单亲妈妈涉黑被羁押821天无罪释放，国家赔偿启动13天遭警方再次立案叫停

被羁押821天、无罪释放、申请国家赔偿——这本该是一段不公正遭遇走向终结的故事。然而对于41岁的洛阳单亲妈妈史玉辉来说，事情远未结束。2026年3月，她再次出现在海南省儋州市，为那821天的无辜牢狱之苦，继续维权。

史玉辉曾任职于儋州市一家物业公司，老板陈吉镇是当地颇具影响力的商人。2021年8月，昌江县公安局刑警在未出示任何书面法律手续的情况下，直接将她从办公室铐走带走，随后以涉嫌参加黑社会性质组织罪予以羁押，关押地点辗转至三亚市看守所。她事后才从羁押通知单上得知自己的罪名。

涉黑案全面反转，核心指控证据不足

此案曾是海南扫黑除恶专项行动中的重点案件，官媒报道一度广泛。然而随着庭审推进，案件走向发生了根本性转变。

海南省第一中级人民法院2025年5月23日判决书明确认定：公诉机关指控陈吉镇等人实施"套路贷"犯罪及组建黑社会性质组织，证据均不足，不予采纳。

史玉辉被起诉的具体依据，不过是她帮老板向政府部门递交过规划材料、陪同用餐时代为买单。公诉人甚至以"微信聊天愉悦"作为其"参与黑社会组织"的佐证——这一逻辑令她感到荒诞。

在被羁押两年后，她向法院提交申诉，法院随即作出取保候审决定。2023年10月，史玉辉在被关押整整821天后终于走出看守所。2025年5月，海南省人民检察院以证据不足为由，正式作出不起诉决定。

赔偿启动13天，警方重新立案叫停程序

拿到不起诉决定书后，史玉辉依法申请国家赔偿。2025年8月，昌江县检察院作出《刑事赔偿决定书》，内容包括：

• 赔偿821天人身自由赔偿金
• 支付精神损害抚慰金
• 删除涉及其姓名、照片的公开案件信息
• 就批准逮捕行为正式道歉

这看起来是一个迟来但应有的交代。然而，就在赔偿执行启动仅13天后，一切骤然中止——海南昌江警方以"骗取银行贷款"为由对史玉辉重新立案侦查，国家赔偿程序随即被叫停。

问题的关键在于：这一"骗贷"指控并非新罪名，而是已经过司法审查的旧案事实。就在刚刚作出判决的涉黑案中，法院已明确认定相关行为不构成犯罪。 同一事实在法院认定无罪后，又被警方以另一罪名重新立案，这一操作的合法性与合理性，引发了公众和法律界人士的强烈质疑。

目前，海南省检察院已就此事作出回应，案件进展仍在持续关注中。史玉辉的遭遇，折射出"无罪羁押—国家赔偿—再次立案"这一链条背后，司法权与侦查权之间的深层张力。如何防止赔偿程序沦为新一轮追诉的"暂停键"，是本案留给司法制度的真正追问。

Single Mother Held 821 Days on Organized Crime Charges, Released Without Prosecution — Then Reindicted Just 13 Days Into Compensation Process

Detained for 821 days, released without prosecution, and formally approved for state compensation — this should have been the closing chapter of a grave injustice. But for 41-year-old single mother Shi Yuhui from Luoyang, the ordeal is far from over. In March 2026, she returned to Danzhou, Hainan Province, still fighting for accountability over her wrongful imprisonment.

Shi had worked as a manager at a local property management company in Danzhou, whose owner, Chen Jizhen, was a prominent businessman in the area. In August 2021, plainclothes officers from Changjiang County Public Security Bureau entered her office without presenting any written legal documentation and took her away in handcuffs. She was subsequently detained on suspicion of participating in an organized crime syndicate and held at a detention center in Sanya. It was only after seeing her detention paperwork that she learned what she had been charged with.

A High-Profile Case Collapses Under Scrutiny

The case had once been showcased as a major achievement in Hainan's anti-organized crime campaign, attracting wide coverage from state media. But as the trial progressed, the narrative fell apart.

In its judgment dated May 23, 2025, the Hainan First Intermediate People's Court explicitly ruled that the prosecution had insufficient evidence to establish that Chen Jizhen and others had engaged in predatory lending schemes or operated a criminal organization — and rejected both allegations accordingly.

The prosecution's basis for charging Shi herself was strikingly thin: she had submitted planning documents to a government office on her employer's behalf and paid for a few meals when dining with him. Prosecutors even cited the "cheerful tone" of her WeChat conversations with her boss as evidence of gang membership — a claim Shi described as absurd.

After spending two years in detention, Shi submitted a formal appeal to the court, which subsequently ordered her release on bail. She walked free in October 2023, exactly 821 days after her arrest. In May 2025, the Hainan People's Procuratorate officially issued a non-prosecution decision, citing insufficient evidence.

Compensation Halted After Just 13 Days — By a New Investigation

Armed with the non-prosecution decision, Shi filed for state compensation. In August 2025, the Changjiang County Procuratorate issued a formal compensation ruling covering:

• Monetary compensation for 821 days of unlawful detention
• Damages for psychological harm
• Removal of publicly released case information bearing her name and photo
• An official apology for having approved her arrest

It seemed like a belated but meaningful form of redress. Then, just 13 days into the compensation process, everything stopped. Changjiang County police opened a new investigation against Shi — this time on suspicion of fraudulently obtaining a bank loan — and the compensation procedure was immediately suspended.

The critical detail: this is not a new allegation. The same conduct had already been examined during the organized crime trial. The court had explicitly found that the alleged loan fraud did not constitute a criminal offense. The fact that police are now pursuing the same conduct under a different charge — after a court has cleared her — raises serious questions about the legality and intent of the new investigation.

The Hainan Provincial Procuratorate has since responded to public inquiries, and the case continues to draw attention. Shi Yuhui's experience exposes a troubling dynamic: when state compensation is triggered by wrongful detention, can a new investigation effectively serve as a veto over the entire process? The deeper question this case poses to China's judicial system is whether safeguards exist to prevent legitimate redress from being derailed by the very agencies responsible for the original wrong.