Re-exploration on Yang Bin’s Case

Here we are not describing Yang Bin event from the perspective of politics or international relations, but from the perspective of fact-finding regarding Yang Bin’s “violations” of relevant financial regulations and laws in China on a deep-level.
In Chapter 13 Trial of Yang Bin, I disclosed relevant records in detail which I obtained from attending the court trial. That included the statements and testimony of the prosecutor, the defense statement of several lawyers, the defense statement of Yang Bin, and the second trial conviction. I believe that readers can judge the right and wrong by themselves.
In July 2004, the Korean version of my book “Unlucky Prometheus, the Fire Bringer- Yang Bin as Far as I Know” was published in Seoul. I visited South Korea for a month in the name of a visiting scholar and participated in the launching ceremony of the Korean version of this book. I was invited to make a speech “On Kim Jong II’s Reform and Opening-up Policy from the initiative of Sinuiju SAR” in South Korea Congress Hall. I gave lectures in Busan, Cheju Island and other places and attended the seminar held by universities and associations there. I also received interviews by KBS TV station, Yonhap News Agency, East Asia Daily Newspaper, Chosun Daily Newspaper, and other media. They were really concerned about the reform and opening-up of North Korea, in particular the Sinuiju SAR and Yang Bin event. The most difficult for me to answer was, “China government had expressed support for the Sinuiju SAR of North Korea, so why did they arrest Yang Bin?” I answered, “During the course of business, he violated some relevant laws in China.” A Congress member who was a former lawyer then asked, “I have found that in Mr. Guan’s book, several criminal charges there can not constitute any crime in foreign countries. Such charges include withdrawal of registered capital, and illegal occupation of agricultural land, which was by the way approved by your government. What he did was simply delays in making his payment. Why did China government give him such a heavy sentence of 18 years in jail? Obviously, the arrest of Yang Bin was in fact aiming at Sinuiju SAR.” I was really speechless, but I said, “Yang Bin offended the laws of China. China’s laws are formulated according to China’s domestic conditions. But the laws of South Korea are based on South Korea’s domestic conditions. Different country has different laws.”
In fact, the six counts of charges on Yang Bin by Shenyang Intermediate People’s Court and Liaoning Province High Court were also shaky and unjust even according to laws of China.
In Chapter 12, “The End of Yang Bin Myth”, I commented at the end, “We must believe that China’s laws are fair, open and transparent.” I still firmly believe in this point. History will be a fair judge for everything.
For convenience of illustration, and to help readers understand Yang Bin’s case more clearly and more briefly, I would like to re-summarize the six counts of charges on Yang Bin by the prosecutor: (1) fictitious investment; (2) illegal occupation of agricultural land; (3) contractual fraud; (4) forging financial bills and notes; (5) bribing government unit; and (6) bribing staff in government unit.
Of the six counts, the 3rd, 5th, and 6th charges were all related to “the solution created to solve the problem of ‘the balance of land’ for Euro-Asia Group”. From there Euro-Asia Group triggered offenses of the “contractual fraud” and “bribery”, which can also be regarded as one charge in aggregate. So then we can summarize into four counts of charges.
On these four counts, Yang Bin’s defending lawyer, Cao Shuchang from Beijing King & Capital Lawyers Firm, has made a brief statement. The original copy is as follows, for readers’ reference