Former Taipei Mayor Ke Wenzhe. (File photo)
In the case of former Taipei Mayor Ko Wenzhe involving Beijing City and political donations, the first instance focused on the investigation of facts and evidence, while the second instance focused on the application of the law and the grounds for appeal. Lawyer Chen Junwei analyzed that the area of Jinghua City has high economic value and should have clear legal authorization. Prosecutors still have to prove that Ke knew that the award lacked legal source and still intended to obtain illegal benefits for Jinghua City. In the political donation case, it is necessary to clarify how Ke and Li Wenzong established a joint breach of trust, the actual work content of the foundation personnel, whether it caused property damage, and whether Ke had the criminal intention to misappropriate funds to pay for campaign personnel costs, which will directly affect whether the crime of breach of trust can be sustained.
Regarding the Zhongwang Foundation breach of trust case, Ke Wenzhe was found in the first instance to have embezzled more than 8.27 million yuan with Li Wenzong, chairman of the foundation, to pay the salaries of People's Party employees who were actually engaged in presidential campaign work. He was sentenced to two years and six months in prison for breach of trust. Since Article 376 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that the crime of breach of trust is a case that cannot be appealed to the third instance in principle, the second instance judgment may be determined first.
Please read on...
Chen Junwei pointed out that the second trial must clarify at least four major issues, including how Ke was not the person in charge of the foundation and how he and Li Wenzong established a joint breach of trust; the personnel receiving the foundation's salary actually worked for the foundation or the campaign team; whether the foundation had indeed suffered property damage, and whether the more than 8.27 million yuan could be fully included; and finally, whether Ke knew that the funds could not be used for campaigning and still intended to pay personnel costs through the foundation. How the above-mentioned facts and subjective criminal intent are determined will directly determine whether the crime of breach of trust can be sustained.
As for the Jinghua City case, Chen Junwei analyzed that the first instance found that Jinghua City's 20% allowance bonus was illegal, mainly based on three reasons, including the "Taipei City Land Use Zoning Control Autonomy Ordinance" stipulating that the upper limit of the floor area ratio of the third type of commercial district is 560%; the "Principles for Review of Urban Planning Detailed Plans" restricting detailed plans from exceeding the existing upper limit; and the fact that Jinghua City was not a case of urban renewal, but quoted the capital allowance project, which lacked legal basis.
Ke Fang advocated a "dual-track system" for the Beijing City Appearance Award to be adopted in general cases and case-by-case. The metropolitan committee can award the capacity award through detailed plans, and the capacity is administrative benefit and does not apply to strict legal reservations. This case is also a "participation" rather than a "permission" regulation. Chen Junwei believes that although the most stringent legal reservations may not apply to benefit administration, the capacity of Jinghua City involves major public interests, huge benefit distribution and urban planning control, so it should still have clearer legal authorization and cannot simply be regarded as general administrative benefits.
Chen Junwei emphasized that the first instance held that the evidence of "Xiao Shen 1500" lacked sufficient reinforcing evidence to prove the actual delivery of 15 million yuan, so it did not find that Ke had accepted bribes; the Beijing Prosecutor's Appeal argued that the "Xiao Shen 1500" workbook It is not simply a confession by the defendant, but has the nature of an account record. In addition, Curzon subpoenaed Huang Shanshan and said that "Weijing Xiao Shen has already given it." This is enough to reinforce each other. If the second trial changes the verdict of accepting bribes of 15 million yuan, the punishment may still be increased.
Legal experts point out that the real legal battle in the second trial is for the High Court to uphold the administrative law judgment of the first trial. The prosecutors still have to further prove that Ke Wenzhe was clearly aware of the lack of legal basis for the award at the time, but still intended to allow Beijing City to obtain illegal benefits. On the contrary, if the High Court believes that the law at the time does have room for interpretation and the metropolitan committee also has room for professional discretion, the criminal threshold of "knowingly violating the law" may be controversial.
Related news: The second trial of the Ke case appears 2-1》Can the first trial turn around after 17 years? Dismantling Ke Wenzhe’s “Five Major Battlefields”
