu Wei's family to retain defense counsel in order to safeguard the legal interests owed to a journalist.

3. This news organization has already reported the situation to the relevant agencies, and have assigned people to accompany family members and legal counsel to Pingxiang, Jiangxi. On October 13, legal counsel wen to the jail to speak with Liu Wei. On October 14, family and legal counsel twice submitted applications for bail, but were denied by police both times.

4. This news organization will be following developments in this case closely, and will actively cooperate with the investigations by relevant agencies. We hope that the police will handle the case in accordance with the law, and will make information about the case public in a timely manner in accordance with the law.

今日(10月16日)下午，新京报(微信ID：bjnews_xjb)记者获悉，南方都市报深度报道部副主编刘伟已被江西警方刑拘8天。据刘伟的身边人透露，10月8日晚8时许，刘伟从成都家中离开，赶赴机场，要从成都飞往北京。但晚上10时后，刘伟失联。
. . . .
从2013年开始，刘伟介入王林事件报道。当年10月23日，南都深度周刊对此事件进行了4个整版报道。刘伟获2014年南方报业年度记者。
. . . .
今晚22时，记者致电南方都市报社，其报社回应称：
　　
一、刘伟系本报深度新闻部记者，受单位委派，调查采访王林涉嫌刑事责任案件的相关新闻，其对王林案的采访、报道、持续关注等，均属履行工作职责的职务行为，本报10月9日已向江西警方正式反馈;
　　
二、刘伟因履行职务而陷入丧失人身自由的困境，本报深感震惊和意外，立即启动应急程序，紧急展开相关工作，帮助刘伟家属聘请辩护律师，维护记者正当的合法权益;
　　
三、本报已向上级和有关部门及时通报相关情况，并派员陪同家属和律师赴江西萍乡等地，10月13日律师到看守所会见刘伟;10日和14日，家属、律师先后两次递交取保候审申请，均被警方拒绝;
　　
四、本报高度关注事件后续进展，积极配合有关部门的调查，希望警方依法办案，及时依法公开案件信息。

These screenshots show that the report was deleted the day after it was published.

This screeenshot was taken on October 19, and shows that Baidu was censoring search results for "Southern Metropolitan Reporter Liu Wei" (南都记者刘伟).

Baidu and Sina Weibo Begin Censoring Search Results for "Gao Yu"

On the morning of April 17, 2015, the Beijing Third Intermediate Court (北京市第三中级人民法院) published the following announcement on its official Sina Weibo:

"Today Sentence Was Announced in the Case of Gao Yu Illegally Supplying State Secrets Overseas" On April 17, the Beijing Third Intermediate Court publicly announced the sentence in the case of Gao Yu illegally supplying state secrets abroad. This court held that Gao Yu violated national laws and regulations by illegally providing state secrets to foreign personnel, that her actions constituted the crime of illegally supplying state secrets abroad, and sentenced the defendant Gao Yu to seven years imprisonment and one year of deprivation of political rights.

【高瑜为境外非法提供国家秘密案今日一审宣判】4月17日，北京市第三中级人民法院对高瑜为境外非法提供国家秘密一案进行公开宣判。法院认为，高瑜违反国家法律规定，为境外人员非法提供机密级国家秘密，其行为已构成为境外非法提供国家秘密罪，判处被告人高瑜有期徒刑七年，剥夺政治权利一年。 

According to the court judgment, the state secret in question was the "Communist Party Central Committee Working Office [2013] Number 9 Document" (中办发[2013]9号文件), the title of which is the "Circular Regarding the Status of the Current Ideological Realm" (关于当前意识形态领域情况的通报).

In early May, 2013, several government sponsored web sites published reports about the issuance of Document No. 9. For example, on May 10, 2013, the state-sponsored Liaoyuan Daily （辽源日报）published an article on its front page entitled "City Party Organization Department Moves Quickly to Implement the Spirit of the 'Circular Regarding the Status of the Current Ideological Realm' and the 'Jilin: Innovate and Navigate for Rapid Development' Notices" (市委组织部迅速贯彻落实《关于当前意识形态领域情况的通报》及《吉林：创新领航催振兴》通讯精神). 

For more on this, see Liaoyuan Daily Swaps Story on Party Circular on Ideology For Pictures of Moms (and Related Censorship) 

According to the court judgment, Gao Yu received a copy of Document No. 9 in June, 2013 from Yao Jianfu (姚监复), who obtained a copy based on his position as a retiree from the Ministry of Agriculture. According to the judgment Gao Yu provided a copy of the document to Mingjing (明镜) founder Ho Pin (何频), and that the text of the document was published in the online edition of Mingjing on August 19, 2013.

Gao Yu was detained on April 24, 2014.

After the verdict was announced, the state sponsored Global Times published an editorial entitled "Sentence About State Secrets, Not Freedom of Speech" (泄国家机密判7年与“言论自由”无关). Some excerpts: 

A few Chinese citizens would like to rely on Western forces. They falsely believe the Western support may exempt them from taking responsibility for crimes they have committed. Such thoughts are naïve, and, in a country whose authorities are pushing rule of law, increasingly dangerous.  

A lesson for Gao: The West is not something to be relied upon. Chinese citizens have to follow China's laws. When it comes to national interests, people should not be fooled by the so-called universal values. 

极少数中国公民把西方力量当成一种依靠，以为有它们的支持，在中国干违法的事就能不被追究，中国法律对他们就会“高高举起，轻轻放下”。这是很幼稚的，在依法治国得到全面推进的时候，这样的处事态度将越来越危险。 

高瑜已经年过70，她的人生有很多教训，其中很重要的一条是：西方靠不住。无论是西方的那套理念，还是它们的力量。中国公民和在华的外国人必须遵守中国法律，在涉及国家利益时信守一些最基本的伦理和常识，切不可被西方所宣扬的“普世”那一套忽悠了，以为自己加入了“世界主流”，变得胆大妄为。

These screenshots show that, shortly after Gao Yu's verdict was announced, Baidu and Sina Weibo began censoring search results for "Gao Yu."

New Rules Require Journalists to Sign Confidentiality Agreements

On June 30, 2014, the State Administration of Press, Publication  Radio, Film and Television (国家新闻出版广电总局) issued the “Measures on the Administration of Information Acquired by News Professionals in the Course of Business” (新闻从业人员职务行为信息管理办法). The Measures included the following provisions:

• “News professionals may not, in violation the provisions of their confidentiality agreements, provide information obtained in the course of their business activities to overseas media outlets, or take on a position with an overseas media outlet such  as a "stringer," "correspondent," "contributor," or columnist.” (新闻从业人员不得违反保密协议的约定，向其他境内外媒体、网站提供职务行为信息，或者担任境外媒体的“特约记者”、“特约通讯员”、“特约撰稿人”或专栏作者等。)
• “Any news professional who establishes a blog, micro-blog, weixin, etc. in their professional capacity must first register with, and obtain the approval of, their employer, which shall have the responsibility to maintain day-to-day oversight.” (新闻从业人员以职务身份开设博客、微博、微信等，须经所在新闻单位批准备案，所在单位负有日常监管职责。)
• “News professionals may not, in violation of their confidentiality agreement, disclose or disseminate information obtained in the course of business either through any channels such as public or private blogs, micro-blogs, or wexin, or in any venues such as forums or lectures.” (新闻从业人员不得违反保密协议的约定，通过博客、微博、微信公众账号或个人账号等任何渠道，以及论坛、讲座等任何场所，透露、发布职务行为信息。)

On August 15, 2014, the state sponsored Paper published an article entitled "14 Central Government Media Outlets Sign Confidentiality Agreements with News Professionals" (中央14家主要新闻单位与新闻从业人员签署保密协议).  Some excerpts:

On July 9, a spokesperson for SAPPRFT was interviewed by Xinhua, and responded to outsiders' concerns regarding the Measures. The spokesperson noted that, first, with respect to information acquired in the course of business that is deemed to be state secrets, news professionals must comply with the China's "Law on the Protection of State Secrets" and related legislation. . . . Second, with respect to information acquired in the course of business that is deemed to be state secrets, news outlets must establish comprehensive unified administration systems and use confidentiality agreements to explicitly set forth the rights of news professionals with respect to information acquired in the course of business.

7月9日，总局相关负责人接受新华社记者专访，回应外界对这一管理办法的关注。该负责人指出，首先，职务行为信息中属于国家秘密的，新闻从业人员须遵守我国的《保守国家秘密法》等法律法规。. . . . 其次，不属于国家秘密的职务行为信息，新闻单位要建立统一管理制度，通过签订保密协议分类明确新闻从业人员职务行为信息的权利归属

This is the second time in two years the government has issues regulations restricting journalists’ interactions with social media and foreign media outlets. In April 8, 2013, SAPPRFT issued the "Notice Regarding Strengthening Management of Online Activities of News Editorial Personnel" (关于加强新闻采编人员网络活动管理的通知). That Notice stipulated:

• "No news outlets may utilize overseas media or overseas website news information products without prior authorization." (未经批准，各类新闻单位均不得擅自使用境外媒体、境外网站的新闻信息产品).
• "News editors must persist on encouraging unity and stability, and on the guiding principle of focusing on positive propaganda." (新闻采编人员要坚持团结稳定鼓劲、正面宣传为主的方针)
• "Do not use or report Internet information that has not been verified through authoritative channels." (不引用、不报道未通过权威渠道核实的网络信息)
• "News outlets may not provide information from news informants, commissioned authors, civil society organizations, or commercial groups on their news web sites without prior authorization." (未经核实，新闻单位所办新闻网站不得擅自发布新闻线人、特约作者、民间组织、商业机构等提供的信息)

Weibos, Web Sites, and Search Engines Censor Reports of Hacking and Spying

On February 21, 2013, the state-sponsored Global Times published an English article entitled "Regular Cyber Attacks From US: China." Some excerpts:

In a report released Monday, Mandiant pointed its fingers at a Chinese military unit named People's Liberation Army (PLA) Unit 61398, saying the Shanghai-based outfit had systematically stolen confidential data from at least 141 organizations across 20 industries.
The report has driven media to Datong Road in Shanghai where the military unit is located, but pictures and videos taken by the press were required to be deleted by officers in military uniform.
The name plate indicating the nearby clinic of PLA Unit 61398 was removed Wednesday.

The Mandiant report the Global Times referred to had been the subject of a February 18 New York Times report entitled "Chinese Army Unit Is Seen as Tied to Hacking Against U.S."

This screenshot, taken on February 20, shows that users of Baidu's PostBar (贴吧 Tieba) searching for Unit 61398 (61398部队) were told "Apologies, in accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and policies, this Bar cannot be opened at this time." (抱歉，根据相关法律法规和政策，本吧暂不开放。)

These screenshots show that on February 19 Sina Weibo began censoring searches for Unit 61398 (61398部队).

These screenshots show that the following morning Sina Weibo temporarily stopped censoring searches for that time, but resumed censorship a few hours later.

These screenshots show that Tencent Weibo also began censoring searches for Unit 61398 (61398部队) on the morning of February 20.

Past Censorship

This is not the first time web sites in China have censored information relating to reports of espionage or hacking. On August 24, 2011 the Washington Post reported that a China Central Television documentary entitled "The Cyber Storm Has Arrived!" [网络风暴来了] showed a military computer program on which an unseen user selected a "target" — in this case, a website based in Alabama — and hit a button labeled "attack." According to the Post:

[E]xperts were struck by what appeared to be the first and most public indication from an official Chinese source that it has the ability and the intention to hit adversaries, even when their computer servers are based in other countries.

The video was originally posted on July 7, 2011 here - http://military.cntv.cn/program/jskj/20110717/100139.shtml.

These screenshots show that on August 24, 2011 the video was deleted and replaced with the message "Error Page - This page does not exist anymore." (该页面不存在。)

On September 1, 2011, the state owned Global Times published an editorial by Shan Renping (单仁平) entitled "Lifting the Lid on Espionage Cases." (让间谍罪去神秘化) Some excerpts:

In a secretly uploaded YouTube video, Major General Jin Yinan, professor at the PLA University of National Defense, spoke out about several of China's recent spying cases, arousing media attention. The cases mentioned by Jin went either unmentioned by Chinese media or were reported differently to Jin's version. But these cases were not secrets in whatever way.
China should be more transparent about espionage cases. Details of the cases should be secret, but if somebody, especially an official, sells state secrets to foreign countries, China should make their names known to the public.
Countries should keep certain secrets, but the security measures they adopt should be tougher and the confidential areas should be narrower. The problem China faces now is the country's definition of secrecy is too broad.

The video Shan referred to was of a lecture given by Major General Jin Yinan (金一南) in which he indicated that China's government concealed a string of spy cases over the past decade. In the video, deleted from Chinese video website but available on Youtube, Jin named eight senior Communist Party, government and military officials who allegedly sold state secrets to foreign countries, but said some of them had instead been convicted on corruption charges, as a way to minimize embarrassment. The list included:

• Kang Rixin (康日新), the former head of China’s nuclear power program, who was sentenced to life in prison late last year for corruption, 
• Li Bin (李滨), China’s former ambassador to South Korea. Officials will only confirm that Mr Li is no longer in the post, but Jin claimed he was in prison. Jin said: “That is a huge scandal. Li Bin [could] only be sentenced to seven, eight years, he could not be given a longer term. Why? To save face.”
• Tong Daning (佟达宁), an official from China’s social security fund, who was executed in 2006 after being convicted of spying for Taiwan.
• Xu Junping (徐俊平), who defected to the United States in 2000. He said that Colonel Xu had not disclosed technical secrets, but had relayed to the Americans his knowledge of the military leaders’ personalities, attitudes and habits gleaned from many years of accompanying senior military leaders on trips abroad.

The Global Times' editorial did not mention any of these cases.

These screenshots were taken on September 1, 2011, and show that every search engine in China was censoring results for "Jin Yinan spy" (金一南 间谍). The only exception being Jike.com, which is owned and operated by the People's Daily (which is also the publisher of the Global Times) - that search engine returned over 400 results.

Translation: Liu Fenggang, Xu Yonghai & Zhang Shengqi Espionage Judgment

 Note: This translation was posted on March 24, 2021, but the blog post is dated August, 6, 2004 in order to comport with the date the judgment was issued.

Intermediate People's Court of Hangzhou, Zhejiang

Criminal Judgment

(2004) Hang Criminal First Instance No. 391

The public prosecution agency was the People's Procuratorate of Hangzhou, Zhejiang.

Defendant Liu Fenggang, male, born [INTENTIONALLY DELETED], 1959, Han ethnicity, associates degree, unemployed, residing at [INTENTIONALLY DELETED], Haidian District, Beijing. On October 13, 2003, he was placed under residential confinement at a designated location by the Public Security Bureau of Hangzhou, Xiaoshan District Branch, on suspicion of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad. On November 14 of the same year he was taken into criminal detention, and on December 4 of the same year the Public Security Bureau of Hangzhou, Xiaoshan District Branch authorized his arrest. On May 14, 2004, he was placed under under residential confinement at a designated location on the decision of this Court.

Defense counsel Zhao Jian is a lawyer at the Beijing Zhenghai Law Firm.

Defendant Xu Yonghai, male, born [INTENTIONALLY DELETED], 1960, Han ethnicity, originally from Beijing, bachelors degree, physician at the Beijing Fusuijing (Ping An) Hospital, residing at [INTENTIONALLY DELETED], Xicheng District, Beijing. On November 9, 2003, he was taken into criminal detention by the Public Security Bureau of Hangzhou, Xiaoshan District Branch, on suspicion of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad. On December 4 of the same year the Public Security Bureau of Hangzhou, Xiaoshan District Branch authorized his arrest. On May 14, 2004, he was placed under residential confinement at a designated location on the decision of this Court.

Defense counsel Qian Lieyang is a lawyer at the Beijing Zhongfu Law Firm.

Defendant Zhang Shengqi, male, born [INTENTIONALLY DELETED], 1974, Han ethnicity, originally from Cao County in Shandong, junior high school education, farmer, residing at Zhangdian Village, Wangji Township, Cao County, Shandong. On November 17, 2003, he was taken into criminal detention by the Public Security Bureau of Hangzhou, Xiaoshan District Branch, on suspicion of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad. On December 4 of the same year the Public Security Bureau of Hangzhou, Xiaoshan District Branch authorized his arrest. On May 14, 2004, he was placed under residential confinement at a designated location on the decision of this Court.

Defense counsel Xu Ping is a lawyer at the Beijing Zhongfu Law Firm.

In the Hang Procuratorate Criminal Indictment (2004) No. 46 indictment the People's Procuratorate of Hangzhou charged defendants Liu Fenggang, Xu Yonghai, and Zhang Shengqi with spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad, and filed a public prosecution with this Court on March [day missing in original], 2004. This Court formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law and, because it involved state secrets, proceeded to try this case in closed court. The People's Procuratorate of Hangzhou appointed acting Procurator Zhao Linjie to appear in support of the public prosecution, and defendants Liu Fenggang, Xu Yonghai, and Zhang Shengqi and their defense counsels Zhao Jian, Qian Lieyang, and Xu Ping appeared in court to participate in the proceedings. The trial has now concluded.

The People's Procuratorate of Hangzhou charged: in the middle of October 2001, defendant Xu Yonghai provided RMB 1,000 to defendant Liu Fenggang for business travel expenses, and Liu Fenggang traveled to Anshan, Liaoning in order to understand the circumstances of Liu Baozhi's reeducation through labor. Afterwards, Li Fenggang wrote an article titled "What I Understand About the Facts of Liu Baozhi's 'Cult' Case in Anshan, Liaoning," and Xu Yonghai then provided this article to the distribution agency for the foreign magazine "Life Quarterly." This magazine published the entire article in its 20th edition.

On July 25, 2003, at the direction of foreign agents, Liu Fenggang fled to such places as Dongtong County in Wenzhou, Zhejiang and the Xiaoshan and Xihu districts of Hangzhou, and gathered information from relevant agents in those locations regarding their having been subjected to force. Afterwards he returned to Beijing and finished writing an article titled "Reports from the Motherland." On August 5 of that year, Liu Feng directed defendant Zhang Shengqi to provide it to foreign agents via email.

On August 18, 2003, Zhang Shengqi printed and emailed to overseas agents the article "Interrogated by the Police for Preaching the Gospel in Mountain District Outside of Beijing" which Liu Fenggang had written about the circumstances of his interrogation by police when he went to Dachengzi Township in Miyun County, Beijing on August 17 to participate in an illegal gathering.

In order to prove the aforementioned charges, the public prosecution authority read and produced evidence in court including: the statements and justifications of defendants Liu Fenggang, Xu Yonghai, and Zhang Shengqi, the testimony of witness Li Baozhi, the verification conclusions provided by the National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets and the State Security Bureau of Zhejiang. It also produced physical evidence in court including "Life Quarterly" magazine, an MP3 player, and a digital camera. It believes that the actions of defendants Liu Fenggang, Xu Yonghai, and Zhang Shengqi constitute the commission of the crime of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad, and should be punished in accordance with the law.

Defendants Liu Fenggang, Xu Yonghai, and Zhang Shengqi do not object to the facts charged by the public prosecution agency, but they all submit that they do not constitute the commission of a crime.

Defense counsels for the three defendants separately submitted that the National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets lacks verification qualifications, and that this case involves three articles that cannot be considered intelligence, and that the actions of the defendants does not constitute the commission of a crime.

It was ascertained at trial that:

In the middle of October 2001, after defendant Xu Yonghai learned that a woman named Li Baozhi in Anshan, Liaoning submitted an administrative appeal of her reeducation through labor decision and that the Intermediate People's Court of Anshan would be hearing the appeal in open court, he directed defendant Liu Fenggang to go to Anshan, Liaoning to gather information about the case. In addition, he provided RMB 1,000 for business travel expenses. Afterwards, Li Fenggang wrote an article titled "What I Understand About the Facts of Liu Baozhi's 'Cult' Case in Anshan, Liaoning," and Xu Yonghai then provided this article to the distribution agency for the foreign magazine "Life Quarterly." This magazine published the entire article in its 20th edition.

On July 25, 2003, at the direction of foreign agents, Liu Fenggang fled to such places as Dongtong County in Wenzhou, Zhejiang and the Xiaoshan and Xihu districts of Hangzhou, and gathered information from relevant agents in those locations regarding their having been subject to force. Afterwards he returned to Beijing and finished writing an article titled "Reports from the Motherland." On August 5 of that year, Liu Feng directed defendant Zhang Shengqi to provide it to foreign agents via email.

On August 17, 2003, Liu Fenggang participated in an illegal gathering in Dachengzi township in Miyun county, Beijing and was interrogated by the police. The following day Liu Fenggang wrote "Interrogated by the Police for Preaching the Gospel in Mountain District Outside of Beijing," which Zhang Shengqi then provided to overseas agents via email.

The aforementioned facts were confirmed by the following evidence:

(1) Testimony of witnesses Li Baozhi, Dai Xiaoqiang, Kong Guoxian, Gao Fengyi, and Zhang Fucai and the record of the defense arguments proved the fact that Liu Fenggang went to Anshan, Liaoning, Wenzhou in Dongtou County, Zhejiang, and the Xihu and Xiaoshan districts in Hangzhou, Zhejiang to gather information. Testimony of witnesses Shi Shucai, Ma Shulan, Dan Cuixiang, Liu Yuqin, Han Chunzhi, Cui Wenfu, and Qi Shuhua proved the fact that on August 17, 2003, Liu Fenggang participated in an illegal gathering in Dachengzi township in Miyun county, Beijing and was interrogated by the police.

(2) The contents stored in the digital camera and MP3 player that public security authorities confiscated from Liu Fenggang proved the fact that Liu Fenggang went to Wenzhou in Dongtou county, Zhejiang, and the Xihu and Xiaoshan districts in Hangzhou, Zhejiang to gather information.

(3) From two computers, a scanner, and a printer confiscated from Liu Fenggang and a Dongzhi 220CDS laptop computer traced to Xu Yonghai, public security authorities verified that three articles were stored on computers owned by Liu Fenggang: "What I Understand About the Facts of Liu Baozhi's 'Cult' Case in Anshan, Liaoning," "Reports from the Motherland," and "Interrogated by the Police for Preaching the Gospel in Mountain District Outside of Beijing." The article "What I Understand About the Facts of Liu Baozhi's 'Cult' Case in Anshan, Liaoning," was stored on the Dongzhi 220CDS laptop computer owned by Xu Yonghai. There is supporting evidence in the form of a partial draft manuscript of the article "Reports from the Motherland" that was confiscated from Liu Fenggang, which he had written.

(4) The 20th edition of "Life Quarterly" magazine published by a foreign publishing house collected in this case which had published the article "What I Understand About the Facts of Liu Baozhi's 'Cult' Case in Anshan, Liaoning," and the articles "Reports from the Motherland" and "Dense Clouds Interrogations" (referring to "Interrogated by the Police for Preaching the Gospel in Mountain District Outside of Beijing"), which the three defendants recognized in court, and which confirms without a doubt that they had supplied them.

(5) The National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets verification opinion proved that the three articles "What I Understand About the Facts of Liu Baozhi's 'Cult' Case in Anshan, Liaoning," "Reports from the Motherland," and "Interrogated by the Police for Preaching the Gospel in Mountain District Outside of Beijing" are intelligence.

(6) The household registrations submitted by the public security authorities confirmed the identities of the three defendants.

(7) The confessions of defendants Liu Fenggang, Zhang Shengqi, and Xu Yonghai in this case conform to one another and give identical synopses of the foregoing evidence.

The foregoing evidence has been confronted in court hearings without objection, and is confirmed by this Court.

This Court finds that the actions of defendants Liu Fenggang, Zhang Shengqi, and Xu Yonghai of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, organizations and agents abroad constitutes the commission of the crime of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad. The argument submitted by the defense counsels for the three defendants that it does not constitute the commission of a crime is inconsistent with the law. In accordance with the provisions of law, in order to resolve certain technical questions in this case we may entrust relevant agencies and personnel to carry out verifications. It is a technical question whether or not the circumstances surrounding the three defendants spying and illegally supplying for people abroad can be considered "intelligence." The National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets is the "state secrets" statutory verification agency, and in view of the fact that "secrets" and "intelligence" have equivalent natures there is nothing improper with a judicial agency entrusting a state secrets protection agency with carrying out verification. The verification produced by the National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets is therefore legal and effective, and may serve as the basis for a judgment. The argument submitted by the defense counsels that the National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets lacks verification qualifications and that the three articles are not intelligence is without basis, and cannot be accepted by this Court. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 111, 25(1), 56(1), 55(1), and 64 of the "Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China," the judgment is as follows:

1. Defendant Liu Fenggang committed the crime of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad, and is sentenced to a fixed term imprisonment of three years  and three years deprivation of political rights. (The prison term is to be calculated starting on the day the judgment is executed, and each day in custody prior to the execution of the judgment shall count as one day of the prison term, that is from November 14, 2003 to February 4, 2007).

2. Defendant Xu Yonghai committed the crime of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad, and is sentenced to a fixed term imprisonment of two years and two years deprivation of political rights. (The prison term is to be calculated starting on the day the judgment is executed, and each day in custody prior to the execution of the judgment shall count as one day of the prison term, that is from November 11, 2003 to January 30, 2006).

3. Defendant Zhang Shengqi committed the crime of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad, and is sentenced to a fixed term imprisonment of one year and one year deprivation of political rights. (The prison term is to be calculated starting on the day the judgment is executed, and each day in custody prior to the execution of the judgment shall count as one day of the prison term, that is from November 17, 2003 to February 7, 2005).

4. The equipment used in this case: one digital camera, one MP3 player, two computers, one printer, and one scanner that were confiscated and handed over to this Court for the trial are to be turned over to the national treasury.

If anyone does not accept this judgment, they may within 10 days after the second day after receiving this written judgment bring an appeal through this Court or directly to the High People's Court of Zhejiang. A written appeal should be submitted with one original and two copies of the appeal brief.

Chief Adjudicator: Zhang Yongchun
People's Assessor: Zhang Baowen
People's Assessor: Hua Xianglin

August 6, 2004

Clerk: Ma Jun

浙江省杭州市中级人民法院

刑事判决书

(2004)杭刑初字第39号

公诉机关浙江省杭州市人民检察院。

被告人刘凤钢，男，1959年[INTENTIONALLY DELETED IN THIS CASEBOOK]出生，汉族，北京市人，大专文化程度，无业，住北京市海淀区[INTENTIONALLY DELETED]。因涉嫌犯为境外刺探、非法提供国家情报罪，于2003年10月13日被杭州市公安局萧山区分局监视居住，同年11月14日被刑事拘留，同年12月4日经杭州市萧山区人民检察院批准逮捕。2004年5月14日由本院决定被监视居住。

辩护人赵健，北京正海律师事务所律师。

被告人徐永海，男，1960年[INTENTIONALLY DELETED]出生，汉族，北京市人，大学文化程度，北京市福绥境（平安）医院医生，住北京市西城区[INTENTIONALLY DELETED]。因涉嫌犯为境外刺探、非法提供国家情报罪，于2003年11月9日被杭州市公安局萧山区分局刑事拘留，同年12月4日经杭州市萧山区人民检察院批准逮捕。2004年5月14日由本院决定被监视居住。

辩护人钱列阳，北京中孚律师事务所律师。

被告人张胜其，男，1974年[INTENTIONALLY DELETED]出生，汉族，山东省曹县人，初中文化程度，农民，住山东省曹县王集乡张店村。因涉嫌为境外刺探、非法提供国家情报罪，于2003年11月17日被杭州市公安局萧山区分局刑事拘留，同年12月4日经杭州市萧山区人民检察院批准逮捕。2004年5月14日由本院决定被监视居住。

辩护人徐平，北京中孚律师事务所律师。

浙江省杭州市人民检察院以杭检刑诉（2004）46号起诉书指控被告人刘凤钢、徐永海、张胜其犯为境外刺探、非法提供国家情报罪，于2004年3月日向本院提起公诉。本院依法组成合议庭，因涉及国家秘密，不公开开庭审理了本案。浙江省杭州市人民检察院指派代理检察员赵琳洁及杨甜出庭支持公诉，被告人刘凤钢、徐永海、张胜其及其辩护赵健、钱列阳、徐平到庭参加诉讼。现已审理终结。

浙江省杭州市人民检察院指控：2001年10月中旬，被告人徐永海出资人民币1000元给被告人刘凤钢作差旅费，由刘凤钢前往辽宁省鞍山市了解李宝芝被劳动教养的情况。事后，刘凤钢写了《我所了解的辽宁鞍山市刘宝芝"邪教"一案的事实与经过》一文，由徐永海提供给境外杂志《生命季刊》的发行机构。该刊物在第20期上全文刊登。

2003年7月25日，刘凤钢受境外人员指使，窜至浙江省温州市洞头县和杭州市萧山区、西湖区等地，收集当地有关人员所谓受逼迫的情况，回京后写成《来自祖国的报道》一文。同年8月5日，刘凤钢指使被告人张胜其通过电子邮件提供给境外人员。

2003年8月18日，刘凤钢将自己在8月17日至北京市密云县大城子镇参加非法活动被警察盘查的情况写成《在北京远郊的山区传福音被警察盘查的经过》一文，由张胜其打印成文，并通过电子邮件提供给境外人员。

为证实上述指控，公诉机关当庭宣读和出示了被告人刘凤钢、徐永海、张胜其的供述与辩解；证人李宝芝等人的证言；国家保密局出具的鉴定结论、浙江省安全厅出具的证明等；《生命季刊》杂志等书证；MP3播放嚣、数码相机等物证。认为被告人刘凤钢、徐永海、张胜其的行为已构成为境外刺探、非法提供国家情报罪，应依法惩处。

被告人刘凤钢、徐永海、张胜其对公诉机关指控的事实均无异议，但均提出不构成犯罪。

三被告人的辩护人分别提出国家保密局没有鉴定资格，且本案涉及的三篇文章，不属情报，被告人的行为不构成犯罪。

经审理查明：2001年10月中旬，被告人徐永海得知辽宁省鞍山市妇女李宝芝因对被决定劳动教养不服而提起行政诉讼，及鞍山市中级人民法院即将二审公开开庭审理此案的消息后，指使被告人刘凤钢前往辽宁省鞍山市收集该案情况，并出资人民币1000元作差旅费。事后，刘凤钢将前往当地收集的情况写成《我所了解的辽宁鞍山市刘宝芝"邪教"一案的事实与经过》一文，由徐永海提供给境外杂志《生命季刊》的发行机构。该刊物在第20期上全文刊登。

2003年7月25日，刘凤钢受境外人员指使，窜至浙江省温州市洞头县和杭州市萧山区、西湖区等地，收集当地有关人员所谓受逼迫的情况，回京后写成《来自祖国的报道》一文。同年8月5日，刘凤钢指使被告人张胜其通过电子邮件提供给境外人员。

2003年8月17日，刘凤钢在北京市密云县大城子镇因参加非法活动受到警察盘查。次日，刘凤钢写了《在北京远郊的山区传福音被警察盘查的经过》一文，由张胜其通过电子邮件提供给境外人员。

案发后，公安机关从刘凤钢处扣押作案时使用的数码相机一架、MP3播放机一只、电脑二台、打印机一台、扫描仪一台。

认定上述事实的证据有：

（1）证人李宝芝、戴小强、孔国宪、高崇益、张福才证言及辩论笔录，证明刘凤钢到辽宁省鞍山市、浙江省温州市洞头县和杭州市萧山区、西湖区等地收集有关情况的事实。证人史书才、马淑兰、单翠香、刘玉琴、韩春芝、崔文福、齐淑花的证言，证明2003年8月17日，刘凤钢在北京市密云县大城子镇参加非法活动，受到公安人员盘查的事实。

（2）公安机关从刘凤钢处查扣的数码相机一架、MP3播放机一只，所记载的内容证明刘凤钢在浙江省温州市洞头县和杭州市萧山区、西湖区等地收集有关情况的事实。

（3）公安机关从刘凤钢处查扣两台电脑、扫描仪一台、打印机一台，从徐永海处查获东芝牌 220CDS型笔记本电脑一台，经鉴定，刘凤钢拥有的计算机内存有《我所了解的辽宁鞍山市刘宝芝"邪教"一案的事实与经过》、《来自祖国的报道》、《在北京远郊的山区传福音被警察盘查的经过》等三篇文章。徐永海拥有的东芝牌220CDS型笔记本电脑内存有《我所了解的辽宁鞍山市刘宝芝"邪教"一案的事实与经过》一文。从刘凤钢处查扣其所写的《来自祖国的报道》的部分底稿在案佐证。

（4）搜集在案的境外出版社出版的《生命季刊》第20期一本，该杂志刊登了《我所了解的辽宁鞍山市刘宝芝"邪教"一案的事实与经过》一文及公安机关从境外网站下载的《来自祖国的报道》、《密云盘查》（即为《在北京远郊的山区传福音被警察盘查的经过》）的文章，经三被告人当庭辩认，确系其提供无疑。

（5）国家保密局出具的鉴定意见，证明《我所了解的辽宁鞍山市刘宝芝"邪教"一案的事实与经过》、《来自祖国的报道》、《在北京远郊的山区传福音被警察盘查的经过》三篇文章系情报。

（6）公安机关出具的户籍证明证实三被告人的身分情况。

（7）被告人刘凤钢、张胜其、徐永海分别供述在案，所供能相印证，且与上述证据反映的情节一致。

上述证据经庭审质证无异，本院予以确认。

本院认为，被告人刘凤钢、徐永海、张胜其为境外组织、人员刺探、非法提供国家情报的行为，已构成为境外刺探、非法提供国家情报罪。公诉机关所控罪名成立。三被告人及辩护人提出不构成犯罪的辩解于法不符。根据法律规定，为了解决案件中某些专门性问题，可以委托有关部门和人员进行鉴定。本案三被告人为境外刺探、非法提供的有关情况是否为情报，属于专门性问题，而国家保密局是"国家秘密"的法定鉴定机关，鉴于"秘密"与"情报"有相同的性质，故司法机关委托保密部门进行鉴定并无不当，且国家保密局作出的鉴定合法有效，可以作为定案依据。辩护人提出国家保密局没有鉴定资格及三篇文章不属情报的辩护意见不能成立，本院不予采纳。据此，依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第一百一十一条、第二十五条第一款、第五十六条第一款、第五十五条第一款、第六十四条的规定，判决如下：

一、 被告人刘凤钢犯为境外刺探、非法提供国家情报罪，判处有期徒刑三年，剥夺政治权利三年。（刑期从判决执行之日起计算。判决执行以前先行羁押的，羁押一日抵刑期一日，即自2003年11月14日起至2007年2月4日止）。

二、 被告人徐永海犯为境外刺探、非法提供国家情报罪，判处有期徒刑二年，剥夺政治权利二年。（刑期从判决执行之日起计算。判决执行以前先行羁押的，羁押一日抵刑期一日，即自2003年11月9日起至2006年1月30日止）。

三、 被告人张胜其犯为境外刺探、非法提供国家情报罪，判处有期徒刑一年，剥夺政治权利一年。（刑期从判决执行之日起计算。判决执行以前先行羁押的，羁押一日抵刑期一日，即自2003年11月17日起至2005年2月7日止）。

四、 随案移送本院的作案工具数码相机一架、MP3播放机一只、电脑二台、打印机一台、扫描仪一台，予以没收，上缴国库。

如不服本判决，可在接到判决书的第二日起十日内，通过本院或者直接向浙江省高级人民法院提出上诉，书面上诉的，应当提交上诉状正本一份，副本二份。

审判长 张永纯
人民陪审员 张宝文
人民陪审员 华香琳

二○○四年八月六日

书记员 马骏

 

Translation: State v. Zheng Enchong - Disclosing State Secrets

 NOTE: This post was published on December 6, 2020, but this post is dated the date the court judgment was issued in order to prevent confusion.

No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai

Criminal Judgment

(2003) Hu No. 2 Intermediate Criminal No. 1361

The public prosecution agency was the People's Procuratorate of Shanghai Branch No. 2.

Appellant (defendant at trial) Zheng Enchong, male, born [INTENTIONALLY DELETED IN THIS CASEBOOK], 1950 in Shanghai, Han ethnicity, college graduate, formerly a worker at the Shanghai Minjian Law Firm, residing at [INTENTIONALLY DELETED IN THIS CASEBOOK], Shanghai, household registration at [INTENTIONALLY DELETED IN THIS CASEBOOK], Shanghai. He was taken into criminal detention on June 6, 2003 in connection with this case, and was arrested on June 18 of the same year. He is currently being held in custody at the Shanghai Detention Center.

Defense counsel Guo Guoting is a lawyer at the Shanghai Tianyi Law Firm.

Defense counsel Zhang Sizhi is a lawyer at the Beijing Wuluan Zhaoyan Law Firm.

In the Hu 2nd Division Criminal Indictment 1 (2003) No. 91 indictment the People's Procuratorate of Shanghai Branch No. 2 charged defendant Zheng Enchong with committing the crime of illegally providing state secrets, and on August 15, 2003 filed a public prosecution with this Court. This Court formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law, and because this case implicated state secrets, tried this case in closed court in accordance with the law. The People's Procuratorate of Shanghai Branch No. 2 appointed Procurators Yuan Hanjun and Wang Li, and Deputy Procurator Xu Jing to appear in court in support of the public prosecution. Defendant Zheng Enchong and his defense counsels Guo Guoting and Zhang Sizhi appeared in court to participate in the proceedings. The case was extended for one month in accordance with the law, and the trial has now concluded.

The People's Procuratorate of Shanghai Branch No. 2 charged:

In the latter part of May 2003, after defendant Zheng Enchong learned secrets from a police officer surnamed Xu that the Shanghai public security agency was dealing with emergencies arising from a sudden mass incident at the Shanghai Yimin Food Products Factory, he took notes, organized them, and on the morning of the 23rd, faxed a hand-written draft that included the aforementioned secrets from his residence at Puyuan Road to the organization Human Rights in China in New York. In order to ensure these secrets were received, that night Zheng Enchong also sent the aforementioned secrets to Human Rights in China via email. Based on the forensics of the State Secrets Bureau of Shanghai the aforementioned secrets are classified as "Confidential" state secrets.

On May 28, 2003, defendant Zheng Enchong, faxed a copy of the article "Forced Demolitions Lead to Clashes, Reporters Attacked While Conducting Interviews" copied from the Xinhua News Agency's "Internal Reference Selections" Issue 17, 2003, from his residence at Puyuan Road to Human Rights in China. On the copy it is clearly written in Zheng's own handwriting: "Xinhua News Agency internal material, I hope you can use it." Based on the forensics of the State Secrets Bureau of Shanghai the aforementioned secrets are classified as "Confidential" state secrets.

The People's Procuratorate of Shanghai Branch No. 2 transferred to this Court evidence confirming the aforementioned facts including documentary evidence, witness testimony, and defendant Zheng Enchong's statement, alleging that defendant Zheng Enchong's actions constitute an offense under the provisions of Article 111 of the "Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China," and requesting that he be held criminally liable for illegally providing state secrets to a foreign organization.

Defendant Zheng Enchong and his defense counsels do not dispute the facts charged by the public prosecution agency that Zheng provided the aforementioned documents to a foreign organization. They do, however, offer the defense that Zheng Enchong was not aware that the aforementioned documents were state secrets; that he did not have the intent to provide state secrets abroad, that the foreign organization did not actually receive the documents provided by Zheng, and given that there were no consequences, the crime the public prosecution agency charged Zheng Enchong with cannot be established.

It was ascertained at trial:

On May 28, 2003, defendant Zheng Enchong, at his residence at Puyuan Road, wrote "Xinhua News Agency internal material, I hope you can use it. Zheng" on  a copy of the article "Forced Demolitions Lead to Clashes, Reporters Attacked While Conducting Interviews" that he had obtained from the Xinhua News Agency's "Internal Reference Selections" Issue 17, 2003. Afterwards he faxed it to the organization "Human Rights in China" in New York, USA. The copy was obtained by public security agencies after the case commenced, and based on the forensics of the State Secrets Bureau of Shanghai the "Forced Demolitions Lead to Clashes, Reporters Attacked While Conducting Interviews" material is classified as "Confidential" state secrets.

In addition, in the latter part of May 2003, defendant Zheng Enchong organized and wrote up information he had obtained regarding Shanghai public security agencies dealing with sudden mass incidents and faxed and emailed them to a foreign organization.

Evidence substantiating the aforementioned facts:

Witness Xue Minchun confirmed that, because Zheng Enchong gave Xue an article about Zheng being interviewed to provide to foreign media, in January 2003 Xue sent the article to the organization "Human Rights in China" in New York, USA, and thereafter received a faxed reply from the organization with Liu Qing's signature. Xue Minchun showed Zheng this fax and informed Zheng that the organization "Human Rights in China" in New York, USA would contact him, and Zheng made a copy and kept it.

A copy of the fax with the marginalia  "Liu Qing, 2003.1.29" from the organization "Human Rights in China" in New York, USA, displayed the organization's phone number, fax number, and that Liu Qing's assistant is a Mr. Jiao.

The State Security Bureau of Shanghai produced the "Materials Relating to the Identification of Human Rights in China, Human Rights in China Chairperson Liu Qing, and his assistant Jiao Baigu" which confirmed that Human Rights in China was established and has an office in New York, USA, Liu Qing is its Chairperson, and Jiao Baigu is assistant to the Chairperson.

Witness Zhao Hanxiang confirmed that at approximately 3 pm on May 28, 2003, he went to Zheng Enchong's residence and gave him a copy of Xinhua News Agency's "Internal Reference Selections."

Defendant Zheng Enchong's stated that "Internal Reference Selections" is an internal reference document, and may only be seen by high level public officials. Zheng also stated he contacted "Human Rights in China" and Jiao Baigu's phone numbers, fax numbers, and Jiao Baigu's email address. In addition, Zheng Enchong fully confessed to the fact that on May 28, 2003, he faxed a copy of the article "Forced Demolitions Lead to Clashes, Reporters Attacked While Conducting Interviews" from the Xinhua News Agency's "Internal Reference Selections" from his residence to the organization "Human Rights in China."

The public security agencies' "Search Record" and "Inventory of Seized Items and Documents" confirm that it found the Xinhua News Agency's "Internal Reference Selections" (Issue 17) article "Forced Demolitions Lead to Clashes, Reporters Attacked While Conducting Interviews" (with a handwritten notation on the top: "Jiao: Xinhua News Agency internal material, I hope you can use it. Zheng") at Zheng Enchong's residence at [INTENTIONALLY DELETED IN THIS CASEBOOK].

The Public Security Bureau of Shanghai "Documentary Investigation Forensic Report" confirmed that the handwriting on the aforementioned document copies has been verified as belonging to Zheng Enchong.

The "Evidentiary Materials" produced by the Xinhua News Agency Shanghai Bureau confirmed that that the article "Forced Demolitions Lead to Clashes, Reporters Attacked While Conducting Interviews" was written by the Bureau's reporters and was published in Issue 17 of the Xinhua News Agency's "Internal Reference Selections" on April 30, 2003.

The State Secrets Bureau of Shanghai confirmed in its "Manual for Secret Classification" that the material "Forced Demolitions Lead to Clashes, Reporters Attacked While Conducting Interviews" which Zheng Enchong transmitted abroad was derived from "Internal Reference Selections" (Secret) Issue 17,  2003, and was classified as state secrets at the level "Confidential."

The State Secrets Bureau "Response to Questions Regarding the State Secrets Bureau of Shanghai's Confirmation of the Classification of Secrets in the Zheng Enchong Case" confirmed that the aforementioned secret classification remains in effect.

Witness Xue Lili confirmed that on May 28, 2003 at Zheng Enchong's residence, he helped Zheng send multiple copies of the materials to a recipient surnamed Jiao.

The information in the Residential Telephone Registration Register provided by the Security Department of Shanghai Telecom Ltd. confirmed that the telephone number [INTENTIONALLY DELETED IN THIS CASEBOOK] is registered to Zheng Enchong and is installed at 8[INTENTIONALLY DELETED IN THIS CASEBOOK].

The telephone customer communications records produced by the Fixed Telephone Line Department of China Unicom Ltd. confirms that on May 28, 2003 there were multiple connections established between the telephone number [INTENTIONALLY DELETED IN THIS CASEBOOK] and the telephone number of the organization "Human Rights in China" in New York.

All of the foregoing evidence was produced, examined, and verified as factual in court, and is affirmed by this Court.

This Court finds that defendant Zheng Enchong illegally transmitted state secrets to an organization abroad, and that his actions constitute the commission of the crime of illegally providing state secrets under relatively minor circumstances. The offense charged by the public prosecution agency has been established.

In light of defendant Zheng Enchong's level of education, knowledge of society, and his profession, combined with Zheng's actions to draw other's attention such as his additional message "Xinhua News Agency internal material, I hope you can use it" faxed with the aforementioned article to the organization "Human Rights in China" in New York, as well as Zheng's statement after the case began that "Internal Reference Selections" is an internal reference document, and may only be seen by high level public officials, Zheng had the subjective intent to illegally provide state secrets abroad.

This Court gives no credence to the justifications and defense opinions proffered by Zheng and his defense counsels that Zheng did not clearly know that these were state secrets and that he did not intentionally transmit state secrets abroad.

Defendant Zheng Enchong's act of providing state secrets were socially harmful and considerations such as whether or not the foreign organization received them, or whether or not there was any actual harmful consequences to national interests do not influence the establishment of a crime. Therefore, the justifications and defense opinions proffered by Zheng and his defense counsel that the foreign organization never received the article provided by Zheng Enchong and as a result his actions did not have any consequences and do not constitute the commission of a crime are not accepted.

In order to maintain social order and safeguard national security, and in accordance with Articles 111, 56(1), 55(1), and 64 of the "Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China," and Articles 1, 4, and 5 of the "Supreme People's Court's Explanations Regarding Certain Questions Concerning the Specific Laws to be Used in Adjudicating Cases of Foreign Theft or Spying to Obtain, or Providing Illegally, State Secrets or Intelligence," the judgment is as follows:

1. Defendant Zheng Enchong committed the crime of illegally providing state secrets to a foreign organization and is sentenced to a fixed term imprisonment of three years and one year deprivation of political rights. (The prison term is to be calculated starting on the day the judgment is executed, and each day in custody prior to the execution of the judgment shall count as one day of the prison term, that is from June 6, 2003 to June 5, 2006).

2. Tools verified as having been used in the commission of the crime and material implicating state secrets shall be confiscated.

If any party does not accept this judgment, they may within 10 days after the second day after receiving this written judgment bring an appeal through this Court or directly to the High People's Court of Shanghai. A written appeal should be submitted with one original and one copy of the appeal brief.

October 28, 2003

Chief Adjudicator: Shen Xingkai
Adjudicator: Wang Yuzhan
Acting Adjudicator: Jiang Zhengyu

Clerk: Dong Wei
Clerk: Li Shu

上海市第二中级人民法院

刑事判决书

（2003）沪二中刑初字第136号

公诉机关上海市人民检察院第二分院。

被告人郑恩宠，男，1950年[INTENTIONALLY DELETED IN THIS CASEBOOK]出生于上海市，汉族，大学文化程度，原系上海市敏鉴律师事务所工作人员，住本市[INTENTIONALLY DELETED IN THIS CASEBOOK]，户籍所在地本市[INTENTIONALLY DELETED IN THIS CASEBOOK]。因本案于2003年6月6日被刑事拘留，同年6月18日被逮捕；现羁押于上海市看守所。

辩护人郭国汀，上海市天易律师事务所律师。

辩护人张思之，北京市吴栾赵阎律师事务所律师。

上海市人民检察院第二分院以沪检二分刑诉一字（2003）第91号起诉书指控被告人郑恩宠犯为非法提供国家秘密罪，于2003年8月15日向本院提起公诉。本院依法组成合议庭，因本案涉及国家秘密，依法进行了不公开开庭审理。上海市人民检察院第二分院指派检察员袁汉钧、王利、代理检察员许靖出庭支持公诉，被告人郑恩宠及辩护人郭国汀、张思之到庭参加诉讼。本案依法延长审限一个月，现已审理终结。

上海市人民检察院第二分院指控：

被告人郑恩宠于2003年5月下旬，从民警徐某处获悉本市公安机关处置上海益民食品一厂突发性群体事件出警情况的秘密后，作了记录、整理，并于同月23日上午在其晋元路住处，以手写稿的形式将上述秘密传真给在美国纽约的"中国人权"组织。郑恩宠为确保该秘密送达，又于当晚将上述秘密以电子邮件的方式发送给"中国人权"组织。经上海市国家保密局鉴定，上述秘密属机密级国家秘密。

2003年5月28日，被告人郑恩宠在其晋元路住处，将新华社2003年第17期《内参选编》中的《强行拆迁引发冲突，记者采访遭遇围攻》一文的复印件传真给"中国人权"组织，并在该复印件上亲笔注明"新华社内参稿，望引用"。经上海市国家保密局鉴定，上述文件属秘密级国家秘密。

上海市人民检察院第二分院想本院移送了证实以上事实的书证、证人证言和被告人供述等证据，认为被告人郑恩宠的行为已触犯《中华人民共和国刑法》第一百一十一条的规定，提请以为境外非法提供国家秘密罪追究起刑事责任。

被告人郑恩宠及其辩护人对公诉机关指控郑将上述文稿提供给境外组织的事实不持异议，但均辩称郑恩宠不明知上述文稿属于国家秘密，也没有向境外提供国家秘密的故意，且境外组织并未收到郑提供的文稿，所以未造成后果，公诉机关指控郑恩宠的罪名不能成立。

经审理查明：

2003年5月28日，被告人郑恩宠在晋元路住处，在获得的新华社出版的《内参选编》2003年第17期中《强行拆迁引发冲突，记者采访遭遇围攻》一文的复印件上，加注"新华社内参稿，望引用。郑"等文字后，传真给在美国纽约的"中国人权"组织。该复印件在案发后被公安机关查获，经上海市国家秘密局鉴定，《强行拆迁引发冲突，记者采访遭遇围攻》的材料，属秘密级国家秘密。

此外，被告人郑恩宠还于2003年5月下旬，将获得的本市公安机关处置群体事件的出警情况整理成文，通过传真和以电子邮件的方式发送给境外机构。

证实上述事实的证据有：

证人薛民春证实，因郑恩宠把一篇有关郑的采访文章交薛民春向境外媒体提供，薛遂于2003年1月将该文章传真给了在美国纽约的"中国人权"组织，随后收到了该组织署名刘青的回复传真。薛民春便将该传真送给了郑恩宠看，并告知郑在美国纽约的"中国人权"组织会与其联系，郑复印了一份留下。

落款为"刘青2003.1.29"、在美国纽约的"中国人权"组织传真复印件上载明了该组织的电话号码、传真号码、刘青的助手是焦先生。

上海市国家安全局出具的《关于"中国人权"组织及"中国人权"主席刘青、主席助理焦柏固的证明材料》证实，"中国人权"组织是在美国纽约成立和办公的组织，由刘青任主席，焦柏固任主席助理。

证人赵汉祥证实，2003年5月28日下午3时许，赵至郑恩宠住处交给其一份新华社《内参选编》的复印件。

被告人郑恩宠供述，《内参选编》是内部参考文章，非高级别的公务人员是看不到的。郑还供述了其与"中国人权"组织及焦柏固联系的电话号码、传真号码、焦柏固的电子邮箱地址。此外，郑恩宠对其于2003年5月28日在住处把新华社《内参选编》中《强行拆迁引发冲突，记者采访遭遇围攻》一文，传真给"中国人权"组织的事实供认不讳。

公安机关的《搜查笔录》、《扣押物品、文件清单》证实，从本市[INTENTIONALLY DELETED IN THIS CASEBOOK]郑恩宠住处查获了新华社《内参选编》第17期中《强行拆迁引发冲突，记者采访遭遇围攻》一文的复印件（标有"焦：新华社内参稿，望引用。郑"的手写字体）。

上海市公安局的《文检鉴定书》证实，上述复印件上的手写字迹均是郑恩宠所写。

新华通讯社上海分社出具的《证明材料》证实，《强行拆迁引发冲突，记者采访遭遇围攻》一文系该分社记者采写，刊登于新华社出版的《内参选编》2003年4月30日第17期上。

上海市国家保密局的《秘密鉴定书》证实，郑恩宠向境外提供的《强行拆迁引发冲突，记者采访遭遇围攻》的材料，系出自《内参选编》（秘密级）2003年第17期，属于秘密级国家秘密。

国家保密局的《关于上海市保密局对郑恩宠案所作密级鉴定有关问题的复函》确认了以上密级鉴定为有效。

证人薛利里证实，其于2003年5月28日在郑恩宠住处帮助郑发送过多材料，收件人姓焦。

上海市电信有限公司保卫处提供的住宅电话注册登记信息证实，电话号码[INTENTIONALLY DELETED IN THIS CASEBOOK]的用户名为郑恩宠，装机地址为[INTENTIONALLY DELETED IN THIS CASEBOOK]。

中国联合通信有限公司数据与固定通信业务部提供的电话用户通讯记录清单证实，2003年5月28日，电话号码63804774与在美国纽约的"中国人权"组织电话号码之间曾有多次通讯联系。

以上证据均经当庭出示、质证，查证属实，本院予以确认。

本院认为，被告人郑恩宠将国家秘密非法传真给境外组织，其行为已构成为境外非法提供国家秘密罪，尚属情节较轻。公诉机关指控的罪名成立。根据被告人郑恩宠的文化程度、社会阅历及其所从事的职业，结合郑向在美国纽约的"中国人权"组织传真前述文章时特意加注"新华社内参稿，望引用"等文字以引起对方重视的行为，以及郑到案后曾作的《内参选编》是内部参考文章，非高级别公务人员看不到的供述，郑主观上具有为境外非法提供国家秘密的故意。故对郑恩宠及其辩护人提出的郑不明知国家秘密及没有向境外提供秘密之故意的辩解和辩护意见不予采信。被告人郑恩宠向境外提供国家秘密的行为，具有社会危害性，至于境外组织是否收到，损害国家利益的实际后果是否产生，并不影响本罪的成立。因此对郑恩宠及其辩护人关于郑恩宠提供的文章境外组织未收到，没有造成后果，不构成犯罪的辩解和辩护意见不予采纳。为维护社会秩序，保卫国家安全，依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第一百一十一条、第五十六条第一款、第五十六条第一款、第五十五条第一款、第六十四条以及《最高人民法院关于审理为境外窃取、刺探、收买、非法提供国家秘密、情报案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》第一条、第四条、第五条之规定，判决如下：

一．   被告人郑恩宠犯为境外非法提供国家秘密罪，判处有期徒刑三年，剥夺政治权利一年。

（刑期从判决执行之日起计算。判决执行以前先行羁押的，羁押翌日折抵刑期一日，即自二00三年六月六日起至二00六年六月五日止）。

二。查获的犯罪工具、涉及国家秘密的材料等予以没收。

如不服本判决，可在接到判决书的第二日起十日内，通过本院或者直接向上海市高级人民法院提出上诉。书面上诉的，应当提交上诉状正本一份，副本一份。

审判长        沈行恺
审判员        王宇展
代理审判员    蒋征宇

二00三年十月二十八日

书记员        董  玮
书记员        李  姝