In recent years, there has been a trend of Chinese Communist Party officials making real-name reports online. Recently, a retired police officer in Changtu County, Liaoning Province, made a real-name report accusing the deputy chief prosecutor of manipulating criminal cases in the county, suspecting him of committing crimes.
According to a report by mainland media Banliu News on June 10, Mr. Guo, the whistleblower, said that he used to be the captain of the Economic Investigation Detachment of the Changtu County Public Security Bureau and retired last year. He discovered that Prosecutor Ma of the Changtu County Procuratorate was manipulating criminal cases, suspected of committing crimes of favoritism and twisting the law.
Mr. Guo reported, “In recent years, Ma has used his litigation power to play with cases – deciding whether to prosecute or not in a disorderly manner. Under Ma’s manipulation, Wang, a fugitive for 23 years, accused of murder, was exempted from criminal prosecution; he also refused to accept the police files, leading to Li, who illegally mined national mineral resources, escaping punishment for over 2 years; furthermore, he prosecuted Song, innocent in an economic dispute, for fraud.”
Guo stated that since last year, he has reported to the relevant local departments, but there has been no outcome. Every time, he was told that the matter was under investigation, saying, “Ma used to be the deputy chief prosecutor and was dismissed from his position last year for disciplinary violations.”
Banliu News journalist tried to contact the accused Ma on June 10, but his phone was unreachable, and text messages went unanswered. A deputy chief prosecutor at the Changtu County Procuratorate declined to be interviewed personally, suggesting contacting the political department, but calls to the political department went unanswered.
A person in charge of the discipline inspection committee in Changtu County said that they were aware of the report against Ma but did not know about the progress of the matter.
This incident quickly attracted attention on the internet.
Netizens commented, “It still has to rely on insiders to report!” “Since it’s a real-name report, it must be 100% true. Why wasn’t it investigated in the past?” “I think the real-name reporting system should publicly disclose progress so it can be checked, who is handling it, the progress, the result – everything should be open to check!”
“Is it lighting the fire on oneself or standing up for justice? Let’s see how the situation develops!”
“This is how discipline inspection and supervisory commissions work in reality. Only cases demanded by higher authorities will be meticulously investigated, collecting every detail, even unnecessary ones, to appear diligent and responsible. They would rather make a wrong judgment than no judgment. Do you all understand now?”