The investment and construction project was cheated out of 30 million yuan! Former Changhua Yongjing Township Mayor Li Shiyan rang the bell to file a complaint, questioning whether the Central Inspection Commission’s investigation was flawed.
Quick Look
- Former Yongjing Township Mayor Li Shiyan of Changhua County was defrauded of NT$30 million in an investment and construction project by insiders.
- On the 23rd, accompanied by lawyer Guo Qiyong, he went to the Changhua District Prosecutor's Office to file a complaint, accusing the Taichung prosecutors of not prosecuting the case without summoning the original defendant.
- He questioned the handling of the case and looked forward to a thorough judicial investigation.
AI-generated summary
Why It Matters
In the case of Lin Jian, an investor in Li Shiyan, insiders used fake claims and payment orders to empty out his assets. He was previously dismissed from prosecution by Taichung prosecutors.
Li Shiyan, the former mayor of Yongjing Township in Changhua County, co-invested in a construction project and was defrauded of 30 million yuan by insiders of the construction company. Li Shiyan believed that many defendants were still at large and used the same method to defraud other people. This afternoon (23rd), accompanied by Guo Qiyong, the former chief prosecutor of the High People's Procuratorate and now a practicing lawyer, he went to the Changhua District Prosecutor's Office to ring the bell and file a complaint. He accused the Taichung prosecutors of not summoning both the plaintiff and the defendant when investigating the case, and directly decided not to prosecute. He questioned that there were major flaws in the case handling process. He hoped that the Changhua District Prosecutor's Office could thoroughly investigate the entire case and provide him with judicial justice.
A joint venture was built in Yuanlin City, with a total of 62 units. When the houses were handed over, it was reported that a major shareholder owed hundreds of millions of yuan in debt. The "creditor" therefore falsely seized the construction company, and then the company's funds were emptied. Li Shiyan believed that the company's shareholders and "creditors" worked together to create "fake claims" to defraud him, and has filed a fraud and breach of trust complaint.
Li Shiyan pointed out that the person who deceived him is still at large and may defraud others in the same way. He said that about 10 years ago, he was introduced by a friend to invest in a construction project, Lin Yizhi, and co-founded a construction company. He invested 30 million yuan and accounted for 20% of the shares. The 62 new houses in the construction project were completed and sold. When the company was about to distribute profits, it was reported that a shareholder owed hundreds of millions of yuan in debt. His creditors went to the court to notarize the debt certificate, and then applied for a payment order from the court, which was then enforced and the company's assets were emptied.
Li Shiyan said that the people involved in the case are suspected of working together to take advantage of legal loopholes. They first forged a cooperative construction contract and "fake claims", and then got it notarized by the court. They relied on a forged contract and the court notarization to get the court to issue two payment orders totaling 125 million yuan. They then applied for enforcement and investigated the construction case, forcing the company to pay 30 million yuan. He emphasized that the amount of money defrauded by the company reached more than 130 million yuan in the construction project, plus 49.1 million yuan in five land parcels in Yuanlin Section, the total amount exceeded 180 million yuan. According to the newly revised anti-fraud law, those who defraud more than 100 million yuan can be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 7 years but not more than 12 years. Why the prosecutor did not take action made him deeply suspicious.
Lawyer Guo Qiyong said that after the relevant laws on payment orders were revised in 2015, the court has changed to a more rigorous written review. However, the person involved in this case took advantage of loopholes in the judicial system to create false claims and apply for payment orders. The court did not conduct actual review, and it is easy for loopholes to appear based on written review alone. This is an area where the judicial system needs to be reviewed urgently, and a more rigorous review mechanism should be established.
Li Shiyan said that because new evidence was discovered and the company had moved back to Changhua, she instead filed a complaint with the Changhua District Prosecutor's Office, hoping that the judiciary would conduct a thorough investigation and prevent those involved from continuing to go unpunished.
What to Watch
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
Changhua District Prosecutor's Office will investigate new evidence
Likely · Within months
Open Questions
- Will the Changhua District Prosecutor's Office re-investigate this case?
- What are the specific identities and whereabouts of the shareholders involved?






