Chi Yin

May 26, 2022

Fang Junjin Illegal Intrusion Case (方俊金非法侵入住宅案)

Chi Yin

May 26, 2022

The defendant/exoneree

Fang Junjin (方俊金), born in 1973.

Facts

On February 12, 2009, a burglary was reported in Tubu Town, Yongxiu County of Jiangxi Province. The victim reported that three computer monitors were missing. The police collected a fingerprint on the package of a box of cigarettes found at the crime scene. Four years later, the police found that Fang Junjin’s fingerprint in the police fingerprint database matched the fingerprint from the crime scene. On April 11, 2013, Fang, who was in Pumei Town, Yunxiao County of Fujian Province, was detained by the Jiangxi police and taken back to Yongxiu County (these two counties are in two different provinces which are more than 700 kilometers away from one another).
The victim of the burglary was a criminal judge at the Yongxiu District Court. This is the criminal court where Fang was originally convicted.
After the fingerprint was collected, the police gave the cigarette box back to the victim and the victim discarded it. The police did not preserve the evidence.
The police did not find any other fingerprints of Fang at the crime scene.
Fang said that he was not tortured during police interrogation.

Procedural history

On April 24, 2013, Fang was formally arrested by the Yongxiu police.
On September 3, 2013, Fang was accused of burglary by the Yongxiu District Procuratorate of Jiangxi Province.
On November 7, 2013, Fang was convicted of the crime of illegal intrusion in the residence of another, and sentenced to 13-month imprisonment by the Yongxiu District Court.
On December 9, 2013, Fang’s case was remanded for retrial by the Jiujiang City Intermediate Court upon Fang’s appeal.
During the retrial, on March 11, 2014, the Yongxiu District Procuratorate withdrew the case on the grounds of insufficient evidence and decided to drop the charge.
On March 17, 2014, Fang was released from the Yongxiu County Detention Station.

Date of the conviction

November 7, 2013

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

March 17, 2014

Days incarcerated

339

Why was the case reopened/reversed

Fang never confessed. Fang’s lawyer claimed his client was innocent throughout the case.
The case had been highly publicized, which pressed the court to review it.
The Yongxiu District Procuratorate and the Yongxiu District Court realized the flaws during retrial.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

None. Fang never confessed.

Flawed police investigation

Fang, his family, neighbors and friends all testified that at the time of the crime, Fang was in Pumei Town of Fujian Province taking care of Fang’s mother, who had just had surgery. Pumei Town is 793 kilometers away from Tubu Town of Jiangxi Province where the crime was committed. But the police required Fang to provide videotapes for that period of time to prove his alibi.

Problematic forensic evidence

The fingerprint that matched Fang’s was found on the inside of the cigarette package box. But Fang had worked in a tobacco factory packing cigarettes in Yunxiao County of Fujian Province where this kind of cigarette is manufactured.

Prosecutorial errors

The procuratorate realized that the case was very weak when they granted the police application for approval of arrest, and changed the crime of burglary to the lesser crime of illegal intrusion of the residence of another. But the procuratorate changed the charge back to burglary again during indictment.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

None. Fang was represented by a lawyer who presented a defense of innocence.

Court's errors

The victim is one of the judges at the Yongxiu District Court and shared the same office with the presiding judge in Fang’s case. The presiding judge should have been recused.
The original judgment did not address how Fang had access to the residence, how he transferred three computer monitors out of the residence or the whereabouts of the monitors.

Other developments

In June 2014, Yongxiu Court officially offered an apology to Fang. Yongxiu local government reached an agreement with Fang on 236,000 RMB of State compensation.

Information sources

Chi Yin

May 25, 2022

Huge Jiletu Rape and Murder Case (呼格吉勒图强奸、故意杀人案)

Chi Yin

May 25, 2022

The defendant/exoneree

Huge Jiletu (呼格吉勒图), born in 1978; he was 18 when he was executed.

Facts

On the night of April 9, 1996, Huge heard a scream from a women’s restroom near where he worked. Huge and his friend Yan Feng went together to check out what happened. They discovered a female body, naked below the waist, on her back on top of a low wall in the women’s restroom. They reported the crime to the local police. On April 11, 1996, the police suspected that Huge was the perpetrator and detained him for interrogation. Huge was tortured by the police and finally confessed that he raped and killed the victim. Huge was convicted of hooliganism and intentional murder, and sentenced to death on May 23, 1996.
Nine years after Huge’s execution, Zhao Zhihong who was arrested for a series of rape and murder charges confessed that he was the real perpetrator in Huge’s case.
Other special facts about this case:
- Huge’s case was highly publicized in 1996 as a triumph of cracking down on crimes. Some police officers, prosecutors and judges were promoted due to their work on Huge’s case.
- In 1996, China was in its second “strike hard” campaign against violent crimes. The campaign required that certain types of crimes, usually violent crimes, should be punished strictly, severely and quickly. At that time, the authority to review death penalty cases was delegated to provincial high courts by the Supreme People’s Court. In Huge’s case, it was the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High Court that reviewed his appeal and affirmed his death penalty.

Procedural history

On May 23, 1996, Huge was convicted of hooliganism and intentional murder of a woman in a public restroom and sentenced to death by the Hohhot City Intermediate Court of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region.
On June 5, 1996, the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High Court affirmed the judgment and Huge’s death penalty upon his appeal.
On June 10, 1996, 62 days after the crime was discovered, Huge was executed.
On October 23, 2005, Zhao Zhihong, a serial rapist and killer was arrested. Among over 20 other cases of rape and murder from 1996 to 2005, Zhao voluntarily confessed that he also committed the crime in Huge’s case.
In March 2006, the Political-Legal Committee of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region started reviewing Huge’s case and concluded in August 2006 that Huge was wrongfully convicted.
On November 28, 2006, the Hohhot City Intermediate Court heard the Zhao Zhihong case.
On November 20, 2014, the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High Court re-opened the Huge case.
On December 15, 2014, after having reviewed all case documents, and retried the case, the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High Court announced that Huge was not guilty.

Date of the conviction

May 23, 1996

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

December 15, 2014

Days incarcerated

Executed.

Why was the case reopened/reversed

On October 23, 2005, Zhao Zhihong was arrested and confessed his crime in Huge’s case. Zhao’s confessions was voluntary and consistent. Since then, Huge’s family petitioned to re-open Huge case. Meanwhile, both cases were highly publicized by China’s news media and raised a lot of public attention. In March 2006, the Inner Mongolia Political-Legal Committee formed a review group on Huge case and preliminarily concluded that Huge was wrongfully convicted. Some news media in China kept reporting these two cases. Public opinion had a great impact on the re-opening of Huge case. On November 20, 2014, the Inner Mongolia High Court decided to re-open the case.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

The police deceived Huge by telling him that the victim did not die, and that he could go home as soon as he confessed.
Huge was physically and mentally tortured during police interrogation. They did not allow Huge to use the restroom unless he confessed first. Huge was told that he had to confess in accordance with what the police had told him. His testimonies during the first police interrogation and during the prosecutors’ interrogation contested that he did not commit the crime. But the procuratorate failed to pay attention to Huge’s contesting testimony.

Flawed police investigation

In order to explain Huge’s motive of the crime, the police tried to make eyewitness Yan Feng testify that Huge watched pornography. But Yan Feng contested. Under the pressure from the police, Yan Feng had to fabricate that Huge had made dirty jokes.

Problematic forensic evidence

The police collected the sperm sample from inside of the victim’s body. But no forensic test was done.
The police in Zhao Zhihong’s case also collected Zhao’s sperm sample, but did not conduct any forensic test to identify whether the sample from the victim matched the sample from Zhao.
In Huge’s case, the alleged most powerful incriminating evidence was the forensic evidence showing that the type of blood found in Huge’s nail matches that from the victim’s cut on her neck. But the first response police officer who investigated the crime scene informed a reporter at the Xinhua Net in 2014, that the victim did not have any cut. Unfortunately, this police officer did not handle this case after he handed the first report to the police station, and did not testify for the case.

Prosecutorial errors

The procuratorate did not check the work of the police before indicting Huge.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

Huge was represented by two lawyers, but the lawyers did not claim Huge was innocent. Instead, their defense hinged on attempting to obtain a lesser punishment and only argued that Huge was a first-time offender and a national minority.

Court's errors

Failed to exclude the illegally gathered evidence (i.e. confession extorted from torture, fabricated blood test from the victim’s neck).
Failed to admit Huge’s exculpatory testimony. Did not carefully analyze the conflicting evidence.

Other developments

It took nine years for the court to re-open the Huge case after Zhao Zhihong admitted that he was the real perpetrator in the Huge case. By that time, many of the people involved in the handling of Huge’s case had been promoted to high and important positions. A retired prosecutor who has supported the re-opening of Huge case was threatened and severely injured by anonymous people.
In December 2014, a Deputy Chief Judge of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High Court offered an apology to Huge’s parents.
On February 3, 2015, the parents of Huge received about RMB 2.05 million of State compensation.
The president of the Supreme People’s Court Zhou Qiang mentioned this case in his 2014 annual report to the National People’s Congress, stressing “we are the one that should be deeply blamed for those wrongfully convicted, such as Huge.”
Zhao Zhihong was convicted of four counts of crime: murder, rape, robbery and theft, and was sentenced to death in 2015. He was executed on July 30, 2019. However, the court held that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Zhao was the real perpetrator in Huge’s case.
In January 2016, 11 police officers, 7 prosecutors and 8 judges were held accountable for Huge’s wrongful conviction and were punished by the Chinese Communist Party’s internal disciplines from severe disciplinary admonition to major demerit recording.

Information sources

Chi Yin

May 20, 2022

Tian Weidong and Four Others, Robbery and Theft Case (田伟冬等五人抢劫、盗窃案)

Chi Yin

May 20, 2022

The defendants/exonerees

Tian Weidong (田伟冬), born in 1974 (21 at time of arrest in 1995)
Chen Jianyang (陈建阳), born in 1975 (20 at time of arrest in 1995)
Wang Jianping (王建平), born in 1976 (19 at time of arrest in 1995)
Zhu Youping (朱又平), born in 1975 (20 at time of arrest in 1995)
Tian Xiaoping (田孝平), born in 1977 (18 at time of arrest in 1995)

Facts

On March 20, 1995, Xu Caihua (female), a cab driver, was robbed and killed at a farm in Xiaoshan District of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province. On August 12, 1995, another cab driver, Chen Jinjiang (male), was robbed and killed inside his cab in Xinjie Town of Xiaoshan District. The local police failed to make any progress investigating the two cases until November 15, 1995, when they were offered a lead by a woman who had been placed under the police compulsory measure called sheltering and investigation for alleged prostitution. The informant told the police that she heard from another woman named Zheng Caifang that three men from Xiaoshan District named Chen Jianyang, A Dong, and Jianping were hired to kill a male cab driver with knives. No record shows that the police interviewed Zheng Caifang to verify the source of the lead. Within two weeks, many young men in Xiaoshan District with “Jian,” “Ping” or “Dong” in their given names were taken to local police stations for investigation.
All five defendants were at that time considered problematic youths in their communities. One by one, the police placed them under sheltering and investigation. The first four defendants had known each other before the case, but none had met the fifth defendant until their trial.
Apart from the above two incidents, Chen Jianyang and Tian Weidong were charged with stealing RMB1,600 worth of valuables on September 2, 1995.
Also apart from the above incidents, on October 5, 1995, Tian Xiaoping was arrested on the scene of a robbery of two truck drivers and was charged with the robbery.
Other special facts about the case:
- In the middle of 1995, Xiaoshan City had a months-long Strike Hard campaign.
- In 1996, China conducted a nationwide Strike Hard campaign.
- On March 17, 1996, the system of sheltering and investigation was formally abolished.

Procedural history

On November 28, 1995, Wang Jianping was placed under custody by the police. Subsequently, the other defendants were placed under custody and all five defendants were placed under the compulsory measure of sheltering and investigation.
On September 28, 1996, the five defendants were formally arrested.
Chen Jianyang, Tian Weidong, Zhu Youping and Tian Xiaoping were charged with (aggravated) robbery with the severe consequence of causing the death of Xu Caihua.
Chen Jianyang, Tian Weidong, Wang Jianping and Tian Xiaoping were charged with (aggravated) robbery with the severe consequence of causing the death of Chen Jinjiang.
Chen Jianyang and Tian Weidong were charged with theft.
Tian Xiaoping was charged with the robbery that occurred on October 5, 1995.
On July 11, 1997, the Hangzhou Intermediate Court of Zhejiang Province convicted the defendants of the crimes charged and sentenced Chen Jianyang, Tian Weidong, and Wang Jianping to death; sentenced Zhu Youping to death with a two-year suspension; and sentenced Tian Xiaoping to life imprisonment. The first four defendants appealed to the Zhejiang Provincial High Court. The fifth defendant did not appeal.
On December 29, 1997, the Zhejiang Provincial High Court reduced the sentence of the first three defendants to death with two years’ suspension. It sustained the sentence of the fourth defendant.

Date of the convictions

July 11, 1997

Date the wrongful convictions were reversed

July 2, 2013

Days incarcerated

31,590 (total for five defendants)

Why was the case reopened/reversed

Tian Weidong and Wang Jianping protested their innocence throughout their trials and continued after their convictions. On July 27, 2011, during a campaign to crack down on murders in Zhejiang Province, the Hangzhou police discovered that fingerprints of Xiang Shengyuan, a person with criminal history of robbery and theft, matched a bloody fingerprint found at the crime scene of the March 20, 1995 robbery. Xiang was arrested on January 4, 2013, and was convicted of murder and sentenced to death with a two-year suspension by the Jiaxing Intermediate Court of Zhejiang Province on May 30, 2013. On January 4, 2013, Zhejiang Provincial High Court realized the error and started reviewing the case of the five other men. On May 21, 2013, the Zhejiang Provincial High Court decided to re-open the case. On July 2, 2013, the Zhejiang Provincial High Court announced that the five defendants were not guilty of robbery on March 20, 1995 and August 12, 1995. The retrial found that Chen Jianyang and Tian Weidong were guilty of theft, and that Tian Xiaoping was guilty of the robbery that occurred on October 5, 1995.

Factors contributing to the wrongful convictions

False confessions

The five defendants were sleep-deprived and physically tortured. They all suffered from broken fingers and other bones. Due to torture, Tian Weidong tried to kill himself by biting off part of his tongue. All five recanted their confessions many times. Many details in their confessions did not match the crime scenes.

Problematic forensic evidence

A bloody fingerprint found at the scene did not match any of the five defendants. The Hangzhou police could not find a match to any other suspects at that time, so they decided to pursue their investigation against the five. Fingerprints reportedly found on a stone, which allegedly had been used to kill a victim, were not collected. Other weapons, wires, and knives, which were allegedly used to kill the victims, were not found by the police.

Prosecutorial errors

The case files show that prosecutors had 34 witnesses, but none of them was called to testify in court.

Court's errors

The Zhejiang High Court had found the case unclear and the evidence insufficient, but none of the judges of the collegial panel decided the five defendants should be free until the new president of the Zhejiang High Court took his position.

Other developments

A judge from the Zhejiang High Court issued an apology for the court’s mistakes involving the case and for causing the defendants to lose 17 years of freedom.
The five defendants applied for state compensation in 2013. As of May 17, 2020, their compensation cases were still pending.

Information sources

Chi Yin

May 13, 2022

Wrongful Convictions Case

Yu Yingsheng Murder Case (余英生故意杀人案)

Chi Yin

May 13, 2022

Wrongful Convictions Case

The defendant/exoneree

Yu Yingsheng (余英生), born in 1962

Facts

On December 2, 1996, Yu’s wife Han Lu was found raped and murdered in their bedroom at their apartment in Bengbu City of Anhui Province. The police did not find any evidence indicating that the apartment was broken into. Therefore, the police suspected that the culprit might be one of the victim’s acquaintances. On December 12, 1996, Yu was detained and interrogated for seven consecutive days. On December 19, 1996, the police claimed that the case was cleared and arrested Yu on December 22, 1996. The police alleged that Yu had disputes with his wife and killed her by cutting her neck. In order to cover the crime, Yu was also alleged to have moved the propane tank from the kitchen to their bedroom (where the victim was killed) and ignited a candle attempting to destroy the crime scene.
Other special facts about this case:
- Before getting involved in this case, Yu was a government official in Bengbu City, and was considered by his supervisors to be a prominent candidate for a promotion.
- On November 27, 1996, the Police Bureau of Bengbu City launched a strike hard campaign to crack down serious crimes.
- Yu’s parents-in-law told the police that Yu and Han got along fairly well, and that on the day of the crime, Yu took his son to school in the morning and then went to his office.

Procedural history

On April 7, 1998, Yu was convicted of intentional murder and sentenced to death with two-year suspension by the Bengbu Intermediate Court of Anhui Province. Yu appealed.
In September 1998, the Anhui Provincial High Court remanded the case to the intermediate court for retrial on the ground of insufficient evidence and unclear facts.
In September 1999, the Bengbu Intermediate Court retried the case and came to the same decision. Yu appealed this decision again.
On May 15, 2000, the Anhui Provincial High Court remanded the case for retrial again on the ground of insufficient evidence and unclear facts.
On October 25, 2000, the Bengbu Intermediate Court again convicted Yu of intentional murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Upon Yu’s appeal, the Anhui Provincial High Court affirmed the intermediate court’s decision on July 1, 2001.

Date of the conviction

December 22, 1996

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

August 13, 2013

Days incarcerated

6,099

Why was the case reopened/reversed

Yu’s lawyer and his family members had kept petitioning for Yu’s innocence throughout the 17 years he was incarcerated.
On May 8, 2013, the Petition Office of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate organized experts to discuss the Yu Yingsheng case.
On May 31, 2013, the Anhui Provincial High Court decided to reopen the case pursuant to Article 243 of the PRC Criminal Law, which is about the crime of false accusation.
On August 13, 2013, the Anhui Provincial High Court publicly announced that Yu was not guilty because of insufficient evidence and unclear facts in this case after retrial.
In August 2013, the Central Political Legal Committee (the CPLC) issued a guideline addressing the issue of wrongful convictions.
The Yu Yingsheng case was the first case where the defendant received the benefit of doubt in Anhui Province after the CPLC’s guideline.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

Yu was interrogated for seven consecutive days and nights. He was sleep deprived. He was forced to “shower” for three hours in cold water outside of a building when it was snowing. Yu claimed that the police forced him to come up with a story for this case.

Problematic forensic evidence

On February 3, 1997, a DNA testing of the stain on the victim’s underpants found human semen specimen and it did not match Yu. However, the prosecutor’s theory was that Yu collected the semen from a discarded condom of another person to tamper the crime scene.
The police originally found two fingerprints on the dresser in Yu’s bedroom, which did not match Yu or his family members. However, this evidence was not disclosed to the defense during the trials. The fingerprint report provided by the prosecutor stated that there were no fingerprints from non-family members at the crime scene. In 2013 when the case was reviewed, a document in the police’s possession about two foreign fingerprints at the crime scene was discovered.
The police did not test the fingerprints on the propane tank.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

None. The defense lawyer pointed out that the DNA testing excluded Yu as the perpetrator and defended Yu’s innocence.

Prosecutorial errors

The prosecutor failed to provide the exculpatory evidence - the testing of the two fingerprints- to the defense.
The prosecutor failed to reasonably explain why the DNA testing is not a match.

Court's errors

Failed to admit exculpatory evidence.
Failed to uphold the presumption of innocence.

Other developments

After Yu was released, the Bengbu Police re-investigated this case and retested the DNA sample collected 17 years ago. The new DNA testing linked to Wu Qinyuan, a local police officer. On November 27, 2013, Wu was approached by the police and confessed that he was the real culprit in Yu’s case. According to Wu’s confession, he knew Yu’s wife Han through common friends and liked her. On the day of the crime, he went to Han’s apartment and raped her when he found that she was home alone. While committing rape, Wu accidentally suffocated Han, so Wu decided to tamper the crime scene by moving the propane tank and igniting the candle in order to blow up the crime scene.
Through the years, Wu had been a police officer in Benghu City.
On May 5, 2015, Wu was convicted of rape and was sentenced to death by the Wuhu Intermediate Court of Anhui Province.
Wu attempted to tamper with the murder site by trying to burn it down. A gas can and an igniter candle were found on the spot. There were no fingerprints taken from the gas can or igniter candle. It appears the only evidence linking Wu to the crime was the DNA sample.
In 2013, Yu received state compensation of over 1 million RMB.
Yu’s family and Han’s mother received apologies from the police.

Information sources

Chi Yin

May 13, 2022

Zhao Zuohai Murder Case (赵作海故意杀人案)

Chi Yin

May 13, 2022

The defendant/exoneree

Zhao Zuohai (赵作海), born in 1952; he was 47 when he was arrested and was 58 when he was acquitted.

Facts

On October 30, 1997, Zhao Zuohai had a fight with Zhao Zhenshang (赵振晌), in which the former was injured. Zhao Zhenshang was not seen afterward. In February 1998, police detained Zhao Zuohai for investigation for 20 days and then released. On May 8, 1999, a body was found in an advanced state of decay in Zhao Zuohai’s village. The police did not find the head or the legs of the body. The next day, police again detained Zhao Zuohai. From May 10 to June 18, 1999, Zhao Zuohai confessed nine times after being seriously tortured by the police.
Other special facts about this case:
- The body was identified by Zhao Zhenshang’s family. No DNA identification was done.
- Zhao Zuohai did not appeal his conviction.
- Zhao Zuohai was represented by a legal intern, not a lawyer.
- The procuratorate delayed charging Zhao Zuohai because of insufficient evidence until directed to do so by the local political-legal committee as part of a campaign to clear a backlog of cases.

Procedural history

Zhao Zuohai was charged with the crime of intentional murder of his fellow villager Zhao Zhenshang. He was convicted and sentenced to death with a two-year suspension by the Shangqiu Intermediate Court of Henan Province. Zhao Zuohai did not appeal.

Date of the conviction

December 5, 2002

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

May 9, 2010

Days Incarcerated

2,712

Why was the case reopened/reversed

On April 30, 2010, Zhao Zhenshang reappeared at his village and confessed that on the night of the fight with Zhao Zuohai, he injured Zhao Zuohai’s head with a chopping knife. Out of concern that Zhao Zuohai might die, Zhao Zhenshang grabbed some personal belongings and fled. Zhao Zhenshang survived by collecting and reselling recyclables during his absence. Zhao Zhenshang came back to his village because he had had a stroke and could not afford any treatment.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

Zhao Zuohai was tortured by the police, who kicked, punched, and hit him with gun handles and sticks. They set off firecrackers on his head. He confessed after torture, but recanted and claimed his innocence in court.

Flawed police investigation

In order to find an excuse to explain the fight between Zhao Zuohai and Zhao Zhenshang, the police tortured a witness surnamed Du to force her to admit that the two men fought over her.

Dubious witness identification/statements

Zhao Zhenshang’s family identified the body as Zhao Zhenshang without checking any personal features on his body (such as the clothes).
Zhao Zhenshang’s family did not report that Zhao Zhenshang’s personal belongings were missing after his disappearance.

Problematic forensic evidence

The police did not look for a weapon.
No DNA identification indicated that the victim was Zhao Zhenshang.

Prosecutorial errors

The procuratorate returned the case to the police twice for additional investigation, but compromised with the police after the Shangqiu City Political-Legal Committee intervened.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

Zhao Zuohai was represented by a legal intern who was not a qualified lawyer.

Court's errors

Failed to admit Zhao Zuohai’s in-court testimony.
Did not exclude illegally gathered evidence (such as Zhao Zhuhai’s coerced confession and Ms. Du’s coerced statements).
Although no DNA test was done to identify the victim as Zhao Zhenshang, the court convicted the defendant and imposed a lenient sentence under the consideration of unforeseen circumstances (whether the victim was Zhao Zhenshang).

Other developments

Three police officers in Zhao Zuohai’s case were arrested after Zhao Zuohai’s exoneration.
Four judges responsible for reviewing the case were suspended and investigated.
This case triggered awareness of the problem of wrongful convictions.
The chief judge of the Henan Provincial High Court apologized to Zhao Zuohai after his exoneration.
Zhao Zuohai received RMB 650,000 from the government as state compensation.