Bin Yue Yu Yun | How can a court office become a “crime scene” when a judge molests a party?

Lv Moumou, a judge of the Luliang Intermediate People’s Court in Shanxi Province, who was exposed for molesting the parties involved in a case, has been suspended. The local discipline inspection and supervision department has intervened. According to Ms. Wang’s report and on-site audio evidence, Lv Moumou deceived the party involved into his office under the pretext of “signing new evidence,” and then carried out molestation behaviors such as hugging, touching sensitive parts, and forcibly kissing. Currently, the police have filed an administrative case for this case.  

What is shocking about this case is not only that a judge actually molested the parties involved in the case, but also that he used his position and abused his power to commit crimes in the name of handling the case. Those who should have defended the law have become those who trample on the law; those who should have protected the parties involved have become the perpetrators. This huge contrast between identity and behavior is chilling.  

However, in addition to anger, we need to calmly ask a key question: when the court inquires about the case, according to regulations, two staff members should participate. Why was Lv Moumou able to call the party involved to his office alone and carry out illegal acts?  

This is not a detail issue, but a loophole in the system. According to relevant judicial procedures in our country, when a judge inquires the parties involved, conducts mediation, or verifies evidence during the handling of a case, in principle, more than two staff members should be present. The original intention of this regulation is not only to ensure the fairness and transparency of the procedure, but also to protect the legitimate rights and interests of both the parties involved and judicial staff, to prevent one party from improper behavior towards the other, and also to prevent disputes of “each holding their own opinion” from occurring afterwards.  

However, the Lv Moumou case exactly exposed the “laxity” that may exist in the implementation of this regulation. How did he bypass the system constraints and get the opportunity to be alone with the parties involved? Is there a loophole in the internal management of the court, or has this type of regulation been “habitually ignored” in its implementation? These questions, while the discipline inspection and supervision department investigates Lv Moumou’s personal responsibility, also need to be clarified.  

In fact, similar problems are not isolated cases. In some grassroots courts, due to the shortage of personnel and busy work, the regulation of “two people present” is sometimes “flexibly handled.” Some judges, under the pretext of “just signing a simple signature” or “it will be over soon,” ask the clerk or other staff to leave temporarily. This practice of “saving trouble” seems to improve efficiency, but in fact, it has buried huge risks. Once someone has evil intentions, the office becomes a hotbed of illegal behavior.  

What is even more alarming is that the identity of a judge itself has authority. The parties involved naturally have trust and awe for the judge. When the judge asks the parties involved to cooperate under the pretext of “case handling needs,” it is difficult for the parties involved to have doubts. Lv Moumou precisely used this trust, first deceiving Ms. Wang by saying “signing new evidence,” and then carrying out molestation in the office. This abuse of “official convenience” is more malicious than the illegal behavior of ordinary people, because it tramples on the law, betrays trust, and tarnishes judicial credibility at the same time.  

This case also reminds us of a simple but often overlooked truth: a person’s behavior does not necessarily have a positive correlation with the knowledge they have learned and the profession they are engaged in. People who study law are not necessarily law-abiding, and people who understand the law are not necessarily in awe of the law. Legal knowledge can become a weapon to defend justice, and it can also become a tool for evil. Lv Moumou, as a judge, must have received systematic legal education and be familiar with the provisions of the criminal law regarding the crime of molestation, but this did not stop his criminal behavior at all. On the contrary, he precisely used his understanding of procedural loopholes and his grasp of the parties’ psychology to commit the crime.  

This shows that the constraints of the system on people are far more reliable than the reliance on personal moral cultivation. We cannot expect that every person who holds power is a moral person. We must, through rigorous system design, make those who harbor evil intentions “unable to do” and “dare not do.”  

Therefore, the handling of this case should not stop at the punishment of Lv Moumou himself. During the investigation, the discipline inspection and supervision department should simultaneously examine whether the court where Lv Moumou works has dereliction of duty in internal management, procedure execution, and supervision mechanisms. If the regulation of “two people present” has been in a state of being empty for a long time, then the relevant leaders and management personnel should also bear corresponding responsibilities.  

At the same time, this case should also serve as a warning to the national court system. Courts at all levels should check whether they have strictly implemented the procedural regulations for questioning the parties involved, whether there are similar safety hazards, and whether it is necessary to further improve the supervision mechanism for the reception, questioning, and mediation of the parties involved? For example, whether the installation of audio and video equipment in offices, mediation rooms, and other places can effectively curb similar illegal behaviors?  

Lv Moumou’s behavior has pushed himself from the trial bench to the defendant’s bench. What awaits him will be legal punishment. But the investigation of one Lv Moumou does not mean that all similar risks have been eliminated. Only by plugging loopholes in the system, strengthening supervision in management, and reshaping awe in culture can we truly make every party involved who enters the court feel safe and just.  

Those who break the law while knowing the law will be punished more severely. This sentence applies not only to Lv Moumou, but also to all those who abuse their power and act arbitrarily. The law is not a talisman, but a shackle. Whoever dares to seek personal gain by abusing power and harming others with the law must pay a heavy price.