CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA 

ZHANG JIANZHONG CASE UPDATE 

In May 2003, the Commission released a paper entitled “Defense Lawyers and 

Defendants: Zhang Jianzhong and the Criminal Prosecution of Defense Lawyers in 

China.” In December 2003, Zhang Jianzhong was found guilty of assisting in the 

fabrication of evidence. The Commission continues to be concerned that the Chinese 

government’s handling of Zhang’s case will discourage lawyers from representing 

criminal defendants and consequently have a negative impact on the protection of human 

rights in China. An update follows below on developments in Zhang’s case and the

implications of his conviction. 

Conviction and Appeal 

On December 9, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court found that defense lawyer

Zhang Jianzhong assisted with the fabrication of evidence in the Huo Haiyin corruption 

case, a violation of Article 307, clause 2 of the PRC Criminal Code.1

 On the basis of this 

determination, the court sentenced Zhang to two years of imprisonment, one year less 

than the maximum sentence permitted under Article 307. According to standard practice, 

Zhang was given credit for time served in detention since May 2002, and he thus is 

scheduled to be released in May 2004. 

The court took nearly eleven months to decide the case, a violation of the PRC Criminal 

Procedure Law, which provides a maximum of 2 1/2 months for courts to reach a 

verdict.2

 The court’s decision to issue a verdict before the end of the year was likely the 

result of a recent government campaign to clear cases of unlawful “extended detention,” 

which the government has identified as a major source of public anger with the judicial 

system.

3

 

In its lengthy judgment, the court found that Zhang conspired with a bank official named 

Huo Haiyin to alter the date on a power of attorney that Huo had signed to a date before 

Huo’s detention.4

 The power of attorney authorized Zhang to transfer the real estate 

assets of a company that had received illegal loans from Huo’s bank. According to the 

court’s findings, Zhang’s purpose in facilitating the asset transfers was to create the

appearance that the illegal loans would be repaid and thus lighten Huo’s criminal 

responsibility. In fact, the loans were never repaid and the bank suffered a significant 
loss. The court concluded that Zhang intentionally concealed facts about these 

transactions, impairing the investigation and prosecution of the Huo Haiyin case. 

In response to most of the defenses raised on Zhang’s behalf, the court merely confirmed 

conclusions reached by the prosecution, but did not provide clear legal reasoning to 

support its rejection of the defense’s arguments. For example, investigators do not

appear to have conducted a handwriting analysis to determine who backdated the power 

of attorney, and the court does not explain how mere use of a backdated document

amounts to assisting in its fabrication. In addition, Zhang’s defense attorneys presented 

evidence suggesting that the transactions at issue had all been sanctioned by government

authorities in Beijing and Dalian. Although such evidence seems relevant to a 

determination of Zhang’s subjective intent, the court simply dismissed it without further 

explanation as “not directly connected” to the charge. 

Zhang appealed to the Beijing High People’s Court for a review of the conviction within 

the ten-day period permitted by law. Zhang’s lawyers reportedly raised several issues on 

appeal.5

 First, they asked the appeals court to conduct a handwriting analysis to confirm 

the identity of the individual who backdated the power of attorney and then to undertake

a more thorough investigation into the charge that Zhang colluded with Huo Haiyin and 

others. Second, they disputed the Beijing Intermediate Court’s finding that Zhang’s 

intent was to create only an appearance that the bank’s loans had been recovered. They 

argued that the asset transfer had in fact made it more likely that the bank loans would be

repaid and that therefore Zhang had acted in good faith. The Beijing High People’s Court 

did not accept these arguments, and on January 7 it upheld Zhang’s conviction.6

 

Reaction of the Legal Community 

Legal observers greeted news of Zhang’s conviction with dismay. Before the judgment, 

over 600 lawyers delivered a petition to the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme

People’s Procuratorate calling for Zhang’s release,7

 and both the All China Lawyers

Association and the Beijing Lawyers Association tracked the case closely.8

 In addition, 

six leading criminal law scholars who examined the case filed a brief with the Beijing

Intermediate People’s Court challenging the basis for the charges against Zhang.9

 While 

Zhang is scheduled to be released in two months, he has been in detention for nearly two 

years and, with a conviction on his record, his legal career is ruined.10 According to one 

Beijing lawyer interviewed after the verdict, the result was viewed as a setback and 

would discourage lawyers from taking criminal defense cases. 

Implications

As such reactions suggest, the government’s handling of Zhang Jianzhong’s case is 

unlikely to quell doubts about the fairness of Zhang’s prosecution. The Commission 

argued in its May 2003 topic paper that Chinese authorities could respond to public 

concerns about Zhang’s prosecution by carefully adhering to China’s own Criminal 

2
3

 

Procedure Law and by providing clear reasoning to address the legal arguments raised in 

his defense. Unfortunately, Chinese authorities appear to have fallen short in both of 

these areas.11 Defense lawyers should not be above the law, but Chinese authorities need 

to do more to dispel the perception among lawyers that criminal defense work is a highrisk activity, which has contributed to a steady drop since 1996 in the percentage of 

Chinese criminal suspects represented by defense counsel.12 The Commission continues 

to be concerned that the handling of Zhang’s case and other cases involving lawyers will 

only strengthen this perception and in turn have a negative impact on the protection of 

basic rights in China. 

1

 Criminal Judgment of the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court in the Case of Zhang Jianzhong, 

December 9, 2003 (on file with the CECC). 2

 PRC Criminal Procedure Law, Article 168. 

3

 In an attempt to assuage public anger stemming from several high-profile cases of law enforcement abuse 

last year, the government has been engaged in a general campaign to improve the image of law 

enforcement and judicial organs. As part of this campaign, police, prosecutors, and the courts have been 

ordered to clear such cases and establish systems to prevent extended detention in the future. Supreme 

People’s Court, “Notice on Issues Related to Clearing Cases of Extended Detention,” July 29, 2003; 

Supreme People’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, “Notice on Strictly 

Enforcing the Criminal Procedure Law and Rectifying Extended Detention in Practice,” November 12, 

2003. 

4

 Criminal Judgment of the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court in the Case of Zhang Jianzhong, 

December 9, 2003 (on file with the CECC). 5

 “Zhang Jianzhong Dissatisfied with the Court of First Instance and Appeals,” Caijing, January 2004. 6

 “Zhang Jianzhong, Former Defense Lawyer for Cheng Kejie Sentenced to Two Years for Fabrication of 

Evidence,” Xinhua, January 14, 2004. 7

 David Fang, “Beijing Lawyer’s Two-year Prison Sentence is Greeted with Dismay,” South China 

Morning Post, December 11, 2003. 8

 CECC Interview. 

9

 Li Hongbing, “An Investigation of the Case of Zhang Jianzhong,” 21st Century Business Herald, March 

12, 2003. 

10 Under Article 46 of the PRC Lawyers Law, a lawyer’s practice certificate must be revoked if the lawyer 

is subject to criminal punishment for an intentional crime. 

11 In addition to the length of time it took the court to reach a verdict, Zhang’s case was tainted by at least 

two other procedural violations in the investigation and trial phases. When Zhang was arrested in May 

2002, he was held incommunicado for almost a month in violation of Article 64 of the Criminal Procedure 

Law. Moreover, access to his trial was restricted, despite legal provisions that require trials such as 

Zhang’s to be open. These procedural violations infringed on Zhang’s legal rights as a defendant and 

fueled concerns that Zhang was prosecuted for political reasons. 

12 See Congressional-Executive Commission on China, “Defense Lawyers and Defendants: Zhang 

Jianzhong and the Criminal Prosecution of Defense Lawyers in China,” May 2003.