Xiao Liyan was involved in the case of purchasing co-signed letters. The High Court rejected the prosecutor's appeal and upheld the acquittal verdict.

Xiao Liyan, who once ran for Taoyuan City Council on behalf of the Democratic Progressive Party. (File photo)

Xiao Liyan, who once represented the Democratic Progressive Party in running for Taoyuan City Yangmei District Councilor, was accused of entrusting a congressman named Zhao of the same term to purchase co-signers for Terry Gou, the founder of Hon Hai Group who was interested in running for president, at a price of 200 yuan each. She was prosecuted by the Taoyuan District Prosecutor's Office for violating the "President and Vice President Election and Removal Law." The Taoyuan District Court of first instance found that there was insufficient evidence and acquitted Xiao. The prosecutor appealed, and the High Court today dismissed the appeal.

The prosecutor pointed out that 46-year-old Xiao Liyan contacted Guo Taiming's camp about co-signing and fund allocation matters. In October 2023, she met with the parliamentary candidate surnamed Zhao and handed over 800 blank co-signing letters and 50,000 yuan, instructing Zhao to find qualified people to sign at a cost of 200 yuan each. The prosecutor launched a search at the end of the same month and seized 297 completed petitions. After pleading guilty, Mr. Zhao was sentenced to one year and two months in prison and suspended for three years. Those who participated in the petition were given deferred prosecution. Ms. Xiao was overseas at the time and was summoned and prosecuted after returning to the country.

Please read on...

During the trial, Xiao Nu denied being involved in the case, claiming that she met with Zhao Nan to repay the debt, and that she did not entrust the other party to purchase the co-signed letter. The trip abroad was also a pre-arranged negotiation trip and was not a way to avoid the limelight.

The Taoyuan District Court of first instance held that Zhao Nan’s testimony during the investigation and trial was inconsistent and contradictory, and lacked credibility; the communication software chat records between the two parties did not show that Xiao Nu had paid to entrust Zhao Nan to purchase the co-signed letter. Except for the single testimony of Mr. Zhao, the whole case lacked other supporting evidence, so it was impossible to confirm that Ms. Xiao had committed a crime, so the verdict was not guilty.

The prosecutor appealed, and the High Court held that the first-instance judgment was not erroneous and dismissed the prosecutor's appeal.