A prominent anti-fraud blogger who had tirelessly exposed telecommunications scams in northern Myanmar and Cambodia has tragically become a victim of his own activism. Known by his online pseudonym “Huijian,” whose real name was Wu Kai, he was abducted and subsequently killed in 2024 by hired assailants in a cross-border crime plot. This shocking incident has recently come to light, sparking widespread public outrage and discourse.
The main perpetrator, Zhao Bing, faced scrutiny after being sentenced to a death sentence with a two-year reprieve, leading many to question the severity of the punishment handed down by the courts. Compounding the controversy, the Huizhou Intermediate People’s Court has shut down the comments section on related online platforms, stirring further debates about judicial transparency and public oversight.
On October 27, various media sources revealed that Wu Kai, who had bravely reported on telecommunications fraud schemes, was murdered by foreign hired killers in 2024. The Guangdong Higher People’s Court disclosed in its criminal ruling that in October 2024, a person using the alias “Major” offered a paid kidnapping job on an encrypted messaging platform, targeting Wu Kai, who frequently published articles on WeChat about these scams. The original bounty for his kidnapping was set at 300,000 yuan but was later raised to a staggering 1 million yuan after further communication.
On November 10, 2024, Zhao Bing and accomplices, impersonating police officers, forcibly abducted Wu Kai from a parking lot in the Daya Bay area of Huizhou, Guangdong. Wu was subsequently moved between multiple locations, where he faced relentless beatings and interrogation. His body was discovered on November 13, 2024, in the mountainous region of Dingnan County in Jiangxi province.
During the first trial, the Huizhou Intermediate People’s Court recognized Zhao Bing as the organizer and principal assailant of the crime. On December 29, 2025, the court found him guilty of intentional injury and sentenced him to death with a two-year reprieve, while the other 13 individuals involved received varying prison sentences.
In August 2026, the Guangdong Higher People’s Court upheld the original ruling, confirming Zhao Bing’s sentence with a two-year suspension of execution. This decision has attracted significant criticism, particularly concerning why the main offender was not sentenced to immediate execution.
Wu Kai’s parents have passed away, and he had limited contact with other relatives, making it a month after the incident before the family learned of his death from the police. Relatives have alleged that the person behind the attacks, known as “Major,” remains at large outside the country.
The case gained traction in public discourse, especially centered around the controversial leniency of the main perpetrator’s sentencing. As discussions intensified, netizens noted that the comments section on the Huizhou Intermediate People’s Court’s official platforms had been restricted, provoking further backlash.
On November 2, posts marked “Huizhou Intermediate Court closing comments faced criticism” trended on social media platforms like Weibo.
One automotive blogger, known as “Chief Informant,” remarked, “It’s not just the comments section that has been closed; it’s the very channel for the people’s voice on matters of injustice.”
Another commentator, “Korolev,” highlighted the court’s actions, stating, “By shutting down comments, it seems they acknowledge their awareness of wrongdoing.”
A beauty influencer expressed her disgust, stating, “The details in the judgment regarding Huijian are chilling: a lone hero died so tragically, yet after his passing, we must contend with such evasive legal jargon. The ruling is riddled with contradictions, leaving one to wonder if anyone even reviewed it. It is evident he died from violent beatings leading to internal bleeding, yet the documentation even states that ‘underlying hypertension contributed minimally to his death’—this cold phrasing raises suspicions of attempts to lessen the assailant’s culpability.”
Entertainment Blogger “Jing Yahan” also weighed in, commenting, “The Huizhou Intermediate Court’s judgment, which grants a reprieve to the main culprit, is baffling. The public’s bewilderment over the absence of an immediate death sentence is not unfounded. The assessments noting that the victim’s high blood pressure played a role in his death worry many, fearing it could serve as a basis for leniency.”
One tech blogger, “Konstantin,” lamented, “Trust is built like a structure, but it can be demolished with a mere ‘mute button.’ The Huizhou Intermediate Court’s decision to close comment sections after the Huijian case was unexpected. The public inquiries aren’t just about legal terminology; they want to know more about the dismissed letter of understanding and whether that ‘Major’ has been apprehended. When state power responds to questions through physical isolation, it sends a message far more damaging than any justification: ‘I do not intend to listen, nor do I plan to speak.'”
Lawyer Huang Le Ping, head of a law firm in Beijing, called for clarification regarding the judgment in Huijian’s case. He noted, “In an environment rife with telecom fraud, where scammers are boldly killing for hire and openly challenging societal norms, this sentence clearly diverges from the public’s general understanding. Relevant authorities should come forward to clarify and explain the case comprehensively. Shutting down comments is not a proper solution—perhaps they should consider deleting their entire Weibo account instead!”