Press Release, Taipei District Prosecutors Office, Taiwan, Date: April 27, 2007

I.     Background of the Case and Conclusion of Investigation:

Regarding the case “Bribe Allegation on Hu Tzu-Hsiung (Hu Gua)’s Gambling Case”, the Taipei District Prosecutors Office received a anonymous letter of accusation on March 22, 2007 alleging that a judge had accepted a bribe to acquit entertainer Hu Gua, who supposedly made a fortune cheating at mahjong gambler. The Mobile Enforcement Team of Bureau of Investigation, Ministry of Justice, began investigation promptly led by the head prosecutor Mr. Ho Ming-Huang, who is also the prosecutor in the Hu’s gambling case. Eight locations were being searched on the next day (March 23, 2007), thereafter 30 days of detailed investigation were undertaken, 25 witnesses were called to summon. The investigation concluded today (April 27, 2007) that in the case, Liang Chia-Yao used the relationship with Wu Meng-Liang, the judge of the criminal court of the Taiwan Taipei District Court (hereinafter referred as Taipei Court), who was the classmate of Liang in the Affiliated Senior High School of National Taiwan Normal University, claimed the feasibility of illegal lobbying to the judge and help the suspect Hu avoid the sentence and plead not guilty. Liang in turn asked for reward that equals to NT$11 million in the name of event fund. The intention failed for some reason; however, the action has violated the Article 339 in the Criminal Law and committed the Offenses of Fraud. The prosecutor hence initiated public prosecution for the reasons that such behavior harms the reputation of the jurisdiction system and undermines the public confident in justice. Therefore the judge determined in heavy sentence as imprisonment of one year and six months to set an example to the society. (See details in the indictment) 

II.   Regarding the suspects Hu Tzu-Hsiung and Lee Chin-Liang’s involvement in bribing the prosecutor in charge:

According to the details in investigation records of the relationship between Hu Tzu-Hsiung/Lee Chin-Liang and Liang Chia-Yao, the evidence showed that Lee Chin-Liang has had intensive communications with Liang Chia-Yao, the frequency of contact is above the average. It was considered that the accused intention to bribe the judge in charge in order to change the conclusion of the case is true, and they did have discussion on such subject and achieved an agreement. However, Taipei District Court's Civil Service Ethics Office contacted Hu's fiancé, Ding Rou-An on December 29, 2006 for summon, which made the suspects alerted and terminated the agreement right before the transaction. The outcome of the investigation is not of sufficient evidence to prove that the suspects have embodied their intention to approach the judge in charge to execute the action of “bribing”. In addition, after carefully reviewing the transaction records of relevant individuals, there are no unusual signs. Therefore in light of the principles of Criminal Law, that is “when there is little reason for suspicion, and the law is unclear, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt”, the district prosecutors office gave the suspects relatively light sentence for insufficient evidence. It is so concluded.

III.  No evidence of the judge being bribed:

According to prosecution of Hu Tzu-Hsiung case including the process of appraisal, it has been investigated and comprehended that there is no evidence found in the transaction records and call records among the relevant individuals, nor any positive material evidence to show that any judge tried to change the conclusion under the influence of the bribe. It is so concluded. 

IV.  Regarding the source and intentions of the anonymous letter of accusation:

After detailed investigation and tracing, it has identified the sender of anonymous letter of accusation as Lin Chao-Hsin, editor-in-chief of China Times Weekly. Although Lin insisted on his claims of the charges on Hu’s and has filed a complaint on the justice of the prosecution. It is considered that Lin’s deliberation on malicious accusation is hard to prove and there has not been a criminal liability involved, it is so concluded. However, Lin’s behavior of sending in the accusation letter of accusation is suspected to be a method to attract public attention and promote the sales of its periodicals. It has caused damage on the reputation of jurisdiction and the approach being taken is controversial. The fairness of such behavior is left to the media and public, the position that the Taipei District Prosecutors Office has taken is so stated.

V.   The Use of Level 2 Drug

Additionally, on March 23, 2007, Marijuana, a level 2 controlled drug, was seized at Hu Tzu-Hsiung’s apartment. Yet the part regarding the level 2 drug abuse of Hu Tzu-Hsiung and Ding Rou-An was undertaken to the Taipei District Prosecutors Office, and a petition of rehabilitation was filed on April 10. The Taipei District Prosecutors Office has so concluded on April 13, 2007; and Hu Tzu-Hsiung and Ding Rou-An appealed on the April 20. The case is being reviewed by Taiwan High Court.