Lin Dewang, chairman of the Taiwan People's Communist Party, and three other people were involved in the anti-infiltration case. The High Court today rejected the prosecutor's appeal and upheld the acquittal verdict. The Taipei District Prosecutor's Office previously questioned the first-instance determination that Vice Chairman Zheng Jianxin, who had not yet been announced as a candidate, was not subject to penalties under the Anti-Infiltration Act, which involved a violation of the law. The High Court held that there was a lack of sufficient evidence for the identity of the infiltration source and the source of funds. The High Prosecutor's Office responded that it would consider whether to appeal after receiving the verdict.
Lin Dewang was a former member of the Central Committee of the Kuomintang. The Beijing Prosecutor's Office indicted him in 2023. He had long-term contacts with officials from the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council and was suspected of accepting instructions and funding from China. In addition to running for Tainan City Council in 2018, he also recommended Zheng Jianxin to run for Taipei City Council in 2022. He made three remittances of 30,000 yuan each and delivered US$10,000. He also assisted in the campaign through activities such as protesting, campaigning, platforming, and street sweeps.
After the first-instance verdict, the Beijing Prosecutor's Office disputed Zheng Jianxin's identification as a "candidate," arguing that the regulations did not apply only after the candidate list was announced. However, the original trial held that Zheng Wei was a candidate before the announcement was made, and found that the activity did not meet the requirements for punishment. The prosecutor also pointed out that when the original trial quoted the Supreme Court's judgment, it regarded the "appeal intent" in it as the court's opinion, and based this on it, it accused the judgment of violating the law and mistaking the facts and applying the law.
The reasons given by the High Court for upholding the acquittal include insufficient evidence of the source of infiltration and the source of funds. The collegial panel held that while Lin Dewang was running for the 2018 election, although he discussed his candidacy and sent photos of campaign materials with staff from the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, the conversations mainly involved seeking business opportunities such as fruit purchase and land purchase, and no commitment of funding or specific instructions from the other party was seen. Lin arranged for Chinese party and government officials to visit Taiwan to collect tour fees and strive for Maotai liquor sales quotas, and there was no evidence that it was related to political activities.
As for Shandong Zhengbao Media Company and Beijing Xinfeng Banner Cultural Communication Center, which the prosecutor pointed out as the sources of infiltration, the High Court pointed out that the information on the former's relationship with the CCP was mainly obtained from the company's website. The Mainland Affairs Council also stated that the information may be falsified, which is not enough to prove that it is under the actual control of the Chinese government or the CCP. Although the latter claims to be supported by "relevant government departments," the specific department and support method cannot be confirmed.
The High Court held that the existing evidence could not prove that Lin Dewang was an infiltration source under the "Reverse Osmosis Law", nor could it prove that the money delivered to Zheng Jianxin and the five-star flag used in the event came from an infiltration source.
Lin, Zheng and Yu Shenghong were also accused of collecting information on 47 people and importing at least 4,700 doses of rapid screening from China, suspected of preparing election bribery departments. The High Court pointed out that the distribution target covers Tainan, Pingtung, Kaohsiung, New Taipei and Taoyuan and other places, and is not targeted at Zheng's election constituency. There is no evidence that the election was mentioned when the distribution was distributed, and it cannot be determined that it was for the purpose of bribery. Although Yu had confessed, he could not be convicted based on his confession alone due to the lack of other evidence.
The High Court therefore upheld the innocence of the three people. The part that violated the "Medical Equipment Management Act" cannot be appealed, and the remaining parts can still be appealed. The High Prosecutor's Office will consider whether to file an appeal after receiving the verdict.
