On May 30th, the official WeChat account of the Chinese Consulate General in San Francisco posted a peculiar message, warning Chinese citizens in the consular district to guard against scams using “anti-war rallies” as a guise. The question arises, why issue such a notice?
According to the statement from the Chinese consulate general, it was because a Chinese citizen reported that they had been targeted by fraudsters posing as American police, claiming that the individual was involved in an unauthorized “anti-war rally” and using this as an excuse to commit fraud. How did the scam unfold? The scammers impersonated law enforcement officers, coerced the victim to sign a so-called “confession statement,” and demanded a large sum of money as “security,” with “concerned individuals” then offering to guarantee the sum, but only if the victim’s domestic relatives transferred an equivalent amount in Chinese currency to a designated bank account. Ultimately, once the money was transferred, it would be gone without a trace.
In light of this “fraud” case, the Chinese consulate general saw fit to warn other Chinese citizens in the United States to be cautious and advised that in case of problems, they can call the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ global consular protection and service emergency hotline (24 hours) or the Chinese consulate general.
It is quite suspicious that the Chinese authorities, who have never truly protected the interests of Chinese citizens abroad nor shown concern when they fall victim to scams, suddenly demonstrate concern for the financial security of Chinese citizens and incidents of fraud. This notification actually raises several eerie questions.
Firstly, if a Chinese citizen in the U.S. indeed encountered fraud, the logical and reasonable approach would be to report it to the American authorities, or seek assistance from the Chinese consulate to report it to the American police. Why did this individual not report the incident to the American police? Why did the consulate not assist in reporting the case to the authorities? What hidden motives lie beneath?
Secondly, the reason this Chinese citizen fell victim to the scam is likely due to their participation in recent pro-Palestine, anti-Israel activities at various universities in the U.S. The question arises: how did the fraudster obtain this information? Why did the individual believe that participating in an unauthorized “anti-war rally” constituted a crime? In the U.S., participating in demonstrations is a right for everyone unless unlawful acts are committed during the process, leading to suspicion of criminal activity. What incriminating evidence does this Chinese citizen hold?
Furthermore, why did this Chinese citizen agree to sign a “confession statement”? What does the content of this statement entail? Is it related to any illegal activities during the anti-war rally or protests? Why doesn’t the consulate general dare to disclose the details of the fraud? Typically, in cases of suspected crimes, signing a “confession statement” with the American authorities can mitigate penalties. Does this imply that the one behind targeting this Chinese individual is actually a department of the U.S. government?
Why did this Chinese citizen require a large sum of money as security? Does it involve potential residency issues in the U.S. due to violations of American laws?
Additionally, why did this individual agree to have their domestic relatives transfer an equivalent amount in Chinese currency to a designated bank account? Why did their family members not question this request? Generally, individuals exercise caution when it comes to large transfers of funds. Is it because they are fully aware of the purpose of these funds? Perhaps to guarantee their continued residency in the U.S.? Does the warning that “once the money is transferred, it will be lost” imply potential penalties?
The narrative behind the consulate general’s notification may hide a story where a Chinese individual in the U.S. followed instructions from the consulate general, took part in “anti-war” demonstrations at a university or universities, and acted as an organizer, manipulator, and financer behind the scenes, thereby being suspected of disrupting and subverting the U.S. So after verification by the U.S. authorities, the individual agreed to “confess” and disclosed the instructions of their mastermind, opting to pay fines and security deposits to avoid deportation. Reading the consulate general’s notification in this light, everything becomes clear.
Is this narrative factual? Recall the case reported by Fox News in early May where a Chinese student, impersonating a Muslim and supporting Hamas, was arrested and exposed in public by the police. The video shows her calm demeanor post-arrest, even smiling. She was identified as Liu Lijun, a Chinese student at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Liu Lijun, influenced by prolonged CCP brainwashing, bravely supported Palestine. Whether she accepted CCP instructions to cause disturbances remains unknown, but the possibility cannot be dismissed. How many more Chinese students, Chinese individuals exhibit such behavior like Liu Lijun? Perhaps Liu Lijun is not alone.
According to a mid-May report by the Network Contagion Research Institute, a political activist group linked to the CCP played a crucial role in funding and organizing anti-Israel protests on American campuses.
The report reveals that behind this seemingly grassroots radical movement, an organization named “Shut It Down for Palestine” (SID4P) was instrumental. Established after Israel suffered a Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, it led a series of “anti-capitalist, anti-police, and anti-government protest movements.”
Operatives of SID4P emanate from an institution called the “Singham Network.” This network has direct ties to a leftist American tech tycoon, Neville Roy Singham. Singham maintains a close relationship with anti-Jewish pro-Palestine organizations. He has resided in Shanghai for a prolonged period. In 2023, he attended a seminar to promote China’s international image, inadvertently revealing his identity.
An investigation by The New York Times reveals that Singham is a socialist patron of extreme leftist enterprises, promoting CCP propaganda overseas and acting as a key figure funding propaganda activities. Singham operates within numerous U.S. nonprofits and shell companies, but investigations indicate close cooperation with CCP media agencies, providing funds for their global propaganda efforts.
Singham is also married to Jodie Evans, founder of the left-wing anti-war group “Pink Code,” in 2017. Evans previously criticized Chinese human rights abuses, but later, the stance of “Pink Code” underwent a drastic transformation, shifting to full-fledged support for the CCP and even vilifying Hong Kong pro-democracy activists.
The report indicates that organizations associated with CCP foreign influence activities have to some extent propelled direct actions against occupying infrastructure and public spaces. Though these activities ostensibly target Israel, they are actually part of a broader protest movement advocating revolution, anti-government sentiment, and anti-capitalist agendas. The primary organizations have become a “multipurpose tool for foreign entities hostile to the United States.” NCRI predicts that these groups will continue instigating chaos until the summer of 2024, extending up to the November U.S. elections. Some U.S. lawmakers find this unsurprising.
Since the CCP can support overseas groups behind the scenes, they could also instruct little pinkos in the U.S. to participate in agitating activities. Against the backdrop of multifaceted counterattacks against CCP infiltration in the U.S., more and more despicable deeds of the CCP are being exposed, with relevant individuals arrested, subpoenaed, and warned. The shadow of the CCP behind the anti-war movements on American campuses, including participants, is known to the American authorities, and these participants have no choice but to seek help from the consulate general.
Therefore, the peculiar notice from the consulate general clearly indicates a significant amount of hidden information. It likely encourages participants that once evidence of guilt is established, to not cooperate with the American side, but to promptly contact the consulate general. The consulate general may provide some form of assistance, such as facilitating a return to China. The issue is, if one wants to keep a secret, one must keep their own counsel, as each wicked deed the CCP commits will eventually recoil onto themselves.