Former Taipei University of Technology professor Wang Longchang was implicated in the Nangang Exhibition Hall corruption case and sentenced to 7 years and 8 months in prison. However, he was acquitted on retrial. The key factor was the inconsistent testimony of Huang Wei-an, the special assistant to the chairman of Lituo Construction, who accused him of accepting bribes, and the lack of corroborating objective evidence such as cash flow.<\/p>\n
Wang Po-Chi, an associate professor at Ming Chuan University, stated that while prosecuted witnesses can help uncover hidden crimes, they may also make false accusations to reduce sentences. Therefore, objective evidence is crucial, and how the court selects evidence and forms its own subjective judgment is also key to avoiding miscarriage of justice.<\/p>\n
Wang Longchang was initially convicted of accepting bribes, with the key evidence coming from Huang Wei-an, who became a prosecuted witness. Huang accused Wang of accepting NT$700,000 in “initial payment” and NT$500,000 in “following payment,” totaling NT$1.2 million. However, no communication or email records were found between the two, and no bribes were seized or any corresponding abnormal financial flows were discovered in Wang’s or his family’s accounts. Huang’s testimonies regarding key details such as how he met Wang Longchang, the time and place of their meetings, and the time and method of the bribe delivery varied in previous testimonies.<\/p>\n
One crucial new piece of evidence for overturning the verdict, discovered by the High Court during the retrial, contradicted Huang’s account of Wang Longchang’s teaching records. Huang testified that he met Wang Longchang at a Vietnamese restaurant on the evening of November 4, 2003. However, records from National Taipei University of Technology show that Wang Longchang regularly taught classes on campus from 6:30 PM to 9:10 PM that evening, with no record of him requesting leave. The restaurant invoices and credit card transaction records in the case file only prove that Huang had consumed goods at the restaurant that evening, but cannot further prove that the person he dined with was Wang Longchang.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the documentation regarding Rio Tinto’s withdrawal of NT$700,000 only proves that the funds were handled by Huang, but fails to prove that they flowed to Wang Longchang. The additional NT$500,000 “later payment” also lacks corroborating evidence of payment and fund transfer. The High Court held that Huang, as a bribe-giver, required corroborating evidence for his testimony. In this case, there was a lack of objective evidence proving that Wang actually received NT$1.2 million; therefore, the guilty verdict was overturned, and Huang was acquitted.<\/p>\n
Wang Po-Chi explained that the original purpose of the tainted witness system was to encourage those involved in cases to disclose criminal facts that are difficult to detect. Especially in serious crimes, which are often secretive and difficult for outsiders to obtain evidence of, the confessions of those involved can assist prosecutors and investigators in discovering crimes and tracking down other accomplices. Therefore, the system itself has a positive function.<\/p>\n
Wang Po-Chi stated that the tainted witness system carries inherent risks. Because witnesses may exchange testimonies about other involved parties for reduced sentences or other favorable treatment, there is a potential incentive for them to falsely accuse others for their own benefit. They might even gamble on personal grudges, thinking, “Since the worst that can happen is imprisonment, if implicating someone else can get me a reduced sentence, I’ll take the risk.” Therefore, the credibility of a tainted witness’s testimony requires further verification with other objective evidence.<\/p>\n
Wang Po-Chi further pointed out that the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor in how the court selects evidence and forms its own evaluation of evidence. The court should also investigate and assess the probative value of relevant evidence. Even if the defendant presents multiple pieces of evidence favorable to them, if the court ultimately chooses not to accept them, the key lies in whether the judge’s process of forming their own evaluation of evidence and the sufficiency of their reasons are sufficient. However, this evaluation of evidence is not without limitations. If there is objective evidence favorable to the defendant, the court should still thoroughly investigate and explain why it should be accepted or rejected.<\/p>\n