Key Takeaways
- Shulai Wang, a 70‑year‑old Chinese national, died after being restrained, gagged with a towel‑stuffed mouth, and deprived of food in a highly controlled household in Ōrewa, Auckland.
- The Crown alleges that Wang’s death resulted from suffocation after an unsuccessful escape attempt, and that the four defendants—Kaixiao Liu, Lanyue Xiao, Xiuyun Li, and Jingui Liu—participated in her kidnapping, manslaughter, and subsequent cover‑up.
- Evidence presented includes point‑based behavior logs, recordings of a body‑disposal meeting, and CCTV footage showing the body dumped at Gulf Harbour.
- The defence seeks to contextualize the family’s dynamics through cultural expert testimony and argues that Wang’s chronic health issues and a purported wish for a sea burial explain the events, a narrative the Crown rejects as fabricated.
- The trial continues at the Auckland High Court, with the jury tasked to weigh the Crown’s claim of collective responsibility against the defence’s alternative explanation.
Background and Arrest
Shulai Wang arrived in New Zealand in August 2023 to join the household of Kaixiao Liu, who presented himself as the leader of a religious group styling itself the “secret LIU family of the tribe of Judah.” Wang, a 70‑year‑old Chinese national, lived with Liu, his wife Lanyue Xiao, Liu’s parents Xiuyun Li and Jingui Liu, and five other women in a residence dubbed the “Ark” in Ōrewa. The Crown describes the household as hierarchical, highly controlled, and isolated, with Liu occupying the top rank as “lord” or “master,” Xiao as “queen,” and Wang positioned near the bottom, having fallen out of favour. In March 2024 a fisherman discovered Wang’s body wrapped in plastic bags at Gulf Harbour, prompting a police investigation that led to the arrest of Liu and Xiao at Auckland Airport on 30 June 2024, while Li and Jingui Liu were later charged as well.
The Point‑Based Control System
Crown prosecutor Henry Steele outlined a behavioural point system that the household allegedly used to regulate members’ conduct. Notes recovered from the residence—some bearing Xiao’s fingerprint—recorded instances where points were deducted for minor infractions such as eating too slowly or sitting on the floor. Wang allegedly struggled to keep up with the group’s demands, resulting in her being relegated to sleeping in a locked tent at Liu’s order. Steele argued that this system created a punitive environment that facilitated the denial of basic necessities, including food, and contributed to Wang’s deteriorating condition prior to her death.
Escape Attempt and Restraint
According to Steele, on 6 March 2024 Wang attempted to flee the property by jumping over a neighbour’s fence. She was swiftly apprehended and returned to the defendants’ house, where she was bound with her hands and feet tied, her mouth taped shut, and a towel stuffed inside her mouth to suppress screams. Steele emphasized that the towel “obviously and unavoidably limited the airflow,” potentially preventing respiration for 24‑30 hours. He asserted that the prolonged restraint, combined with the earlier deprivation of food and water, directly caused Wang’s death, which he placed on the afternoon of 7 March 2024.
Medical Cause of Death
The Crown maintains that suffocation is the most plausible cause of Wang’s death. Steele noted that the combination of airway obstruction (tape and towel‑filled mouth) and the physical restraint would have rapidly led to hypoxia. No evidence of chronic illness or accidental fall was presented by the prosecution; instead, they argued that any health‑related explanations were part of a fabricated narrative designed to deflect responsibility. The prosecution urged the jury to focus on the physical evidence of restraint and the timeline that aligns with a suffocation scenario rather than alternative medical explanations.
Evidence of a Cover‑Up
Steele highlighted a laptop seized from Liu and Xiao at the airport, containing recordings of a household conference convened after Wang’s death. In the audio, each member is heard offering opinions on how to dispose of the body, with suggestions ranging from using rice bags and garden stones to wrapping the corpse in rubbish bags. Notably, none of the participants referenced Wang’s alleged wish for a sea burial, which the Crown contends undermines the defence’s claim that the family honoured her final desire. The prosecution argued that the absence of any mention of a sea burial proves the narrative was invented post‑facto.
Body Disposal and CCTV Footage
Following the discussion, the group’s white van was captured by CCTV at Gulf Harbour on 8 March 2024, showing the defendants loading Wang’s wrapped body and dumping it into the sea. Steele characterised this act as “a dumping, not a burial,” stressing that the use of weighted bags and the clandestine timing indicated an attempt to conceal the crime rather than fulfil a respectful funeral rite. After the disposal, household members were reportedly cautioned to avoid drawing attention, including refraining from using the white van, further indicating a consciousness of guilt.
Defence’s Cultural Contextualisation
In response, the defence called two expert witnesses whose statements were read aloud by standby lawyers. Cultural expert Leo Liao described China’s stringent regulation of religious activities, the prevalence of informal “mutual‑aid” elder‑care arrangements, and patriarchal family structures where elder males often assume disciplinary authority. Liao’s testimony aimed to suggest that Liu’s leadership role and the family’s internal discipline could be understood within a broader cultural framework, rather than as evidence of criminal intent. Interpreter Jessica Sui Harborne clarified that the term “secret” in the group’s name is better rendered as “hidden,” and that phrases describing gratitude for conversion should be interpreted as “naturalised” or “assimilated” into the family unit, challenging the prosecution’s portrayal of coercive indoctrination.
Defence’s Alternative Narrative
The defence contends that Wang suffered from chronic health problems that contributed to her demise, that she may have fallen accidentally, and that her expressed desire for a sea burial motivated the family’s actions. They argue that the point‑system notes reflect ordinary household management rather than punitive cruelty, and that the restraints were applied only temporarily to prevent her from harming herself during a distressed state. Furthermore, they assert that the alleged coaching of Wang’s son Chunhong Wu to give false evidence was a misunderstanding, maintaining that the family sought only to protect Wu from distress during police questioning.
Crown’s Rebuttal of the Defence Narrative
Steele dismissed the defence’s explanations as a “concocted” and “perpetuated” falsehood, principally authored by Liu and reinforced by Xiao. He asserted that Wang’s purported wish for a sea burial was never mentioned in the household’s internal discussions, and that the claim of chronic illness lacked medical substantiation. Steele likened the family’s collective responsibility to that of a drug gang, arguing that irrespective of who physically restrained Wang, all members acted as a unified entity and thus share culpability for her death and the subsequent cover‑up. He urged the jury to scrutinise the laptop recordings, which he said provide a comprehensive account of the “what, why, when, and who” of the crime.
Current Status of the Trial
As of the latest proceedings, the defence is preparing its closing statements, scheduled for Tuesday. The trial continues at the High Court in Auckland, with the jury tasked to weigh the Crown’s evidence of systematic control, restraint, and concealment against the defence’s cultural and health‑based explanations. The outcome will hinge on whether the jury accepts the prosecution’s portrayal of a coordinated effort to kidnap, manslaughter, and obscure Wang’s death, or finds merit in the defence’s assertion that the tragedy resulted from a combination of medical issues, accidental circumstances, and culturally interpreted family dynamics. The case remains a stark illustration of how allegations of authoritarian control within a private household can intersect with legal standards of culpability in New Zealand’s judicial system.