A federal court upheld the decision to deport Chinese fugitive Lai Changxing to China on Thursday night.
Lai, who is accused of masterminding a multi-billion dollar smuggling ring in China, was fighting against a deportation order handed down to him earlier this month after four years of deliberations, just a few days ahead of Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird’s trip to China.
In his ruling, Justice Michel Shore said Lai failed to prove that he will face execution or torture if deported, citing assurances given by Chinese authorities.
During the hearing, Lai’s lawyer, David Matas, who is currently in Germany, told the court via a teleconference that the Chinese regime’s efforts to have Lai extradited are a “political campaign” to show that it is fighting corruption.
Matas said his client would not be given a fair trial in China and would face torture. He mentioned the case of Tao Mi, a witness in Lai’s case in China, as a case in point as to why Lai should not be deported.
Tao Mi was at one time employed by Lai and had provided testimony in his case to Chinese authorities.
Matas was concerned that the testimonies from her and others in the case were given under coercion. In 2001 he asked Clive Ansley, a Canadian lawyer with an office in Shanghai, to get testimonies from Tao and the other witnesses to later present in a Canadian court as evidence.
Officials from Citizenship and Immigration Canada guaranteed that the testimonies will be kept confidential and would not be surrendered to Chinese authorities.
Ansley opened the first foreign law office in Shanghai in 1984. During his 14 years of practice in China, he handled roughly 300 litigation cases involving Chinese courts on behalf of foreign clients. He also served as president of the Canadian Business Forum in Shanghai and the Canada China Business Council, Shanghai Chapter, for two terms.
Ansley says Tao approached him in his office and after being assured that Chinese authorities would not find out about her testimony, told him that her testimony to the Chinese authorities was not true. She said she was forced to testify against Lai because the authorities threatened that she would not be allowed to see her 2-year-old child again if she didn’t comply.
Tao told Ansley that she was tortured by Chinese police while she was in custody for two months. She said she was chained to a bed and only allowed to wear underwear. Even when going to the restroom she was watched by a male police officer.
Ansley says despite the guarantees given by Canadian officials, Tao’s identity, as well as his own identity and identities of a dozen other witnesses who provided testimony to him in his office, were not kept confidential. Tao was later arrested and Ansley was asked to leave China.
In a video presented during a Canadian court hearing around that time, Ansley says he saw Tao being interrogated by Canadian officials in presence of Chinese police, and being asked if she had met with a Canadian lawyer in Shanghai.
Ansley says they have not heard from Tao since and worry that she has been killed by the Chinese regime.
“Tao Mi had said to me at least five or six times that if the Chinese police find out that I talked to you, I’m dead, I’m dead. And we think that she is dead, as a matter of fact,” Ansley says.
A spokesperson with Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) declined to comment on this issue, saying “portions of proceedings and records in this case are confidential.”
When Lai submitted his refugee application, the Chinese authorities and then-Premier Zhu Rongji immediately reacted by seeking Lai’s extradition and publicly promised that Lai will not face the death penalty if deported, according to journalist and human rights activist Sheng Xue who has written a book on Lai.
“However, while Premier Zhu made this promise, eight people involved in the case were already sentenced to death. Lai is the main suspect of the case,” says Sheng.
“While the main suspect was absent, the accomplices were sentenced to death. Wouldn’t it be unfair to those accomplices if the main suspect did not receive the death penalty? On the other hand, if Lai was indeed sentenced to death, then the Chinese government’s promise would be viewed as a lie.”
Lai’s alleged smuggling scandal has implicated 500 officials. Twenty-one have been sentenced to death, and eight people have been executed. Several have been reported to have committed suicide, while some others, including Lai’s older brother, have died mysteriously in prison.
Sheng says China’s judicial system is “far from independent” and that promises by the Chinese regime are not trustworthy.
“Who does the Chinese court kowtow to? … It is the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] who is controlling the court,” says Sheng.
Sheng says the CCP will keep him alive for a period of time, but will subject him to physical and mental torture.
“The CCP is very cunning at such things.”
Additional reporting by Teng Dongyu.
Lai, who is accused of masterminding a multi-billion dollar smuggling ring in China, was fighting against a deportation order handed down to him earlier this month after four years of deliberations, just a few days ahead of Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird’s trip to China.
In his ruling, Justice Michel Shore said Lai failed to prove that he will face execution or torture if deported, citing assurances given by Chinese authorities.
During the hearing, Lai’s lawyer, David Matas, who is currently in Germany, told the court via a teleconference that the Chinese regime’s efforts to have Lai extradited are a “political campaign” to show that it is fighting corruption.
Matas said his client would not be given a fair trial in China and would face torture. He mentioned the case of Tao Mi, a witness in Lai’s case in China, as a case in point as to why Lai should not be deported.
Witness Feared Dead
Tao Mi was at one time employed by Lai and had provided testimony in his case to Chinese authorities.
Matas was concerned that the testimonies from her and others in the case were given under coercion. In 2001 he asked Clive Ansley, a Canadian lawyer with an office in Shanghai, to get testimonies from Tao and the other witnesses to later present in a Canadian court as evidence.
Officials from Citizenship and Immigration Canada guaranteed that the testimonies will be kept confidential and would not be surrendered to Chinese authorities.
Ansley opened the first foreign law office in Shanghai in 1984. During his 14 years of practice in China, he handled roughly 300 litigation cases involving Chinese courts on behalf of foreign clients. He also served as president of the Canadian Business Forum in Shanghai and the Canada China Business Council, Shanghai Chapter, for two terms.
Ansley says Tao approached him in his office and after being assured that Chinese authorities would not find out about her testimony, told him that her testimony to the Chinese authorities was not true. She said she was forced to testify against Lai because the authorities threatened that she would not be allowed to see her 2-year-old child again if she didn’t comply.
Tao told Ansley that she was tortured by Chinese police while she was in custody for two months. She said she was chained to a bed and only allowed to wear underwear. Even when going to the restroom she was watched by a male police officer.
Ansley says despite the guarantees given by Canadian officials, Tao’s identity, as well as his own identity and identities of a dozen other witnesses who provided testimony to him in his office, were not kept confidential. Tao was later arrested and Ansley was asked to leave China.
In a video presented during a Canadian court hearing around that time, Ansley says he saw Tao being interrogated by Canadian officials in presence of Chinese police, and being asked if she had met with a Canadian lawyer in Shanghai.
Ansley says they have not heard from Tao since and worry that she has been killed by the Chinese regime.
“Tao Mi had said to me at least five or six times that if the Chinese police find out that I talked to you, I’m dead, I’m dead. And we think that she is dead, as a matter of fact,” Ansley says.
A spokesperson with Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) declined to comment on this issue, saying “portions of proceedings and records in this case are confidential.”
Chinese Judicial System ‘Far from Independent’
When Lai submitted his refugee application, the Chinese authorities and then-Premier Zhu Rongji immediately reacted by seeking Lai’s extradition and publicly promised that Lai will not face the death penalty if deported, according to journalist and human rights activist Sheng Xue who has written a book on Lai.
“However, while Premier Zhu made this promise, eight people involved in the case were already sentenced to death. Lai is the main suspect of the case,” says Sheng.
“While the main suspect was absent, the accomplices were sentenced to death. Wouldn’t it be unfair to those accomplices if the main suspect did not receive the death penalty? On the other hand, if Lai was indeed sentenced to death, then the Chinese government’s promise would be viewed as a lie.”
Lai’s alleged smuggling scandal has implicated 500 officials. Twenty-one have been sentenced to death, and eight people have been executed. Several have been reported to have committed suicide, while some others, including Lai’s older brother, have died mysteriously in prison.
Sheng says China’s judicial system is “far from independent” and that promises by the Chinese regime are not trustworthy.
“Who does the Chinese court kowtow to? … It is the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] who is controlling the court,” says Sheng.
Sheng says the CCP will keep him alive for a period of time, but will subject him to physical and mental torture.
“The CCP is very cunning at such things.”
Additional reporting by Teng Dongyu.
