Supreme Court Remands Yen Kuan-heng Corruption Case for Further Investigation

Regarding the corruption case in which Legislator Yen Kuan-heng was accused of embezzling assistant fees through Lin Chin-fu, the first and second instance courts had found both guilty. After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court determined that relevant evidence suggests Lin Chin-fu did indeed perform duties for Yen Kuan-heng, and that there are aspects of the case that require further investigation and clarification. Consequently, the court overturned the verdict today and remanded it to the Taiwan High Court Taichung Branch for retrial. According to the Taichung District Prosecutors Office indictment, KMT Legislator Yen Kuan-heng is suspected of using Lin Chin-fu, the head of a construction company, as a front to embezzle NT$1.08 million in assistant fees. Key evidence included account books such as the 'Yen's Agency Payment Table' prepared by Lin's wife, Huang Yu-ping, which listed 'Legislative Yuan Salary,' involving corruption charges. Both first and second instance courts sentenced Yen to 7 years and 10 months in prison and Lin to 7 years and 8 months in prison under the Anti-Corruption Act. The Supreme Court provided four reasons for overturning the verdict and remanding it. First, the original verdict concluded that Yen and Lin used a front to embezzle public funds, but also acknowledged that Lin had performed services for Yen, such as attending weddings and funerals and handling constituent requests, supported by witnesses and photos. The original verdict's fact-finding was inconsistent with the evidence. Second, the Supreme Court stated that the original verdict failed to evaluate Yen's statements comprehensively, cherry-picking ambiguous parts to conclude that Yen did not hire Lin as a public-funded assistant, lacking rational evidence evaluation. Third, the Supreme Court argued that the original verdict failed to specify the basis for concluding that Huang Yu-ping recorded Lin's salary in Yen's agency accounts, leaving facts unclear. Finally, the Supreme Court noted that the original verdict's claim that the prosecutor's office 'did not yet know' whether Yen was involved in corruption during the March 28, 2023, interrogation was inconsistent with the case files. The Supreme Court emphasized that 'whether the prosecutor had already discovered Yen's crime of using his position to embezzle property before the interrogation is crucial to the admissibility of Yen's statements.' The original verdict's failure to investigate this, while admitting the evidence, was contradictory and constituted a failure of investigative duty. Separately, Yen's case regarding the Shalu mansion—involving illegal occupation of state land and fraudulent property transfers—has already been finalized, with an acquittal on the land occupation charge and a six-month sentence (convertible to a fine) for forgery, and is not part of this Supreme Court review.