AI summary
Summary of article:
After Wang Linglin was acquitted in the second case of the prison corruption case, the High People’s Procuratorate held that the verdict violated the law and appealed to the Supreme Court. The controversy centered on whether Su Qingjun still had influence over his position and whether a bribery relationship had been established.
Wang Linglin, chairman of Dongsen Group, was accused of bribing Su Qingjun, a former deputy warden of Taipei Prison, and other prison officials. This was considered the biggest corruption case in the history of prison administration. The second trial found that Su and the prison officials involved could not prove that there was any consideration for their positions, and overturned the verdict and acquitted Wang and the other seven men. Taiwan’s High Prosecutors Office believes Su is a senior official of the Department of Corrections and has substantial influence over the parent service unit. There is a bribery nexus between the seven people involved in the case. Yesterday he appealed to the Supreme Court.
The High People’s Procuratorate reported that prosecutors believed the original verdict violated the law in terms of the selection of evidence, determination of facts, and unprepared reasons for the verdict, and appealed to the third instance for all seven criminal convictions of the seven men. As for Wu Zaiwei, the former warden of Yilan Prison, Ke Shuyu, the former secretary of the Taipei Detention Center, and his wife Wu Peiyu, because they were all found not guilty in the first and second trials, the prosecutor did not appeal in accordance with the speedy trial law, and the three were found not guilty.
In this “biggest corruption case in prison history”, the first example found was that after Wang Linglin was sent to prison, his special assistant Hu Xiaojing treated Su Qingjun with scallop sauce and other high-end gift boxes, and arranged for Su and his wife to stay in the presidential suite of the Dongsen Ocean Hot Spring Hotel for free.
After taking the bribe, Su Qingjun allowed Wang Linglin to work in the library management office. He also assisted in handling exclusive interviews and allowed Wang to oversee the approval of official documents and read contracts. Later, Su was transferred to the warden of Ludao Prison. He nevertheless gave tea, wine, and seafood to his old subordinate Xue Xinghua, and asked Xue to continue to care for Wang during his life in prison.
Prosecutors found that Su Qingjun and Zhao Chongzhi, former deputy warden of Taichung Prison, accepted benefits from gangsters Chi Yaoting and Luo Weide to help their friends receive care in prison. In the first instance, Su Qingjun, Zhao Chongzhi, Xu Jinghua, Wang Linglin and Hu Xiaojing were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 1 to 16 years on corruption charges.
The High Court held that criminal offense cannot be inferred merely because a civil servant has close contact with a prisoner or relatives and friends, accepts gifts, banquets, or violates official ethics. After Su Qingjun’s transfer, he no longer had legal authority over the affairs of Beijing Prison. If the request was merely for personal friendship, Su Qingjun could not be considered to have official influence due to his position as head of the Reform Department. Nor could he accept bribes based only on gifts and requests, so the seven men were acquitted.
Summary FAQ
-
The second instance found that Su Qingjun and the prison officers involved in the case could not prove the existence of a relationship of consideration in the context of the situation, so the verdict was overturned and seven others, including Wang Linglin, were found not guilty. The High People’s Procuratorate believed that there were problems in the selection of evidence, determination of facts, and explanation of reasons in the original verdict, and so appealed.
-
The High Prosecutor’s Office says that as a senior official of the Corrections Department, Su Qingjun still has substantial influence over the original service unit, and there must be a bribery connection between the seven people involved in the case. The prosecutor also believed that the judgment of evidence and facts in the second trial was wrong, so he appealed all seven criminal convictions.
-
The first instance held that Wang Linglin bribed Su Qingjun and others through gift boxes, free housing and prison care, and convicted seven people. The second instance held that if it was merely a personal relationship, exchange of courtesy or a breach of ethics, it could not be directly construed as criminal bribery.
