news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

ke wenzhe, former mayor of taipeisuspected of the jinghuacheng case, he had previously been released without bail, but was later ruled by the taipei district courtdetention and no access。

the taipei district court held that ko wen-je knew that the plot ratio of more than 560% for jinghua city was against the law, but "still insisted on doing it, carried out his will, and was completely exposed", causing the relevant criminals to obtain illegal profits of more than nt$20 billion. ko is suspected of committing the crime of "seeking profit" in article 6, paragraph 1, clause 4 of the anti-corruption act, and there is a possibility of destroying evidence or colluding with others, so he was detained and denied access to visitors.

ke wenzhe and former deputy mayorpeng zhenshengnow they are all detained for "seeking profit". according to judicial precedents on the island, it is rare to be detained just for the suspicion of seeking profit. usually, the prosecutors will not start the case quickly, but will first collect evidence through wiring, wiretapping, etc. to a certain extent before closing the net. as a result, the northern district prosecutors' net was closed in a hurry this time, and it seemed that they were handling the case with "12 gold medals".

looking carefully at the two trials, the prosecutor did not focus on the "crime of seeking profit" during the first trial, but focused on the "crime of accepting bribes". however, in the end, he could only produce more than 1 million yuan of unidentified cash flow, which is a far cry from the 20 billion yuan in the case.scared to death before the trial, laughed to death after the trial", resulting in the part about the crime of accepting bribes being unable to convince the judge, and the part about the crime of seeking profit was also not accepted.

at the second hearing, the prosecutors' strategy and main attack direction had changed, and they switched to "profiteering" and used three pieces of "evidence" in court, including the content of the legislators' questioning, the materials of the lunch meeting, and the official document signed by ko wen-je, in an attempt to prove that ko had the "subjective criminal intent" to profit. the ruling also showed that the prosecutors of the taipei prosecutors' office had brought the icac personnel to ko's house to search for evidence. ko knew that the prosecutors and the icac had a court search warrant, but still "refused to answer the door, blocking and obstructing public affairs for nearly an hour", which made the judge suspect that ko took advantage of this hour to delete the text messages and other evidence "out of fear of crime".

the court heard two different charges, one for each. the first time, the judge refused to buy the bribery charge. the second time, the judge reversed the verdict by relying on the judge's conviction of seeking personal gain.

the two results show that the prosecutors were too greedy and eager for success in the first trial, and tried to catch the suspect in one fell swoop and kill him with one blow. they did not use the card of seeking profit, which was a sure thing, but chose the card of bribery, which was an uncertain thing.the correspondence between the recipients of the "illegal money flow" was not clearly understood before applying for detention, which was a bully。

ke wenzhe is detained and not allowed to see his lawyeryou can file an appealbut if the high court rejects the case, ko will be detained for two months. generally speaking, as long as the reasons for detention have not disappeared, the detention can be continued until the prosecution, and sometimes even until the first-instance judgment is made. in this way, the "ko wen-je theater" may have to say goodbye for the time being.

the so-called crime of seeking profit is actually a type of corruption. when civil servants perform their duties, the boundary between convenience for the public and seeking profit lies in the fact that convenience within the scope of the law is legal convenience for the public; if they knowingly violate the law, they may be charged with illegal seeking profit. the sentence for the crime of seeking profit is a fixed-term imprisonment of more than one year and less than seven years.

the crime of corruption exists everywhere, but the crime of "seeking profit" is extremely rare in taiwan. the ko case is almost a textbook for "judges' internal evidence" in taiwan.

in the second detention hearing, the judge accepted the prosecutor's statement and determined that ko wen-je was guilty of profiteering without outlining the specific financial flow. even if it was believed that there was an unknown amount of money transferred to ko's account, there was no evidence to prove that the money came from the suspects in the case. this is a typical"presumption of guilt, detain the person for confession"。

in the face of so-called "profiteering" without any illegal financial flows,the judge has a lot of room to freely judge whether to detain or not detain a person.。

it is worth mentioning that before the northern district court reopened the detention court, the judge emphasized that the prosecution should be restricted from using evidence that appeared during the investigation process in the detention court.the new evidence is in favor of ke wenzhe to some extent, and it is protecting his "right to defense"but this also means that when faced with the same evidence of detention,different judges also show very different convictions.。