Legislator Gao Jin Sumei's important staff (big accountant) Zhang Junjie abandoned bail and absconded. The Taipei District Court issued a rare "thousand-character statement" explaining that the original prosecution did not involve communist spies, and the bail was judged based on the evidence at the time. However, it is understood that the prosecutors have already raised Zhang’s overseas assets, his eldest daughter’s long-term residence in China, and his close relationship with China as warning signs for his escape. How the North Court evaluates these evidences, as well as the system of one judge deciding bail in major cases and affecting subsequent relief, will be reviewed again.
The North Court clarified today that when Zhang Junjie was transferred to trial, the judge who was on trial ordered him to post a bail of 10 million yuan based on the evidence and specific circumstances at the time, with additional restrictions on his residence, travel abroad, regular check-in, and electronic handgun monitoring. The prosecutor subsequently filed a quasi-protest, which was also rejected by another collegial bench of the North Court. Zhang Junjie destroyed the equipment and fled afterwards, and should be investigated separately from the basis of the original punishment.
However, the prosecutor's suggestion that Zhang Junjie was a flight risk was not an afterthought. When Zhang Junjie was transferred for trial, the prosecutor warned that he had been in prison for more than 16 years. He had overseas financial resources. His eldest daughter lived in China and had not yet been charged. In the past, he had repatriated more than 100 million yuan from Hong Kong through relatives and friends. He also brought up factors such as Zhang Junjie's close relationship with China, and strongly argued that Zhang Junjie was still necessary to be detained. Moreover, the prosecutor had completely sorted out the investigation documents and transferred them to the court. To some extent, it was almost an "explicit indication" that Zhang Junjie was involved in the national security law.
According to the North Court's explanation, the dispute is whether the indictment does not involve communist espionage and is sufficient to respond to the prosecutor's concerns about escape at the time. Overseas assets, relatives and connections all involve the defendant's ability to leave the country and the conditions for meeting him; the judge's identification of these specific warning signs and whether the security deposit, border control and technological monitoring can effectively prevent escape are the issues that must be faced when making bail decisions.
Zhang Junjie’s case also involves the collegial panel system. This newspaper previously reported that the trial was conducted by a collegial panel composed of three judges. The bail release of Ke Wenzhe in Beijing City was jointly reviewed by three judges, while Zhang Junjie was decided by the appointed judge Lin Chengxin. According to the current system, the appointed judge can make a decision alone, and the procedure is not illegal. However, there is a lack of clear standards for which cases should be submitted to the collegial panel for joint judgment.
The decision-making method also affects the relief. In Zhang Junjie's case, the appointed judge made a transaction guarantee. If the Beijing Procuratorate refused to accept the decision, it could only apply to the North Court for revocation or change. After the decision was rejected by another collegial panel, it could no longer appeal to the High Court. If the ruling was originally made by the collegial panel, it could in principle appeal to the higher court.
Although Interpretation No. 639 agreed that this system was constitutional, Justice Lin Ziyi raised a different opinion that year, questioning how the division of labor within the court affected the trial-level relief of the parties. Zhang Junjie's case has not gone unexamined from bail to relief, but it also highlights that in cases where there are specific warning signs of overseas escape, there is still a need to discuss whether common evaluation standards should be established and the dispute should be given the opportunity to be tested by a higher court.
