Zhang Hongbao in Blast Furnace

---- A documentary on how the outstanding spiritual leader transformed to a political leader

Back to Index >>

Two Documents of Authoritative Institutions of U.S. Congress and State Department

on Assessment of Forged Criminal Evidences against Zhang Hongbao by CCP 




On 20th Jan. after the information about two documents of authoritative institutions of U.S. Congress and State Department is reported which have doubts that the evidences accusing Zhang Hongbao provided by CCP are forged, it raises broad attention. Now the documents are published in full.


In the report of expert testimony of U.S. Congress's Directorate of Legal Research of Law Library to Office of General Counsel of INS of U.S. Department of Justice the evidences provided by Chinese Government were authenticated and assessed and pointed out: "the reliability of the documents is questionable, and it is possible that the PRC authorities concerned have made an excellent fabrication of documents regarding Zhang Hongbao," and stressed "the timing of the case against Zhang Hongbao coincides with the crackdown on unofficial spiritual movements in China." The assessment of Human Rights, and Labor of Bureau of Democracy of U.S. State Department to Executive Office for Immigration Review of U.S. Immigration Court expressed clearly as well: there are many questions of time existing in the evidences of four crime-reporters; China has usually made false charge of sexual impropriety against leaders of banned religious or quasi-religious groups, as well as against persons carrying out activities that were opposed by the Government; the police and security forces really use torture in interrogation and carry out criminal prosecutions for political purposes.


On 13th June, the Immigration Court had ruled giving political asylum to Zhang Hongbao. On 28th July, due to the interception of CCP with forged accusatorial evidences, the two authoritative institutions of Congress and State Department had assessed these forged evidences and prepared documents which were delivered to INS and Immigration Court before 21st Sept..


It makes people puzzled why INS and its higher authority U.S. Department of Justice did ignore these authoritative assessments and exerted pressure onto Immigration Court. This caused Immigration Court changed the decision of political asylum given to Zhang into protection against torture and withholding removal.


What even more making people hard to understand is that INS is not willing to take things lying down here and now, but is insatiable further to ask Immigration Appeal Court to change the “protection under the convention against torture” and “withholding of removal” which have been granted to Zhang into deporting to a third country. ( the essence of deporting Zhang to the third country is to change a move to help CCP to repatriate Zhang back to China from the third country but not from America; or to choose a third country where CCP can be convenient to kill him there.). Furthermore, Zhang has been continuously detained for four months long. When Zhang’s lawyer put an application to American Federal District Court for using a writ of “habeas corpus”, claiming American immigration authorities to correctly exercise the administrative discretionary power and to stop the wrong practice of continuously detaining Mr. Zhang Hongbao, the person in charge of Guam local immigration bureau declared that they haven’t right to decide and the order of continuously detaining comes from the higher authorities, the extremely high authorities. Who is exactly this higher authorities, the minister of Department of Justice or the White House? The common people are waiting the day when the truth about the matter will come to light.


This typical case of political asylum becomes so puzzled in a whirl, surely is there a dirty deal under the table as hearsay?



International Zhong Gong Headquarters



(Attachment: The Document 1.)


                                             Washington, D.C.  20520


                                             Bureau of Democracy.

                                             Human Rights, and Labor

                                             August 16, 2000


NAME: ZHANG, Hongbao



Executive Office for Immigration Review

Immigration Court

595 Ala Moana Blvd.

Honolulu, HI 96813-4999


Dear Immigration Judge:


     We are writing in response to a request for an advisory opinion on the above named applicant’s request for asylum in the United States. The following comments should be considered in conjunction with the department of State’s most recent Profile of Asylums Claims and Country Conditions and most recent Country Reports on Human Rights practices for china. It should also be considered in conjunction with the 1998-1999 International Religious Freedom Report for china.


      The applicant’s claim for asylum is based on his role as leader of the Zhong Gong qigong movement.


      “Zhong Gong” of “Zhonggong” is a shortened version of Zhonghua Yangsheng Yizhi Gong (China Health and Wisdom [QI] Gong). The group was founded in China in 1987 by Zhang Hongbao. Zhong Gong, like other qigong groups, teaches that the body’s vital forces, or qi, can be harnessed for healing purposes and spiritual growth through meditation and physical exercises. Zhong Gong also emphasizes the diagnosis and healing of medical problems. Zhong Gong was a nationwide movement, with a strong presence in Xhannxi province, Inner Mongolia, Guangxi province, Yunnan province, and in Tianjin.


      Zhong Gong was banned by the Government of the People’s Republic of China as an “evil cult” in the 1999 or early 2000; it is unclear whether the group was legally registered prior to the ban. The ban against Zhong Gong was part of a larger crackdown in China against groups that the government viewed as “cults”. Several other groups, including Falun Gong, other qigong groups, and various Christian churches, were also banned by the Government during the second half of 1999, particularly from October 1999 though the end of the year. Zhong Gong claims that prior to the ban it had more than 1,000 teaching centers (including universities), over 180,000 coaches, and as many as 20 million adherents. The teaching centers reportedly have all been closed by the Government since October 1999. Zhong Gong also owned many businesses, Including the Qilin group, which was involved in the tourism industry and produced health products. These businesses have all been seized or shut down since late 1999. We are not aware of large scale arrests for participation in Zhong Gong, such as occurred with Falun Gong, but Zhong Gong practitioners, particularly senior leaders, have been arrested. The New York Times reported that a senior leader of Zhong Gong in Zhejiang province, Chen jinlong, was convicted in January 2000 of illegally practicing medicine and was sentenced to 2 years in prison. There have been reports that as many as 600 practitioners of Zhong Gong have been detained since October 1999, according to one representative of the group, at least 25 senior leaders remain imprisoned.


      We are unable to evaluate the specific charges made against the applicant by the Chinese Government. The government has been investigating the applicant since the early 1990’s. although it is not clear on what grounds. However, the dates of the alleged offenses when contrasted with the timing of the apparent investigations and resulting charges outlined in the materials recently received from the Government of the People’s Republic of China may raise questions regarding the charges filed against the applicant, which may merit further review. For example, we note that the rapes detailed in the materials provided by the Chinese Government were alleged to have occurred in June and November 1990, January 1991, and May, 1994. One report states that the investigation into the alleged crimes of Zhang Hongbao began immediately after the first rape complaint was received in October 1990, but none of the investigative reports or statements received from the Chinese Government is dated prior to November 1999―over nine years later, and after the Government took section against Zhong Gong. Similarly, the alleged forgeries took place in 1993 but the investigative statements received regarding the forgeries were not dated earlier that December 1999.


      We also note that the police and security forces in China regularly use torture in Interrogations and carry out criminal persecutions for political purposes (see the 1999 Country Report on Human rights Practices for China).



      Should you receive additional information that warrants further consideration, we will Be happy to review the file again.





                               Marc J. Susser, Director

                               Office of Country Reports and Asylum Affairs




(Attachment: The Document 2.)







Re: LL File No. 2000-9599

September 11, 2000


Dear Mr. Archey:


      In response to your recent request for assistance regarding the reliability of documents derailing serious criminal charges against Zhang Hongbao , please find attached a report on the subject prepared on the basis of the documents themselves and material available in the Law Library of Congress collection.


In our opinion, the reliability of the documents is questionable. The reasons for this assessment are set forth in detail in the report. The primary reason is that the documents do not provide an answer is to why it took ten years for the case to be brought against Mr. Zhang. And there are no supporting documents from the time of the offenses (1990-1994) in question. A second reason is that there is no explanation as to why it took so long for the victims to report the case. Although one victim did report the alleged rape in 1990, there is no document from that time; her testimony is signed in the year 2000. The other three victims signed testimony dates from November or December 1999. Other reasons and observations are also set forth in the Law Library report as well.


      It is hoped that this information will be of use to you.






                                                 Directorate of Legal Research

                                                 Law Libra

ry of Congress





Mr. David Archey

Assistants General Counsel

Office of the General Counsel, INS

U.S. Department of Justice

425 1 Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20536










Nature of the Task


      The office of the general Counsel (OGC) of the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice (DGJ) has requested assistance from the Law Library of Congress in assessing certain photocopied documents provided to the DGJ and Department of State by representatives from the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The documents detail serious criminal charges against Zhang Hongbao(A76282061), a PRC citizen seeking asylum in the United States who is currently involved in removal proceedings. Zhang is the founder and leader of a large Chinese spiritual movement, the China Life Preservation and Intellect Improvements Discipline, popularly known as “Zhong Gong”.


      The DGC seeks to determine whether and under what circumstances the INS might wish to introduce the document into evidence at Zhang’s hearing. Specifically, they would like an opinion on the reliability of said documents.


The Documentation


      The photocopies documents consist of a notarized “Findings report on Activities of Zhang Hongbao”, in Chinese with a notarized English translation, and nine Appendices all referenced in the Findings Report. Where provided, the notarized documents bear the seal of the Changan Notary Office. The Appendices have also almost all been translated into English. They include evidence on Zhang Hongbao regarding his identity (); his alleged rapes of four woman (LI Wenzhi, Zhang Yingxis, Liao Chunyan, Zhang Feng) (-); and his forged identity cards and illegal immigration abroad (); in addition, there are relevant regulations of the Criminal Law and Criminal Procedures Law () and the arrest warrants for Zhang issued by the Beijing Public Security Bureau () and the Pucheng County Public Security Bureau ().


General Assessment


      In our opinion, the reliability of the documents is questionable, and it is possible that PRC authorities concerned have made an excellent fabrication of documents regarding Zhang Hongbao. Thus even if the documents themselves are genuine, the whole case may be fabricated, with the documents manufactured retroactively. If one asks how such a fabrication could be orchestrated, it should be kept in mind that there is no judicial independence in the PRC, and that the courts, procuracy, and public security organs (police) are still essentially under the control of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) political-legal committees at each level. The authority for cresting the documentation could have been authorized, for example, by the top level Central Political-Legal committee (Zhongyang Zhengfa Wetywanhui) (CPLC). As of December 31, 1998, the CPL consisted of Secretary Luo Gan, who is also Secretary of the Secretariat of the CCP Central Committee; seven members, a Secretary-General (a concurrent member of 





      the CPLC), and two Deputy Secretaries-General. The Seven members include the heads of the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of State Security, and the Ministry of Justice”. Moreover, the notarial offices are under the supervision of the Ministry of Justice.




      1. The reasons for teaching the statement about are several questions raised by the documentation. The primary question is, why did it take 10 years (from the alleged reporting of the first rape) for the authorities to issue an arrest warrant for Zhang Hongbao? Both the Beijing Municipality warrant and the Pucheng County warrant are dated in the year 2000 (Junes 7 and July 25. Respectively). The statements of the investigation and the victims are dated either 1999 or 2000. Yet the alleged rapes occurred in 1990 (2 victims), 1991, and 1994.


      The Findings Report of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau states with reference to the case of Li Wenzhi (1990) that “the police started investigation immediately,” yet it is not until 2000 that the documentation appears and a warrant is issued. The Findings Report goes on to state that the investigation want “Further and deeper” and the investigators found evidence pointing at other rapes by Zhang Hongbao, but there is no official documentation from the time to back up this time.


      It may also be noted that each of the investigator’s testimony states that “my colleague X and I got/received” (jiedao) a report or accusation accusing Zhang Hongbbao of the rape in question. It is implied that the reports were filed by the victims, but the wording is vague. It is unclear whether the victim did indeed file the report or whether it was forwarded to the investigator from the Beijing authorities at part of the overall investigation. If an accusation were received from Beijing as an extension of the investigation that originated there, that fact would have been mentioned in the investigator’s testimony.


      Finally, according to the People’s Law (Feb. 1995),3people’s police have the responsibility of preventing stopping, and investigating illegal and criminal activities (art. 6.item 3). In order to investigate such activities, the police may, according to law, execute detention, search, or other compulsory measures (art. 12). They are also to “handle without delay cases reported by citizens” (art. 23). Again, this begs the question of why it took so long to bring charges against Zhang Hongbao, especially in cases involving the serious crime of rape.


      2. A second question is, why did three of the four victims fail to file the case immodestly? Zhang Yingsia (Documents, Appendix 3). Liao Chunyan (Appendix 4), and Zhang Peng (Appendix, 5) signed testimony against Zhang Hongbao on November 9, 1999, November 22, 1999, and December 3, 1999, respectively, and the investigators in each care report that they received the accusations against Zhang on those respective dates. Yet the rapes accursed in 1990, and 1994, respectively.



      Li wenzhi (Appendix 2) is the only victim who states the reported the alleged rape cites the time it occurred. She says in here statement (the most extensive) that she was raped on June 16, 1990, and reported the crime in October 1990. However, her testimony is dated May 22, 2000; no statement daring from 1990 is provided. Moreover, Li says, at that time she “strongly demanded that Zhang Hongbao should be handled according to law.” She adds in the next paragraph that “(o)nce again, I strong [sie] demand the law enforcement agency of the Chinese Government to Arrest Zhang Hongbao and bring back justice. As the victim’s husband, I strongly demand a severs punishment on Zhang Hongbao by the legal authorities of the government!” In the next paragraph, he states: “As a family member of the victim, I once again call on the legal authorities of the Chinese Government to bring Zhang Hongbao to justice so as to uphold justice for my wife Li Wenzhi and my family.” In addition, the calendar page (June 16, 1990. The date of the alleged rape) submitted as evidence by Li’s husband has scribbled on it in big letters “Day of burning shame! Revenge!” Given much strong words, one again is forced to ask why it took 10 years for the authorities to bring the evidence together and issue a warrant.


      Under the Criminal Procedure Law in effect during the time period of the alleged crimes, “upon discovery of facts of a crime or criminal suspects, state organs, organizations, enterprises, institutions, and citizens had the right and also the duty to bring complaints and accusations to the public security organs [police], the people’s procuratorates, and the people’s course, within the scope of jurisdiction provided in article 13 of this Law” (art. 59). 4 “Article 13 includes, among others, cases involving crimes of violation of the democratic rights of citizens. 5 Complaints and accusations could be submitted in written or oral form. Personnel who received oral accusations were to make a written transcript, and the accuser was to sign or place his/her seal on it after it was read to him and found tree of error (art. 60. Part. 1). The accuser’s name could be dept secret if he/she did not want it made public (art. 60. Part. 2). The people’s courts, the people’s procuratorates, and the public security organs were to “promptly” conduct a review of the materials involved, and if they believed there to be facts of a crime necessitating investigation of criminal responsibility, they were to file a case. If they decided not to file a case, they were to inform the complainant of the reasons why (art. 61.). These provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law beg the question of why the victims did not bring an accusation as the time, why the relevant organs took so long to act, and why there is no documentary evidence from the time period when the rapes occurred.





      3. The documents indicates that the authorities found out purely by coincidence, while investigation are unrelated criminal case in December 1999, about Zhang Hongbao’s alleged forgery of an identification card. That kind of coincidence, conveniently occurring during the same period when three of the alleged rape victims gave testimony, seems suspect.


      4. Additional observations


      In the investigations testimony, for three of the four cases the investigators all also article 236, on rape, of the Criminal Law of the PRC (1997) (in the other case, the investigations the article 263, which must be typographical error). However, according to article 12 of that Law, if an act was deemed a crime after the founding of the PRC and before the implementation of the revised law, and if under the provisions of Chapter IV, section 8, of the general provisions of the law (on limitation) it should be prosecuted, criminal responsibility is to be investigated according to the laws at that time.7 Some  reference perhaps should have been made, therefore, to article 139 of the old Criminal Law, 8 which was still in effect during the time the rapes occurred. The two articles, old and new, prescribe essentially the same punishment for rape: not less that three years and not more than 10 years of imprisonment, and not less than 10 year imprisonment, life imprisonment, or death if the circumstances are especially serious (the new law spells out five types of circumstances that will incur this heavier type of punishment).


      In Appendix III, the “Findings About the Rape of Zhang Yingxia” appended to the investigators” testimony and the “Testimony by the Victim” both state that Zhang Yingxia was born in 1935. However, the photocopy of Zhang’s ID card indicates that she was born in 1939. If the ID is valid, it seems odd that the victim, at least, would not catch a mistake in the date of her birth.


      The timing of the case against Zhang Hongbao coincides with the crackdown on unofficial spiritual movement in China, a crackdown that began in 1999 targeting the Falun gong. The standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC) of the PRC adopted the Decision on Banning Heretical Cult Organizations and Preventing and Punishing Cult Activities on October 30. 1999. Earlier that month, on October 8 and 9, 1999, respectively, the Procuratorial Committee of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court adopted explanations Concerning Laws Applicable to Handing Cases of Organizing and Employing Heretical Cult Organizations To Commit Crimes. The Decision states in Item I:


      1. Heretical cult organizations shall be resolutely banned according to law, and all of their original activities shall be dealt with severely. Heretical cults, operating under the guise of religion, qigong or other forms, employ various means to disturb social order and jeopardize people’s have and property and economic development, and they most be banned according to law and punished resolution. People’s courts, people’s procuratorates, public security, national security, and judicial and administrative organs shall fulfil their respective duties and join efforts in carrying out these tasks. To be severely deal with according to law are those who organize and



      Take advantage of cult organ organizations to violate national laws and administrative regulations, gather a crowd to make trouble, disrupt social order, and deceive others, cause deaths, rape women, swindle people out of their money and property or commit other crimes with superstition and heresy.


      The NPC Decision and judicial explanations were adopted in the wake of a large protest held on April 25, 1999, outside CCP headquarters by followers of Falun Gong. The large-scale demonstration took the authorities by surprise. The crackdown against Falun Gong, and later other groups, which combine qigong (traditional breathing techniques) with elements of Taoism and Buddhism, intensified throughout the year. In May 2000, new regulations against qigong groups were reportedly enacted by the government, requiring, among others, that each group have a Communist Party cell, that they be registered witch the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and that they be monitored by either the Ministry of Health or the Sports Administration. 9 In an internal instruction issued in August 2000. President Jiang Zemin reportedly called for enhanced efforts to crack down on Falun Gong and for strengthening surveillance of Zhong Gong. 10 In particular, he called for ferreting out key members of Zhong Gong organizations to prevent Zhong Gong from developing into a major force that world jeopardize social stability. According to the Hong Kong Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy, the CCP has been disturbed by the broad coverage in the press of the Zhong Hongbao case since his application for asylum in the U.S. became known in early August. In short, it can be argued that interest in taking action against the leaders of groups like Falun Gong occurred as the earliest only after the April 1999 process, and increased legal muscle behind the crackdown was strengthened only after October of that year. This intensified concern of the authorities to rein in those leaders may be a reason why documents against Zhang all dare from the year 2000.




      In an interview with Mike Wallace of the CBS news program ’60 Minutes,” which sired on Septermber 3, 2000, PRC President Jiang Zemin Quoted, in connection with the Wen Ho Lee case, the old Chinese proverb that “if you are out to condemn someone, you can always trump up a charge” (yu jia thi zui, he huan wu ci, Hit., if you want to charge someone with a crime, why worry about the words?) The same description could apply to the Zhang Hongbao case. We are of the view the documents in and of themselves are genuine, but to the extent that the organs concerned may have been ordered to produce them by higher authorities such as the Central Political-Legal Committee of the CCP, the veracity of the underlying may be questionable.



Prepared by

The Directorate of Legal Research

Law Library of Congress

September 2000


Back to Index >>

  Print this article