Former Taipei Mayor Ko Wenzhe was sentenced to 17 years in the first instance for his involvement in Beijing City and political donation cases. The case was appealed and is currently being heard by the High Court in the second instance. The High Court held a hearing this afternoon (9th) and summoned Weiking Group Chairman Shen Qingjing for the first time, as well as Kuomintang Taipei City Councilor Ying Xiaowei, Ying's parliamentary assistant Wu Shunmin, and Shen Qing. Jing still denied committing a crime in court today and mentioned the history of Jinghua City since 1991. He talked about Jinghua City's efforts to restore the benchmark floor area ratio to 560% but was rejected. He criticized former Taipei Mayor Hao Longbin for "blatantly not complying", and even pointed out that the deputy mayor of Taipei City Government, Lin Qinrong, was the starting point of the whole case.
Shen Qingjing was suspected of paying bribes to influence the Beijing Municipal Government's decision-making in order to secure the area benefits of Jinghua City. The first instance found that he knew clearly that Jinghua City did not meet the urban renewal conditions, but still bribed Ke Wenzhe and Ying Xiaowei, and jointly attempted to profit Jinghua City to obtain a 20% area bonus that lacked legal basis. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison for conspiracy to profit, deprived of public rights for 5 years, and fined 20 million yuan.
For Ying Xiaowei's part, the first instance found that she used her powers as a council member to convene a coordination meeting, put pressure on the city government, and assisted Jinghua City to strive for volume benefits. She also accepted the 52.5 million yuan delivered by Shen Qingjing through the Huaxia Association and other channels, and also created a breakpoint in cash flow by withdrawing cash and paying card fees. She was sentenced to 15 years in June and deprived of public rights for 6 years for crimes such as violating her duties, accepting bribes, and money laundering.
As for Wu Shunmin, the first instance held that although he served as a consultant to Ying Xiaowei and Weiking Group, he participated in many meetings related to the floor area ratio of Jinghua City, and behaved inappropriately, but the money he received was a consultant's salary, and there was no evidence to prove that he knew that Ying Xiaowei had accepted bribes or was jointly involved in the case. Therefore, he was found not guilty, and the prosecutor refused to accept the appeal.
After the case was appealed, the High Court held a preparatory hearing today. Shen Qingjing said in court that he was a witness and victim of the changes in the urban planning of Jinghua City over the past 40 years. In 1991, when the Taipei City Government and the Ministry of the Interior approved the urban plan, In the absence of a land donation law, Jinghua City is required to donate about 2,400 square meters of land, with a current value of more than 24 billion yuan, and to ensure that the floor area after land donation is 120,284 square meters, equivalent to a floor area ratio of 678.91%. In addition, Jinghua City also donated 600 square meters of land on behalf of surrounding landowners and donated 220 million yuan to help build a puppet theater museum.
Shen Qingjing pointed out that the price paid for the land donation by Jinghua City was to implement the 80-year urban plan. The urban plan has "laws and regulations". "Effectiveness, but former mayor Hao Longbin blatantly did not comply. In 2018, then Taipei City Deputy Mayor Lin Qinrong presided over the Urban Planning Committee. Although the legal floor area ratio of Jinghua City was corrected to 560%, the floor area guaranteed by the original urban plan was deleted without discussion by the committee members. This case also started here, resulting in the damage to the rights and interests of Jinghua City, and the only way to fight for rights was through administrative litigation and petitions.
Shen Qingjing emphasized that regardless of whether he made a petition to the city government or Ying Xiaowei, the subject was Jinghua City Company, not him personally. As for Jinghua City’s subsequent application for volume bonus in accordance with Article 24 of the Urban Planning Law, he said that he was not clear about it and always advocated that it should be handled in accordance with the 1991 Urban Plan. He questioned that the first trial did not provide sufficient reasons and found that he had substantial control and final decision-making power over Jinghua City. However, he was not the largest shareholder of Jinghua City Company, which was difficult for him to accept.
