Lui Jianming, better known as ‘Andy’, and his lawyer have strongly criticised the Public Prosecution Service (OM) following his arrest and detention in the arson case involving the white Ford Raptor.
In a jointly issued press release, they state that the OM acted insufficiently carefully in assessing the allegations against Andy. On 21 October 2026, the Court of Justice declared his arrest and detention unlawful and ordered his immediate release.
The case concerns a white Ford Raptor that was set on fire on 12 October 2026. A suspect arrested in connection with the arson identified Andy, chairman of a Chinese association, as the person who commissioned it. Andy was also arrested and detained following this allegation.
According to the press release by Andy and his lawyer, the incriminating statements contained significant contradictions. In addition, supporting evidence showing that Andy and the arrested suspect had contact or cooperated in preparing or carrying out the arson was allegedly lacking.
Andy’s representatives therefore question to what extent the OM sufficiently investigated the reliability of the allegations before depriving him of his liberty.
Lawyer critical of OM’s conduct
In the press release, the defence states that during the hearing of the case before the Court, the OM was unable to provide convincing answers to essential questions concerning the criminal case file and the basis for the deprivation of liberty.
According to Andy and his lawyer, in a serious suspicion such as arson, it must be carefully established whether there are sufficient indications to designate someone as a suspect and deprive them of their liberty.
They stress that the seriousness of a criminal offence must not be a licence to use allegations as the basis for an arrest and detention without sufficient critical scrutiny.
On 21 October, the Court of Justice ruled that Andy’s arrest and detention were unlawful. According to his representatives, this decision underlines that the OM must account for the manner in which it acted in this case.
At the same time, the press release acknowledges that the judicial decision does not amount to an acquittal. Nor has it established that the allegation against Andy was deliberately fabricated.
Andy points to material and non-material damage
Andy and his lawyer also draw attention to the personal and social consequences of his arrest. According to them, the deprivation of liberty affected not only his personal life, but also his reputation and social standing.
The press release points to the potentially long-term consequences of public allegations, especially when they concern someone who holds a social role.
Andy states that he has suffered both material and non-material damage as a result of the events. His representatives believe these consequences must be taken seriously.
Call for apologies and measures
In the press release, Andy and his lawyer call on the Public Prosecution Service to clarify the grounds on which his arrest and detention were based.
Among other things, they want to know how the incriminating statements were assessed, what shortcomings emerge from the judicial decision, and what measures the OM will take to prevent similar situations in the future.
They also believe that the OM must take responsibility for the unlawfulness established by the Court and offer appropriate apologies to Andy.
According to Andy’s representatives, citizens’ trust in judicial institutions is partly determined by the way they deal with judicial criticism and any shortcomings in their conduct.
With the press release, Andy and his lawyer expressly seek to draw attention to the legal protection of citizens and the care with which prosecutorial authorities handle deprivation of liberty.
