Qingdao Judicial Bureau in Shandong issued two “Administrative Penalty Advance Notice” to lawyer Yu and his law firm Xiao Lin, ordering them to suspend business for one and a half years and one year respectively. The reason was that Yu listed several cases in a proposal to the National People’s Congress to abolish the crime of “provocation and troublemaking,” which was deemed as sensationalizing cases.
Yu is the director (person in charge) of Xiao Lin Law Firm and the administrative penalty application is set to be discussed in a hearing on July 2nd.
Zhang Wenpeng, a legal practitioner who once interned at Xiao Lin Law Firm, told Epoch Times, “Most of the cases cited by Yu in the proposal to the National People’s Congress are acquitted cases that we are not even familiar with. How could a lawyer have such great power to intervene in the outcome of a case!”
Zhang Wenpeng pointed out, “‘Sensationalizing’ is not even a legal term. It is a new term concocted by the top procuratorate and the Supreme People’s Court of the Chinese Communist Party. The meaning of ‘sensationalizing’ is even more obvious and vague than the meaning of ‘provocation and troublemaking.’ Whether it is sensationalizing or not is up to their discretion.”
He further commented, “The Ministry of Justice has now turned into a dark force, commanding every day, not for the rule of law, but for control. The laws of the Chinese Communist Party are not for upholding freedom but for control, to restrict our freedom.”
Yu has already applied for a hearing on July 2nd. Zhang Wenpeng invited lawyers in Qingdao to attend. “Regardless of the outcome of this case, we must show lawyers across the country the abusive nature of their actions. We are now promoting the rule of law, and they still want to suppress us. Do they really want the rule of law? They don’t want the rule of law; they want control.”
When Epoch Times tried to contact lawyer Yu, his phone was not answered.
The news of the administrative punishment against lawyer Yu and his law firm has caused an uproar in the legal community.
Lawyer Yang Xuelin: Sensationalizing standard is unacceptable
Beijing lawyer Yang Xuelin publicly expressed support in a video, saying, “Recently, a lawyer paid a 300,000 yuan bribe to a judge’s wife and was suspended from practicing for half a year. Yet, lawyer Yu, who proposed to abolish the crime of ‘provocation and troublemaking’ in writing to the National People’s Congress, was suspended for a year by the Judicial Bureau, which is outrageous!”
Yang Xuelin stated, “According to the Qingdao Judicial Bureau’s judgment, what Lawyer Yu did was sensationalize cases. We know there is a ‘bribery crime,’ but there is no ‘sensationalizing cases crime.’ No matter how serious sensationalizing cases are, they are not as serious as bribery. Even a legal layman knows that.”
Lawyer Yu made a proposal to the National People’s Congress’s Legislative Affairs Committee to abolish the crime of “provocation and troublemaking,” and was deemed to sensationalize cases because he cited several cases in the document. Yang Xuelin believed that this standard of judgment is unacceptable.
He commented, “Look at the law professors and students’ public legal papers published by law schools, most of them cite numerous cases. Citizens’ concern for the nation’s rule of law and submitting legislative proposals to the national legislative body are manifestations of patriotism and should be acknowledged. Moreover, by also suspending the law firm for half a year, depriving all staff members of earning money for six months, this punishment is too severe!”
Lawyer Wang from Henan, in response to Yang Xuelin’s video, commented, “As the director of a law firm, a lawyer paying a 300,000 yuan bribe didn’t face criminal responsibility, just a six-month suspension, while a few lawyers from a law firm jointly submitted a written proposal to the National People’s Congress to abolish the crime of ‘provocation and troublemaking,’ resulting in the law firm being suspended for half a year and the director for a year. The punishment orientation is clear: advocating bribery is better than making legal suggestions, encouraging lawyers to bribe, and suppressing legal advice.”
Former legal media person Hu Xincheng: Lack of essential elements in the penalty notice
Former legal media person Hu Xincheng, upon hearing about the punishment against lawyer Yu, also penned an article in support.
Hu Xincheng mentioned that although he has never met Yu, he has heard about his many commendable actions through the media and colleagues: for maintaining national stability, he offered straightforward advice; for upholding the government’s image, he reported corrupt officials, and for promoting social harmony, he assisted many vulnerable groups. “Just based on these three points, I am humbled and deeply admire him! Hence, with my ailing health, I wrote this humble piece to voice a small appeal for him!”
He stated, “According to the administrative penalty notice issued by the Qingdao Judicial Bureau, Lawyer Yu made misleading comments on cases under review by judicial agencies and handled by other lawyers via the internet in August 2023, engaged in sensationalizing cases. However, which specific case did he ‘sensationalize’? What ‘misleading comments’ were made? The notice did not mention a single word about it. Whether it is groundless, omitted, or inconvenient to disclose, this doubt needs to be clarified with the Qingdao Judicial Bureau.
“Anyone with a little legal knowledge can see that this penalty notice, lacking essential facts but declaring a result, is akin to a court judgment without specifying criminal facts, only giving the verdict. How can such an incomplete notice be credible? Does this not trivialize the system and legal regulations?”