AustraliaFive years after his arrest in China, Chinese-born writer Yang Hengjun (also known as Yang Jun) was arrested in Beijing on the eve of the Spring Festival.detectiveHe was sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve (ie a suspended death sentence), which attracted attention.Hong Kong media reported that Yang Hengjun’s indictment was exposed on social media. He was accused of taking advantage of his work at the Hainan Provincial State Security Department from 1994 to 2002.hong kongand other locations sold 40 classified documents to Taiwan’s military intelligence agency at a total cost of approximately HK$4.4 million. His Hong Kong girlfriend Wu Yanyan was also involved in espionage crimes and was dealt with in a separate case.
Hong Kong media reported that on February 5, the Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court found Yang Hengjun guilty of espionage and sentenced him to a suspended death sentence. Australian Prime Minister Albanese and Foreign Minister Huang Yingxian both expressed “outrage” and “surprise”. At a time when China-Australia relations are easing, Yang Hengjun’s harsh punishment attracted external attention.
The report pointed out that the court did not disclose which country or region was involved in Yang Hengjun’s espionage crime. The verdict states that Yang provided intelligence to Taiwan’s intelligence services while working in Hong Kong in 1994, according to his friend Feng Chongyi, a professor at the University of Technology in Sydney. He said Yang has denied all the allegations.
American democracy activist Chen Chuangchuang highlighted the 2020 indictment against Yang Hengjun by the Second Branch of the Beijing Municipal People’s Procuratorate on social platforms.
The indictment states that after a legal review, it was found that between April 1994 and 2002, in order to obtain higher espionage funds, defendant Yang Jun sent his girlfriend Wu Yanyan (handled in a separate case) “surrender letters.” “Instructed to mail. For Taiwan’s “Ministry of National Defence” in Hong Kong. Intelligence Bureau” colluded and accepted the task of collecting and providing intelligence for Taiwan’s spy organizations assigned by Taiwan Military Intelligence Bureau personnel, and was assigned the pseudonym “Jiang Ping” and a dedicated communication Had.Known.
The indictment states that defendant Yang Jun took advantage of his work at the Hainan Provincial State Security Department by borrowing, photographing, copying, etc., and obtaining documents and materials constituting China’s state secrets and recording them on videotape. Computer disk for creating or storing. Together with Wu Yanyan, he met with Taiwanese people in Hong Kong and other places several times, and provided video tapes and computer discs containing 40 documents to Taiwan’s Military Intelligence Bureau, and collected US$220,000 and more. 2.7 million Hong Kong dollars in espionage funds. After identification by the State Secrets Administration of China, 31 documents were top-secret state secrets and 9 documents were confidential-level state secrets.
The indictment also states that the defendant Yang Jun (English name: Junyang, formerly known as Yang Hongjun, alias Yang Hengjun, pseudonym “Jiang Ping”), born on October 10, 1965 He was of Australian nationality, a doctoral candidate and a graduate. Students in Columbia, New York, United States before the incident. University visiting scholar, professional freelance writer, born in Hubei Province. On suspicion of espionage, he was placed under residential surveillance by the Beijing National Security Bureau on January 19, 2019, criminally detained on July 17, and arrested on August 23. On March 23, 2020, the investigation into Yang Jun’s suspected espionage case was concluded and transferred to the Procuratorate for review and prosecution.
The indictment revealed that Beijing lawyers Mo Shaoping and Shang Baojun served as defendants in the case. During this period, due to the seriousness and complexity of the case, the deadlines for review and prosecution were extended three times; Because some facts were unclear and evidence was insufficient, the case was returned to the investigating agency twice for supplementary investigation.