EndCCPWorld.com

第三十六案 | 金明日与北京锡安教会Case 36 | Jin Mingri & Beijing Zion Church

北京最大的家庭教会之一锡安教会，因拒绝在圣所安装监控摄像头，2018年9月被取缔；2025年10月，当局跨省抓捕近三十名锡安牧者同工，金明日被捕，2026年7月获释抵美，同案仍有八人在押。Beijing Zion Church, once among the capital's largest house churches, was banned in September 2018 after refusing surveillance cameras in its sanctuary. In October 2025 police across China seized nearly thirty Zion pastors and workers; Jin Mingri was arrested, released in July 2026 and reached the United States, while eight co-workers remain in custody.

Time

2007: Jin Mingri (Ezra Jin) founds Zion Church in Beijing. February 1, 2018: revised Regulations on Religious Affairs take effect. From April 2018: authorities demand surveillance cameras inside the worship hall; the church refuses. September 9, 2018 (a Sunday): the Chaoyang District Civil Affairs Bureau bans Zion Church and seals its premises. From 2018: Jin is placed under an exit ban. October 10–11, 2025: coordinated nationwide arrests of Zion pastors and staff; Jin is taken in Beihai, Guangxi. Around November 18, 2025: 18 people are formally arrested. July 3–4, 2026: Jin is released and arrives in the United States. As of October 2026, eight Zion pastors and co-workers remain in custody

Place

Beijing, where the church was founded and its main hall — on the third floor of an office building in the north of the city — was located; the 2025 arrests spanned Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Zhejiang, Beihai in Guangxi and other locations, with detainees concentrated at Beihai No. 2 Detention Center and other facilities in Guangxi

People

Jin Mingri (born 1969, also known as Ezra Jin), founder and senior pastor of Beijing Zion Church; his wife Anna Liu and their children have lived in the United States since 2018; his daughter Grace Jin Drexel advocates publicly for him in the US; the 2025 arrests swept up numerous Zion pastors, elders and church workers

Charges and outcome

2018: the Chaoyang District Civil Affairs Bureau banned the church as an unregistered body operating in the name of a social organization, confiscated what it called "illegal promotional materials" and sealed the premises; Jin himself was not sentenced that year but was placed under an exit ban and surveillance. 2025: Jin and others were criminally detained and formally arrested on suspicion of "illegally using information networks" (Article 287-1 of the Criminal Law, maximum three years); after the case moved to the procuratorate in June 2026, church and aid-group sources said the reported charges against those still held had shifted to "fraud" and "illegal business operations" — no official document has been made public, so this is marked unverified. Jin was never sentenced; he was released in July 2026 and allowed to leave. For the remaining detainees there is no public trial record as of October 2026

Classification

Religious persecution / freedom of belief case: an unregistered house church that refused state surveillance and refused to join the official church system was first banned administratively, then, seven years later, subjected to a cross-provincial criminal roundup

Current status

Jin arrived in the United States in July 2026, was reunited with his family, and now speaks publicly for the co-workers still detained; Zion Church's Beijing premises have never been restored since 2018 and the network survives in dispersed home and online forms; the cases of the eight still in custody have no public record beyond family and aid-group accounts

What happened

The story starts in 2007. That year Jin Mingri, who had served for years inside China's state-sanctioned church system, left it and founded Zion Church in Beijing. By his own account in public remarks after his release in 2026, the congregation began with roughly twenty people. Eleven years later it had become one of the largest house churches in the capital: wire reports in 2018 put weekend attendance at around 1,500. That figure needs its sourcing stated plainly. It counts people attending multiple services at the Beijing main hall, and different outlets phrased it differently — membership of 1,500, or 1,500 worshippers on a weekend. This archive uses "about 1,500 (per Reuters and AFP reporting in 2018)" and does not present it as a registered membership total, because the church was never registered and no official roll exists to check.

The turn came in 2018. On February 1 that year, the revised Regulations on Religious Affairs took effect, sharply raising penalties for unregistered religious activity. In April, the authorities told Zion Church to install surveillance cameras inside its premises. The church refused. Jin told Reuters at the time, in substance, that a sanctuary is a sacred time and place, and cameras inside it were not appropriate. That refusal became the hinge of the whole case. What the authorities wanted was not a few machines; it was a standing view into the inner life of an independent faith community. What the church refused was not a safety measure; it was the gaze itself.

Refusal was followed by tightening pressure. In its reporting through August and September 2018, Reuters described police and state security personnel contacting congregants by phone, visiting them at home, approaching their workplaces and pressing them to promise not to attend. The landlord, under pressure, terminated the lease despite an earlier verbal assurance that the church could rent until 2023. On July 23, 2018, more than thirty of Beijing's house churches took the rare step of issuing a joint statement protesting the constant interference since the new regulations came into force; Zion was among them. In early September the church received a formal notice to vacate within fifteen days. Believing it had not breached its lease, it stayed.

On Sunday, September 9, 2018, after the afternoon service had ended, about seventy government personnel entered the premises. The Chaoyang District Civil Affairs Bureau announced that Zion Church, unregistered and operating in the name of a social organization, was banned in accordance with the law, that its affiliated bodies were banned with it, and that its "illegal promotional materials" were confiscated. Jin told AFP that everyone was chased out, the doors were sealed, the church's signage was torn from the wall, church property was taken, and the congregation was never allowed back in. The next day more than a dozen marked police vehicles and scores of uniformed and plainclothes officers guarded the building, and journalists were kept out. The US State Department's 2018 International Religious Freedom Report recorded another fact: between April and August that year, security personnel had approached nearly three hundred Zion members and pressured them to sign documents renouncing their church membership and even their faith. The ban was not a single day's event. Five months of encirclement came before it, and one-by-one pressure on ordinary believers came after it.

After the ban, Jin was placed under an exit ban. His wife had relocated to the United States with their children in 2018, and the family was split across the Pacific. He stayed in China, under surveillance, and kept pastoring: the church moved into homes, outdoor gatherings and online meetings. When the COVID pandemic shut down physical gatherings everywhere, Zion's online model carried it nationwide instead. According to a Zion pastor quoted by Reuters in October 2025, the network by then had about five thousand regular participants across nearly fifty cities; other church-linked accounts speak of more than a hundred meeting points in over forty cities and daily online attendance reaching ten thousand. The figures do not fully agree, and this archive records them side by side rather than choosing one. What is certain is that seven years after being banned, the church had not disappeared. It had become a national network. That is the background to the arrests of 2025.

In September 2025, China's religious affairs authorities issued new online-conduct rules for religious personnel, banning unlicensed online preaching and religious training. On October 10–11, 2025, police moved simultaneously in multiple locations. Human Rights Watch, in a statement dated October 14, said the arrests took place in at least seven cities including Beijing, Shanghai and Zhejiang; Reuters and other outlets reported that nearly thirty pastors, preachers and staff were taken or went missing across more than ten cities. Jin himself was taken on October 10 from his home in Beihai, Guangxi, where he had been living for years. The suspected offence given by the authorities was illegally using information networks — a reference to the church's online preaching and discipleship training. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the detentions on October 12 and demanded the group's immediate release. It was one of the largest operations against Chinese Christians since 2018, and a US Senate resolution (S.Res.463) followed with its own condemnation.

Those taken were gradually accounted for: a number of them were concentrated at Beihai No. 2 Detention Center, hundreds of miles from their homes. Reuters reported on November 19, 2025, that five people had been released in October and four support staff released on bail around November 10, while the remaining eighteen had been formally arrested on the information-networks charge, which carries up to three years. Jin's daughter Grace told reporters the family feared for his health — he has serious diabetes — and for the detainees' access to lawyers. According to Reuters, Jin was able to meet his lawyer on October 14, after the case had begun drawing foreign media attention.

In 2026 the case shifted twice. First, in June: according to church and aid-group accounts, nine of the arrested were released on bail on June 18 as the case was transferred to the procuratorate for review, and the charges reported against those still held changed to fraud and illegal business operations, said to rest on church offerings and fees for theological training. That account comes only from the church side; no indictment has been published, and this archive marks it unverified. Second, in July: Jin was taken from the detention centre on July 3 and on July 4 arrived in Los Angeles, reunited with the family he had not lived with for eight years. According to his family and ChinaAid, he had spent two hundred and sixty-six days in detention, and his case had been raised by President Trump with Xi Jinping at a May summit, with the release described by Chinese officials as a humanitarian gesture. That diplomatic detail rests on family and aid-group accounts alone; there is no public record of it on the Chinese side, and this archive presents it as such. Release was not the end of the case: as of October 2026, eight Zion pastors and co-workers remain in custody, and Jin's first work in America has been speaking for them. On October 9, 2026, the Lantos Foundation announced that Jin would receive its 2026 Lantos Human Rights Prize, citing in part his advocacy for those still detained.

The church and the man

Jin Mingri was born in Heilongjiang in 1969 and is a member of China's ethnic Korean minority. He studied at Peking University and Nanjing Union Theological Seminary, and earned a Doctor of Ministry degree at Fuller Theological Seminary in California; published biographical sources differ slightly on the years, and this archive does not pin down dates the sources do not agree on. After 1989 he began attending a Three-Self church and converted within months, then served and taught for years inside the official system, including at Beijing's Gangwashi Church. In 2007 he left that system and founded Zion. In his own later telling, the divide came down to one question: whether a church's preaching and governance answer to the state or to the faith itself. He chose the latter, and paid for the choice with everything that followed.

Zion's form was unusual among Beijing house churches of its day: a cathedral-scale operation. It rented an entire office floor, renovated it into a worship hall seating hundreds, employed full-time staff, and ran Sunday schools, Bible studies, theological training and satellite congregations. That open, large, institution-like existence ran directly against what the authorities expect of house churches — small, scattered and invisible. It survived eleven years on the relative tolerance of an earlier era. After 2018 that tolerance was withdrawn systematically: Guangzhou's Rongguili Church and Chengdu's Early Rain Covenant Church were closed the same year, and Beijing's Shouwang Church followed in 2019. Zion was not an exception. It was the most representative case in a wave.

One more detail belongs in the record. In September 2018, around the time of the ban, some two hundred house church pastors across China put their names to a statement on Christian faith, and Jin was among the signatories. Its core claims were modest: a separation between church and state, and room to practise. But in that climate, signing under one's real name was itself a stance. The list is still cited today, because a number of its signatories — including Wang Yi of Early Rain — later went to prison.

The ban: September 9, 2018

The public record of that day assembles as follows. It was a Sunday, and the church held its services as usual. After the service ended, roughly seventy personnel from civil affairs, public security and other departments entered the premises and read out and posted the ban decision. The Chaoyang District Civil Affairs Bureau's stated grounds were that Zion Church was unregistered and had carried on activities in the name of a social organization, in breach of the regulations on social organizations and the interim measures for banning illegal non-governmental organizations; the church and its affiliated bodies were therefore banned and its "illegal promotional materials" confiscated. ChinaAid additionally reported that an affiliated company, Beijing Jianweitang Culture Company, was fined 1.2 million yuan. That fine rests on a single source and is marked unverified here, but the logic it points to is worth noting, because it recurs throughout this era: dismantle a church's organizational and financial shell through administrative and economic measures first, and the question of faith never has to be named.

The address of the main hall requires a note of its own. Some Chinese-language accounts and the assignment material for this file name the building as the "Wuhuan Building". The wire reporting this archive relies on — Reuters, AFP and AP — describes only the third floor of an office building in northern Beijing, a space formerly fitted out as a nightclub, and gives no building name. The main text therefore says no more than that, and the building name is marked unverified pending a reliable source. The rule of this archive is simple: better to leave a place-name out than to write one wrong.

On the days that followed, official seals were pasted across a rear door of the church — an AP photograph dated September 11, 2018 became one of the most widely circulated images of the closure — police vehicles and personnel stood guard outside, and reporters were not admitted. Jin told the media he saw no way to resolve the dispute with the authorities. The church announced it would move outdoors and into smaller gatherings. The things the ban notice did not say were supplied by the months around it: Bitter Winter, a publication covering religious persecution in China, reported utility cutoffs and disabled elevators as part of the eviction pressure; those details have not been independently confirmed elsewhere and are marked unverified. The landlord pressure, by contrast, is documented in Reuters' own interviews. A church does not die on the day of the notice. It dies across five months of water, rent, phone calls and doorstep visits, an inch at a time.

Refusing the cameras: the trigger

Why Zion, among the hundreds of unregistered churches in Beijing? The public record's most direct answer is the cameras. In April 2018 the authorities, citing security, required the church to install closed-circuit cameras inside its premises; Reuters' reporting at the time gave the number as twenty-four. After discussion, the church refused, on the ground that a place of worship is not a proper place for surveillance. A second account must be recorded alongside it: in her speech to the International Religious Freedom Summit in Washington in February 2026, Grace Jin Drexel said the demand had been for twenty-three facial-recognition cameras. Twenty-three or twenty-four, ordinary CCTV or facial recognition — the discrepancy may reflect different rounds of demands, or the wear of memory and retelling. This archive's practice is to record both figures with their sources and not force them into one. Three things are certain. The authorities did make an explicit demand for cameras inside the worship space. The church did refuse, explicitly. And after the refusal, the pressure, harassment and eviction moves escalated, until five months later the church was banned. That causal chain is supported both by Reuters' contemporaneous reporting and by the church's own accounts.

The weight of the episode is clearer against its background. 2018 was the year "Sinicization of religion" went into high gear across China: the cross-removal campaigns in Zhejiang had not yet faded, the new religious regulations stiffened penalties for unregistered activity, and reports multiplied of official demands that religious venues fly the national flag, sing patriotic songs and hang portraits of the leader. Cameras in the sanctuary belong to the same logic in a different register: faith may exist, but only under the state's gaze, recorded and retrievable at any moment. Zion's answer was that there is no worship under a gaze. This was never really a dispute between one church and one district bureau. It was an old question surfacing again in contemporary China — when Caesar's hand reaches into the sanctuary, what it wants is never safety. It is sovereignty.

After the ban: dispersion, online growth, and an unexpected expansion

From September 2018, Zion's public history entered its address-less phase. The congregation scattered into homes, restaurants and small rented spaces; pastors rotated through preaching; a network of staff held administration and finances together. Jin himself was under an exit ban whose paperwork was never shown to him or his family; the stated ground, when his daughter was later stopped, was that departure might endanger national security. His wife and two sons were in the United States and his elder daughter Grace was studying and working there; the family held together by video call. For a period Jin stepped back from the senior pastor role in the hope that the church would attract less attention without him, and returned when it became clear the pressure did not depend on his presence — an account given publicly by his daughter after 2025.

Then came COVID. Every physical gathering shut down, and the network Zion had built moved online: preaching, discipleship, small groups and theological courses all went onto screens. The result surprised everyone. The church climbed out of Beijing and became national. Pastor Sean Long, a US-based Zion pastor, gave the press the following figures in 2025: about five thousand regular participants, in nearly fifty cities, at more than a hundred meeting points. At a congressional hearing, an advocate cited daily online attendance nearing ten thousand. The estimates differ, and this archive keeps them side by side. But the scale of the 2025 operation tells the same story from the other side: a banned church had, seven years on, become a network spanning dozens of cities. That, and not any new act, is why it became a target again. It had survived, and it had grown larger than it was on the day it was banned.

The seven years were not quiet. Reuters reported in 2025 that eleven Zion pastors had been temporarily detained earlier that same year, and reports of individual preachers being taken from their homes surfaced sporadically in church-focused media — among them the reported takings of preachers Qie Jiafu and Huang Chunzi, sourced to Bitter Winter and marked unverified. Read in hindsight, those small operations look like rehearsals and reconnaissance for the synchronized sweep of October 2025.

The crackdown of October 2025

On the night of October 10 and into October 11, 2025, the operation opened in many places at once. Human Rights Watch named seven cities, including Beijing, Shanghai and Zhejiang; Reuters, AP and the New York Times described nearly thirty pastors, preachers and staff taken or unaccounted for across more than ten cities — one intercepted at an airport in Shanghai, one taken in the rural outskirts of Beijing, others taken at home. Jin was taken at his residence in Beihai, where, by his own later account relayed by his family, he had been finishing dinner with his elderly mother-in-law. His electronic devices were seized. The church's own statement called it the largest coordinated action against an urban house church in more than forty years; Human Rights Watch called it a further escalation of the suppression of religious freedom. Both sources are openly critical of Beijing, but the "largest in over forty years" characterization was also taken up verbatim in the US Senate resolution, and may fairly be treated as the consensus description among international observers.

The charge was illegally using information networks. It sits in Article 287-1 of the Criminal Law, a provision written for illicit websites and unlawful online information, and it carries a maximum of three years. Applied to a church's online preaching and training, its machinery depends on the religious personnel online-conduct rules issued just one month earlier, in September 2025: unlicensed online preaching was first defined as a violation by departmental rule, and the criminal provision then caught what the rule had defined. No victim had to be shown, no harm demonstrated; it was enough to prove that a sermon had been preached in an unlicensed corner of the internet. That migration of a charge — regulation first, criminal law one step behind, tailored to online religious life — is the most important legal-technical fact in this file.

The procedural record deserves the same care. Families at first mostly received a single-sentence notice naming a suspected offence and a place of custody. Many detainees were held far from home, in Beihai; family visits and lawyer access were initially obstructed. Jin met his lawyer on October 14 — after, Reuters noted, foreign media attention had begun. Around November 18, eighteen people were formally arrested, which in a complex Chinese case opens a process that can run past a year before any trial. On June 18, 2026, by church accounts, nine were released on bail as the case went to the procuratorate, and the reported charges against those still held became fraud and illegal business operations, built on congregational offerings and seminary fees. If that account is accurate, its meaning is stark: voluntary giving redefined, after the fact, as fraud, and a church's internal training redefined as unlicensed business. No official document confirming the change has been published, and this archive marks it unverified, while recording the church and family account with its sources because multiple aid organizations have carried it. After Jin's release and departure in July 2026, the condition of the remaining eight — overcrowding, inadequate medical care, harsh discipline — is known only through family accounts relayed by ChinaAid, and is recorded here as such, not as independently established fact.

The cost to the family

The pressure on the family began in 2018, and it landed first on the children. Grace Jin returned to China to visit her father in 2019 and was then barred from leaving, on the stated ground that her departure might endanger national security. She had been educated in the United States since she was eight and had never taken part in political activity of any kind. Jin wrote a public prayer letter on her behalf and appended a formal appeal to the Chaoyang authorities; he went from office to office, in his own words becoming a petitioner himself. The appeal disappeared into silence. She was held in China for eleven months, her law school start was derailed, and she was finally allowed to leave in January 2020. She has said publicly that she did not see her father for years at a time, that he could not walk her down the aisle at her wedding, and that he has never met his grandchild. She said those words at the International Religious Freedom Summit in Washington in February 2026, while her father sat in a detention centre in Beihai, four months into his detention.

On the other side of the split stood his wife and sons. In 2018 his wife took the children to the United States for their schooling; when the family needed to sell its Beijing property to support them, they found the property frozen against sale, according to ChinaAid. He could not leave; returning was a risk she could not safely take; and so a border-control line cut one household in two for eight years. When Jin was arrested in October 2025, Grace said she messaged nearly everyone in her contacts asking what to do. Her father has severe type 2 diabetes; at first, the family said, the detention centre did not even provide his medication on time, and everything they knew of his condition came in fragments through lawyers. Family members in the United States also reported harassment and being followed, in her own accounts at the summit and in interviews — recorded here as family testimony. The families of the other detainees had it harder still: midnight raids witnessed by children, spouses travelling across provinces to Beihai to look for someone, young children left behind. This archive records these facts not for effect but because they are the standard price of such cases: one person is imprisoned, and a whole family serves the sentence.

International response

The response came in three layers. The first was immediate diplomacy: on October 12, 2025, two days after the sweep, Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a statement condemning the detention of dozens of Zion Church leaders, naming Jin Mingri, demanding their immediate release, and identifying the target precisely — Christians who reject Party interference in their faith and choose to worship in unregistered churches. The second layer was legislative: the US Senate's Resolution 463 condemned the persecution of religious groups and named the Zion case, and the US Commission on International Religious Freedom held a hearing on state-controlled religion in China at which the case featured centrally; in its 2026 annual report USCIRF again recommended designating China a Country of Particular Concern. The third layer is the long documentary record: the State Department's International Religious Freedom Report had noted as early as its 2018 edition that Zion members were being pressured to sign away their faith, and the annual findings of the State Department and USCIRF — that violations in China are systematic, ongoing and egregious — form the official backdrop to this case. Human Rights Watch demanded the detainees' release within three days of the sweep; ChinaAid, International Christian Concern and other aid organizations maintained case files and family contact over the long term. In May 2026, according to the family and ChinaAid, the US President raised Jin's case face-to-face with Xi Jinping at their summit; there is no public record of that exchange on the Chinese side, and this archive labels it accordingly. In October 2026 the Lantos Foundation announced Jin as the recipient of its annual human rights prize — the latest entry, so far, in the international file.

Latest status

As of October 14, 2026, the date of this archive's most recent check, the verifiable position is as follows. Jin Mingri arrived in the United States on July 4, 2026 and was reunited with his family; apart from the diabetes that requires continuing medication, there is no public record of a deterioration in his health. He has appeared publicly repeatedly to advocate for those still held, and the Lantos Human Rights Prize announcement followed on October 9, 2026. Eight people from the case remain in custody. The list published by ChinaAid in October 2026 names Pastors Wang Lin, Yin Huibin, Lin Shucheng, Gao Yingjia, Liu Zhenbin and Wang Cong, Elder Wang Zhong, and church worker Wu Qiuyu, held in detention facilities in Guangxi. What has happened to their cases since the transfer to the procuratorate in June 2026 — whether indictments have issued, when any trial might be held, and what the final charges are — has no public record. Zion Church as an institution remains banned, as it has been since September 9, 2018; as a network of believers it persists in dispersed and online form, at a scale no independent source can currently verify. The Chinese authorities' public position on the 2018 ban never went beyond the Chaoyang bureau's notice of that year; on the 2025 arrests, a foreign ministry spokesperson told a press briefing he was not aware of the case, as reported by the BBC, and there has been no fuller public explanation since.

Verification notes

The evidence in this file is graded as follows. Grade A — multiply corroborated or resting on official texts: the date, agency and stated grounds of the September 9, 2018 ban, corroborated by Reuters and AFP reporting at the time and the text of the ban notice itself; the refusal to install cameras as the trigger of the escalation, supported by Reuters' running coverage through 2018; the timing, scale and information-networks charge of the October 2025 arrests, corroborated across Reuters, Human Rights Watch, AP and the New York Times; the formal arrest of eighteen people in November 2025, reported by Reuters; Secretary Rubio's statement and the Senate resolution, both matters of official record. Grade B — a single reliable source, or family and church accounts, with attribution given in the text: the camera count (twenty-four ordinary CCTV units in Reuters' account; twenty-three facial-recognition units in Grace Jin Drexel's) recorded side by side; the 1.2 million yuan fine (ChinaAid alone; unverified); the utility-cutoff eviction details (Bitter Winter alone; unverified); the reported change of charges after June 2026 (church and aid-group accounts; unverified); the diplomatic details of Jin's release (family and ChinaAid accounts; no public record on the Chinese side); and detention conditions for those still held (family accounts). Grade C — not verified and not adopted as fact: the name of the building housing the main hall, given in some accounts as the "Wuhuan Building", which none of the reliable English-language sources consulted provides; and circulating claims of a total church membership of twenty-five thousand, sourced to Bitter Winter, which diverge so far from the wire-service figures that they are noted here only. Wherever the text says there is no public record, it means none was found as of the check date — not that nothing happened.

Our Take

What this case lays bare is that over seven years the authorities cycled through three sets of tools against a single act. In 2018 the tool was administrative: a ban notice, confiscated "promotional materials", and an offence called failing to register — faith itself was not charged; the organizational form of faith was. In 2025 the tool was criminal: an offence written for illicit websites, fitted over preaching and discipleship — the content of faith was still not charged; the manner of its transmission was. By 2026 the reported charges had slid toward economic crime: offerings recast as fraud, training recast as illegal business. The common thread is that the real reason is never the stated one. The real reason is that this community would not hand its inner life over to the state's gaze, would not submit its sermons for approval, and would not install those twenty-some cameras in its sanctuary. That reason cannot be said aloud, because saying it aloud would admit where the boundary of the constitution's written freedom of belief is actually drawn: at the position of the camera.

There is also an account to be settled over the word "lawful". Every step had its document, its clause, its seal: the regulation behind the ban, the rules and the charge behind the arrests. But lay the chain out end to end. A departmental rule redefines online preaching as a violation; a month later the criminal law catches the violation. A landlord is pressed into ending a lease and congregants are visited one by one; then the church is declared illegal. The more complete the procedural surface, the more visible the arbitrariness underneath. Shortly before his arrest, Jin went to an embassy to renew a visa, to test whether the exit ban might have lapsed; the answer he received was to be intercepted and removed. A man who complied all the way to renewing a visa in person was rewarded with nine months in a detention centre a thousand miles from home, and walked free only when a foreign head of state raised his name across a summit table. Where "law" ranks in the logic of this system is a question this case answers by itself. Whether the release was a goodwill gesture or a bargaining chip, eight people are still in Beihai's detention system, and their families are still waiting for an indictment. This case is not over, and this archive will keep following it.