Man Accuses Watch Shop of Swapping Luxury Watch, Identical Movement Flaws Prove Shop's Innocence
A man in Kaohsiung accused a watch repair shop of swapping his luxury watch for a counterfeit after cleaning, but the court acquitted the shop, citing matching movement numbers and tiny flaws before and after the repair.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: May 6, 2026 at 13:49
- 🔍 Collected: May 6, 2026 at 14:01 (12 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: May 6, 2026 at 14:14 (12 min after Collected)
Central News Agency
(Kaohsiung, Central News Agency reporter Hong Hsueh-kuang, May 6) A man surnamed Li in Kaohsiung sent his watch to a watch shop for maintenance and later accused the repair director, surnamed Zeng, of swapping his original Rolex for a counterfeit, filing a charge of occupational embezzlement. The Kaohsiung District Court found that the watch movement numbers were identical before and after repair, and there was also the same small notch, concluding that the watch was not swapped and ruling Zeng not guilty.
During the trial at the Kaohsiung District Court, Zeng firmly denied the allegations, stating that modern watch magnifiers are glued on and can accidentally detach during ultrasonic cleaning. He also claimed that the watch's steel bezel was already corroded, and cracks only became visible after dirt and fake diamonds were cleaned off, denying any substitution with a counterfeit.
The Kaohsiung District Court judge examined the evidence and found that the maintenance receipt issued by Zeng clearly noted "Rolex mechanical watch (non-original)" and the appearance inspection column also indicated corrosion. Referring to professional watch data, the judge confirmed that the magnifier of this watch model is indeed "separately installed" rather than integrated with the glass, and thus accidental detachment during cleaning is possible.
The judge further reviewed the movement comparison photos provided by Li and found that the movement numbers before and after repair were both "2846," and there was a very subtle notch below the Arabic numeral "2" in both. If the watch had indeed been swapped, it would be impossible for a counterfeit to have such an identical minute feature as the original watch, which indirectly proved that the watch had not been replaced.
The court considered that the evidence presented by the prosecutor was insufficient to prove that Zeng had swapped the watch and embezzled it, and most of the photos provided by the accuser were not taken at the time of sending for cleaning, thus failing to prove the original appearance of the item. Based on this, Zeng was acquitted. The case can still be appealed.
The judgment stated that on December 9, 2023, Li sent a mechanical watch to a watch shop in Sanmin District, Kaohsiung City, for cleaning and maintenance. The repair director, surnamed Zeng, received the watch, and the agreed maintenance fee was NT$1800.
However, when Li went to pick up the watch a week later, he found that the date window's magnifier was missing, the diamond bezel had damage, and the day display color and movement were different from before the repair. Li suspected that Zeng had secretly taken his original Rolex watch and replaced it with a similar-looking counterfeit, so he reported the case and accused Zeng of occupational embezzlement. (Edited by: Chang Ya-ching) 1150506
Choose to stand with facts, every sponsorship of yours is a force to protect press freedom.
Download the Central News Agency "First-hand News" APP to grasp the latest news instantly.
The text, images, and audio-visual content of this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, or publicly transmitted or utilized without authorization.
(Kaohsiung, Central News Agency reporter Hong Hsueh-kuang, May 6) A man surnamed Li in Kaohsiung sent his watch to a watch shop for maintenance and later accused the repair director, surnamed Zeng, of swapping his original Rolex for a counterfeit, filing a charge of occupational embezzlement. The Kaohsiung District Court found that the watch movement numbers were identical before and after repair, and there was also the same small notch, concluding that the watch was not swapped and ruling Zeng not guilty.
During the trial at the Kaohsiung District Court, Zeng firmly denied the allegations, stating that modern watch magnifiers are glued on and can accidentally detach during ultrasonic cleaning. He also claimed that the watch's steel bezel was already corroded, and cracks only became visible after dirt and fake diamonds were cleaned off, denying any substitution with a counterfeit.
The Kaohsiung District Court judge examined the evidence and found that the maintenance receipt issued by Zeng clearly noted "Rolex mechanical watch (non-original)" and the appearance inspection column also indicated corrosion. Referring to professional watch data, the judge confirmed that the magnifier of this watch model is indeed "separately installed" rather than integrated with the glass, and thus accidental detachment during cleaning is possible.
The judge further reviewed the movement comparison photos provided by Li and found that the movement numbers before and after repair were both "2846," and there was a very subtle notch below the Arabic numeral "2" in both. If the watch had indeed been swapped, it would be impossible for a counterfeit to have such an identical minute feature as the original watch, which indirectly proved that the watch had not been replaced.
The court considered that the evidence presented by the prosecutor was insufficient to prove that Zeng had swapped the watch and embezzled it, and most of the photos provided by the accuser were not taken at the time of sending for cleaning, thus failing to prove the original appearance of the item. Based on this, Zeng was acquitted. The case can still be appealed.
The judgment stated that on December 9, 2023, Li sent a mechanical watch to a watch shop in Sanmin District, Kaohsiung City, for cleaning and maintenance. The repair director, surnamed Zeng, received the watch, and the agreed maintenance fee was NT$1800.
However, when Li went to pick up the watch a week later, he found that the date window's magnifier was missing, the diamond bezel had damage, and the day display color and movement were different from before the repair. Li suspected that Zeng had secretly taken his original Rolex watch and replaced it with a similar-looking counterfeit, so he reported the case and accused Zeng of occupational embezzlement. (Edited by: Chang Ya-ching) 1150506
Choose to stand with facts, every sponsorship of yours is a force to protect press freedom.
Download the Central News Agency "First-hand News" APP to grasp the latest news instantly.
The text, images, and audio-visual content of this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, or publicly transmitted or utilized without authorization.