Mr. and Mrs. Liang with their lawyer, Si Xianli (first on the left)
■ The police's evidence for accusing Liang of theft was not solid, they were accused of being too eager to take credit
■ Mr. and Mrs. Liang stated that they would not file for state compensation
Key points:
On October 10th, with the delivery of the "case dismissal decision letter" from Shenzhen Airport Public Security Bureau, the nationwide sensational case of the female airport cleaner "picking up gold" came to an end. However, reviewing the entire event, how did this case, which was ultimately classified as a "self-prosecution" case by the procuratorate, become a "public prosecution" case in the initial stage? What caused the "distortion" of judicial actions? Behind Liang's detention for 9 months, what are the unknown "circumstances"?
Reporter He Hui's article with photos
Liang Li is going to be the hospital's "image spokesperson"
At 3 PM on October 14th, I met Liang Li at her rented apartment less than a kilometer away from Shenzhen Airport. She had just undergone a uterine fibroid removal surgery at Shenzhen Tongren Gynecological Hospital and was resting at home.
"I picked up a life (these 9 months) like a nightmare, if it wasn't for Lawyer Si, if it wasn't for Shenzhen Tongren Gynecological Hospital, I might have died in the detention center..." Facing the reporter, Liang Li's still sickly face showed joy.
Lawyer Si provided free legal aid to Liang Li, and Shenzhen Tongren Gynecological Hospital also performed the surgery on Liang Li for free, costing no less than 50,000 yuan.
Liang Li expressed her intention to organize a "thank-you meeting" with her husband. In addition, I learned from Si Xianli that Shenzhen Tongren Gynecological Hospital wanted Liang Li to be the "image spokesperson" for the hospital.
40-year-old Liang Li is from Shangqiu, Henan. Eleven years ago, she married into Kaifeng. She has five siblings, her sister and brother both received higher education and have successful careers in Shenzhen and Guangzhou, while she is illiterate. Her husband, Liu Jianhua, served in the military in his early years and started working in Shenzhen in 2001. In 2005, he brought his wife and children to live with him.
Liang Li's home is very tidy, with a towel for wiping the floor laid out at the entrance of the small kitchen. I noticed that in the small room of only more than 20 square meters, two tables used for placing books and computers took up most of the space. "I don't have any education, I can't read or write, these are all my child's things," Liang Li said.
In Liu Jianhua's eyes, Liang Li has a gentle and simple personality. Liu Jianhua is four years younger than Liang Li. In daily life, Liu Jianhua loves his wife and children. "I didn't advocate Liang Li going out to work. It was because she saw me working too hard, and she saw the recruitment advertisement for the Shenzhen Airport Cleaning Company outside. She wanted to earn some money to supplement our household income. She worked for less than four months, just passing the probation period, and unexpectedly, such an incident occurred."
Event review: Controversy over whether it was "stealing" or "picking up"
The past nine months have been tumultuous for Liu Jianhua.
At 1:40 PM on December 9, 2008, after work, Liang Li brought back a cardboard box filled with gold jewelry worth more than 3 million yuan (later determined by judicial authorities to be 2.61 million yuan). That night, Liang Li and two other colleagues, Cao Wanyi and Ma Yinshan, who "shared the gold," were criminally detained by the Shenzhen police.
One month later, on January 14, 2009, Cao and Ma were released, while Liang Li was arrested on suspicion of theft. On March 12, the Shenzhen Public Security Bureau submitted an indictment opinion to the Shenzhen People's Procuratorate.
On May 11, 2009, the Guangzhou Daily published an article titled "Cleaner 'Picks Up' 14 Kilograms of Gold Jewelry and May Be Indicted," sparking heated discussions in society. There was widespread debate over whether Liang Li had "stolen" or "picked up" the items. Many scholars in the legal community expressed their views, and more than 3 million netizens participated in online surveys about the matter.
On May 15, the Shenzhen Public Security Bureau held a press conference, claiming that Liang Li's theft was "evidence-based and clear facts." Public opinion on the Liang Li case became even more intense, with overwhelming sympathy for Liang Li.
On May 22, the President of the Guangdong Higher People's Court commented on the female worker's "picking up" gold suspected theft case, stating that it would be judged according to law.
On September 10, 2009, Liang Li was released on bail. Half a month later, the Bao'an District Procuratorate of Shenzhen revoked the bail due to insufficient evidence of theft by Liang Li. On October 10, the Shenzhen Airport Public Security Bureau dismissed the case.
Liang Li recounted the detailed events of the day in question
During the nine months, the prosecution twice returned the Liang Li case for supplementary investigation due to insufficient evidence. So, where exactly was the problem?
On October 14, I managed to obtain a copy of the Shenzhen Public Security Bureau's indictment opinion (Shen Gong Yu Su Zi 2009 [076]). The document showed that at around 8:20 AM on December 9, 2008, Wang Tengye, a 26-year-old employee of the Jinnong Jewelry Company in Houjie Town, Dongguan, Guangdong Province, carried seven pieces of luggage to the second floor of Terminal B at Shenzhen Airport to check in and handle baggage procedures for Flight CA1306 to Beijing. The small cardboard box containing jewelry was placed in the basket above the handcart. The security personnel refused to allow the transportation of gold, which is a valuable item, so Wang ran to the No. 10 check-in counter supervisor located 22 meters away from the No. 19 check-in counter for consultation. At this time, the handcart with the small cardboard box containing jewelry was still in front of the No. 19 check-in counter. As Liang Li pushed her cleaning cart past, she saw that the small cardboard box was unattended, so she moved the box onto her cleaning cart. After returning ten minutes later, Wang Tengye found the box missing and reported it to the airport police station.
The indictment opinion also claimed that Liang Li, along with her colleagues Cao Wanyi and Ma Yinshan, privately divided part of the jewelry, hid the box at her home, and even after learning that someone had reported the loss, she still did not return it. It wasn't until the evening that investigators found the jewelry at Liang Li's residence.
During the nine months in custody, Liang Li consistently disputed the accusation of theft, causing her hair to turn completely white within two months.
"I first walked to Check-in Counter No. 19 and saw two female passengers near the trash bin eating sunflower seeds and throwing the shells on the ground. Between these two women was a luggage cart with a small cardboard box on it, similar to a instant noodles box but without any writing (markings). When I came to the trash bin near Check-in Counter No. 19 again, I saw that the small cardboard box was still on the luggage cart, and the female passengers were gone. I thought they had discarded it, so I put the box into my cleaning cart," Liang Li said.
Liang Li said she didn't know what was inside the box at the time; it was sealed, and she didn't open it. "(That morning) around 9 o'clock, I told Old Cao (Cao Wanyi) that I had picked up a cardboard box. Old Cao and I were in the same team; he was responsible for cleaning the men's restroom, and I cleaned the women's restroom. Old Cao said it might be a battery. I said then let's put it in the disabled restroom first, and if someone claims it, we'll return it to them. Old Cao wanted to open the box to see, and I said, don't open it, in case someone comes looking for it, and we won't have an explanation."
Liang Li's account was subsequently confirmed by Yang Deying, her former colleague and witness. Yang Deying said she clearly heard the conversation between Liang Li and Cao Wanyi in the disabled restroom while she was washing the mop in the women's restroom.
Liang Li recalled to the reporter: "Around 9:40, I was having breakfast on the third floor with several colleagues. I told everyone that I had picked up a cardboard box. Old Cao said it might be a battery. Ma Yinshan suggested taking a look, and if it was a battery, he would use it for electrofishing."
So Liang, Ma, and Cao went downstairs to the disabled restroom and opened the box, finding packages of "gold jewelry" wrapped in white paper. Ma and Cao took out two packages, split them in half, and each left with half.
After work, Liang Li took the small cardboard box home.
Facing the reporter, Liang Li said she did not "refuse to hand it over," and the police did not "search" her house for the box.
"At around 4 PM, Old Cao shouted from downstairs saying that someone had reported it. I shouted back, 'Then I'll turn it in tomorrow when I go to work.' At 6 PM, two people came to my house, saying they were police officers and asking if I had picked up a cardboard box. I took the box out from under the bed." According to Liu Jianhua's recollection, the entire process lasted no more than five or six minutes, and one of the officers even called his superior to say that the items had been found.
"How can this be considered 'stealing,' 'refusing to hand it over,' or 'searched'?" Moreover, Article 2 of the Airport Business Center's "Management Regulations" states that any lost items picked up by passengers must be turned in no later than 9 AM the next day to avoid any issues. Liang Li said she intended to bring it to work the next day..."
The yellow line and video footage: Two key pieces of evidence didn't hold up
The Bao'an District Procuratorate, when revoking the bail, stated that Liang Li's charge of theft did not stand, but they did not consider her entirely innocent. The Procuratorate determined that Liang Li was suspected of embezzlement, which falls under "self-prosecution" cases and legally follows the principle of "no complaint, no action."
So, why did a "self-prosecution" case evolve into a "public prosecution" case? What evidence was initially used to accuse Liang Li of theft?
For two consecutive days on October 14th and 15th, I attempted to learn more through Shenzhen police and prosecution officials, but all interviews were denied. A senior police officer in Shenzhen revealed that the two key pieces of evidence the police initially used to pursue Liang Li's theft charges were: First, the belief that the cart carrying the jewelry box was inside the so-called yellow line at Check-in Counter No. 19, and anything inside the yellow line constituted stealing. However, when the Bao'an District Procuratorate returned the case for supplementary investigation, witnesses testified that as the owner, Wang Tengye, rushed towards the No. 10 check-in counter supervisor located 22 meters away, anxious passengers behind him pulled the cart with the small box beyond the yellow line, allowing the cart to slide towards the trash bin on the smooth floor.
The second piece of evidence, on page 4 of the indictment opinion, stated that there was a surveillance video disc attached to the case files. However, to date, the content of the disc has not been made public. In fact, there were two surveillance cameras mounted on the walls of the waiting hall about 50 meters away from the trash bins. One camera failed to capture the scene, and the other lacked evidentiary value due to blurry images.
Additionally, I discovered in the police's indictment opinion that the whereabouts of 136.49 grams of gold remained unknown. However, the owner did not pursue the matter further.
I learned that the disappearance of these 136.49 grams of jewelry sparked much speculation, leading to three versions of the story. One version claimed that when Cao Wanyi and Ma Yinshan tore open the packaging paper in the restroom, some jewelry may have fallen into the toilet. Another version suggested that Cao, Ma, and Liang concealed the jewelry. A third version pointed fingers at the police. According to Liu Jianhua's recollection, the cardboard box Liang Li handed over was open, and the police did not weigh it on-site but merely took photos as evidence. He does not remember if the box was sealed when the police took it away.
On October 14th, I tried multiple ways to contact Cao and Ma but got no results. The airport cleaning company said that after the incident, neither Cao nor Ma returned to work. Ma Yinshan was in Zhengzhou, Henan, while Cao Wanyi returned to his hometown in Anhui.
Through friends, I learned from the police that the owner did not initially know what had been lost and even confused whether he had brought 4 or 5 boxes. The police first searched the check-in area and later worried if another passenger might have taken it but never thought it could have been picked up by a cleaner. The police's indictment opinion determined that Cao Wanyi took jewelry worth 1.6 million yuan, and Ma Yinshan took jewelry worth 66,000 yuan.
Rough handling: Police criticized for being too eager to claim credit
There were rumors that on the day after the dismissal notice was delivered to Liang Li, the involved police officer was "placed under confinement" and "suspended from duty" pending accountability. On the afternoon of October 15th, Captain Chen Yuanchang of the Criminal Investigation Team of the Shenzhen Airport Public Security Bureau denied this but admitted feeling "great pressure."
When talking about the Liang Li case, Chen Yuanchang became somewhat emotional. He said that tens of thousands of passengers pass through the airport every day, and some cleaners with low moral standards do not focus on their work. They keep their eyes peeled for items that passengers might forget, quickly putting them into their carts. In reality, many passengers' items are stolen by individual cleaners.
Regarding the Liang Li case alone, Chen Yuanchang did not think his subordinates made mistakes. Regarding the question of "why withdraw the case if there was no mistake," Chen Yuanchang said that withdrawing the case was not the police's original intention.
Chen Yuanchang was unwilling to elaborate on the details of the Liang Li case and only said: "I feel wronged and very passive. I've just been transferred here recently, please contact Deputy Captain Chen upon his return for more details." By the time I finished writing the article, Deputy Captain Chen had not contacted me.
A senior police officer in Shenzhen I contacted through connections also said the police felt very passive in the Liang Li case, but the background of this "passivity" was different. He said: "In early May, the municipal bureau held a press conference regarding the Liang Li case, using eight words to inform the public that it was an ironclad case: evidence is solid, facts are clear. These words should only appear in court judgments, and for the police to express them themselves is extremely reckless. How can you claim innocence without court recognition?"
He believed that the police's roughness stemmed from their eagerness to take credit.
Another factor contributing to the police's passivity was that on the third day of the incident, a local media outlet prominently featured a news story: Shenzhen police successfully solved a major gold theft case. "The facts were not fully investigated, how could they be rashly publicized?"
Journalist explores the airport: stricter disposal of abandoned items
At noon on October 15th, at Shenzhen Airport, inquiries to employees wearing "Yuhuang Cleaning" uniforms in Terminals A and B yielded uniformly low-key and cautious responses. Upon mentioning Liang Li's name, most replies were the same: "Don't know," "Don't recognize," "Not sure."
When the reporter showed the boarding pass to the 13th male cleaner interviewed, the cleaner, assured that the reporter was an ordinary passenger, mysteriously said, "Liang Li is no longer here, she was fired."
From this cleaner, the reporter learned that after Liang Li's incident, the cleaning company improved its internal management: increased mobile cleaning, no sitting allowed. Supervisors intensified inspections of each group of staff. The company required that any lost items found by employees be promptly reported to the supervisor or directly handed over to the business center. Items such as fruit, beverages, shampoo, and lighters that passengers are not allowed to carry are no longer disposed of independently but are handled uniformly by a specialized garbage recycling company.
This male cleaner told the reporter that indeed, in the past, many cleaners would take items that seemed to be abandoned home, and the phenomenon of keeping found items was objectively present. "Leaders know too, without these perks, who would work for less than 1000 yuan a month?"
Mr. and Mrs. Liang: "Will not seek state compensation"
Nine months have passed, and Liang Li herself has come to understand her own actions. She believes her mistake was bringing the box home.
"I thought it was fake stuff from the market, worth a few cents per piece. Who would leave valuables lying around carelessly?" She said picking up items passengers discard at the airport was quite common. Initially, she didn't pick them up, but seeing others do it, she eventually followed suit.
Lawyer Si Xianli believes that Liang Li's dramatic rise and fall in fortune is related to the police's "presumption of guilt" mindset. Si Xianli is also from Shangqiu, Henan, graduating from Tsinghua University Law School in 2001. It is understood that he provided free legal assistance to Liang Li under great pressure, invited by her sister and brother.
Early in October, the media reported that Mr. and Mrs. Liang would file for state compensation. Liu Jianhua denied this. "We will not file for state compensation, it was just a fleeting emotion. We just want to live quietly now..."
Related reading:
Liang Li's defense lawyer: I always believed Liang Li was innocent
Revisiting the Liang Li gold-picking case: From a cleaner to a prisoner in 10 hours (with pictures)