In February 2026, former investigative journalist Liu Hu and his collaborator Wu Yingjiao were taken into criminal custody by Chengdu police on suspicion of the crimes of false accusation and illegal business operations, which attracted widespread public attention. To date, the police have not disclosed the specific facts and key evidence of the case, and the public still has core questions about what exactly Liu Hu has done. Although the outside world can make reasonable inferences based on the logic of the charges and public information, compared to the unclear physical facts, the procedural disputes exposed in the investigation stage are more worthy of vigilance and attention from all walks of life.
1. Inference of charges and factual vacuum: Rational waiting, but also calling for procedural transparency
The police only listed two charges involved in the case in the notice, without disclosing any details of the case, which directly led to speculation. Combined with Liu Hu’s long-term deep cultivation in public opinion supervision and his article “The Secretary of the Sichuan County Party Committee Who Forced a Professor to Death, Now Forces a Business to Bankruptcy” published before the incident, the outside world generally believes that this case is directly related to this supervisory report.
From the perspective of the legal elements, the establishment of the crime of false accusation requires the simultaneous satisfaction of three core elements: fabricating criminal facts, intending to subject others to criminal prosecution, and reporting to judicial organs. The articles published by Liu Hu belong to the scope of public opinion supervision and are not reported to judicial organs, and whether he has fabricated facts, there is no evidence to support it at present; and the accusation of illegal business operations is even more vague, and at this stage, there is no public information showing that his behavior meets the circumstances of the judicial interpretation that clearly defines the paid release of false information, disrupting market order, etc. It is worth noting that Liu Hu was previously detained for 346 days for reporting officials, and was eventually not prosecuted due to unclear facts and insufficient evidence. The case has long become a landmark case in the demarcation of public opinion supervision and criminal accountability.
It must be made clear that all external speculations are based on public information and the logic of the charges, and are by no means the established truth of the case. It is indeed necessary to keep the investigation stage of criminal cases confidential, but confidentiality must not become an excuse to cover up procedural flaws. The public should remain rational and not pre-emptively assume a guilty or innocent position, and at the same time, they expect the investigating authorities to promote the case proceedings in accordance with the law and respond to public doubts with open and transparent operations. Whether it is to protect the legitimate rights of public opinion supervisors or to safeguard the law enforcement authority of public power organs, it must be based on facts and the law as the criterion, and procedural justice is the basic premise and core guarantee for achieving this goal.
2. The core of procedural disputes: Why is the right to meet with a lawyer obstructed?
Compared to the unknown physical facts of the case, the procedural problems exposed in the investigation stage more directly touch the bottom line of the rule of law. Article 39 of the Criminal Procedure Law clearly stipulates that, except for special cases such as endangering national security and terrorist activities, defense lawyers do not need approval to meet with criminal suspects, and the detention center must arrange a meeting within 48 hours. The original intention of this article is to implement the right of the parties to defense by guaranteeing the core right of lawyers to meet, and to prevent investigative activities from deviating from legal supervision and breeding dark box operations from the root.
However, the process of lawyers meeting in the Liu Hu case is significantly different from the legal provisions. On February 3, Liu Hu’s agents, lawyers Zhou Ze and Liu Qing, went to the detention center to apply for a meeting with their lawyer’s practice certificates, law firm certificates, and letters of authorization, but were rejected by the detention center on the grounds that there were too many lawyers and no prior appointment was made, and they were not able to arrange a meeting that day; Lawyer Zhou Ze was explicitly told, “You can’t see him today, come tomorrow morning.” The agent of another party, Wu Yingjiao, also encountered similar meeting obstacles.
From the perspective of procedural legality, the above practices are significantly controversial. First, no appointment is by no means a legal reason for refusal. The relevant laws and judicial interpretations clearly require that the detention center should handle the legal meeting applications of lawyers immediately with complete materials; second, 48 hours is the maximum time limit for arranging meetings stipulated by law. As of the morning of February 4, more than 48 hours had passed since Liu Hu was taken into custody. If a meeting could not be realized at this time, it would have already violated the procedure. The right of lawyers to meet is the core basis for the implementation of the parties’ right to defense. Once the right to meet is obstructed, the legitimate demands of the parties cannot be conveyed, the details of the case cannot be verified, and their own rights and interests will fall into a passive position. The fairness and legality of the investigation activities will be even less guaranteed. It is especially worth being vigilant that the agents of the two parties in this case have encountered meeting obstacles at the same time, which inevitably makes the outside world reasonably question the neutrality of the investigation procedure.
3. Remedies for procedural violations: Statutory channels must be unobstructed
In the face of possible procedural violations, the law has pre-set clear remedies, which is also an important part of procedural justice. According to Article 113 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the procuratorial organs have the statutory duty of supervision over the investigation activities of the public security organs. If the parties and defense lawyers believe that the investigation procedure is illegal, they can apply to the procuratorial organs for investigation supervision in accordance with the law, and require the public security organs to explain the reasons for the investigation. If the reasons are not valid, the procuratorial organs have the right to notify them to withdraw the case.
In response to the issue of restricted lawyer’s right to meet, the defense lawyer can directly complain to the procuratorial office stationed in the detention center, or submit a written correction opinion to the complaint and appeal department of the procuratorate at the same level, requesting the timely correction of the illegal obstruction of the meeting; in addition, they can also apply for bail for the parties in accordance with the law, or submit a legal opinion of disapproval of arrest during the procuratorial organ’s review and approval of arrest, and promote the case to return to the track of the rule of law through legal procedures. These remedies fully demonstrate that procedural justice should not remain on paper, but should become an institutional guarantee that can be implemented through legal action, and its core key lies in whether the channels for remedies can be unobstructed and whether the procuratorial organs can effectively perform their legal supervisory duties.
Previously, the Tangshan Ma Shushan case was precisely because the procuratorial organs performed their supervisory duties in accordance with the law and promptly corrected the procedural problems in the investigation stage, and finally withdrew the prosecution because there was no criminal fact, which not only cleared the parties’ innocence, but also demonstrated the dignity of the rule of law. In the Liu Hu case, procuratorial supervision also plays a key role. Only by the procuratorial organs taking the initiative to intervene and strictly examining the legality of the investigation procedure can the case be ensured to be promoted within the track of the rule of law.
In conclusion, we expect the case to be strictly promoted in accordance with the statutory procedures throughout the process: if it is confirmed that Liu Hu has committed a crime through investigation, he must be punished in accordance with the law, and he will not be given special treatment because of his identity as a public opinion supervisor; if it is finally found that there is no factual basis and insufficient evidence, the case should also be resolutely withdrawn and the parties should be cleared of their innocence. Regardless of the final outcome of the case, procedural justice must run through the entire process of investigation, prosecution, and trial. Only by making every link of the case withstand the test of law and time can we truly win the trust of the public, uphold the bottom line that the rule of law cannot be crossed, allow public opinion supervisors to dare to speak out in accordance with the law, and also allow public power to operate in a standardized manner under procedural constraints.
Discover more from 自由档案馆
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.