Kuo Che-min's NT$200 Million Bail Request Rejected, Second Instance Court Rules to Extend Detention for 2 Months
Kuo Che-min, owner of the '88 Club,' sentenced to 11 years and 8 months in the first trial for illegal foreign exchange and gambling, had his NT$200 million bail request to suspend detention rejected. The second instance court ruled to extend his detention by 2 months, starting May 16, citing flight risk and past violations of monitoring rules.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: May 10, 2026 at 14:24
- 🔍 Collected: May 10, 2026 at 14:31 (7 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: May 10, 2026 at 16:06 (1h 34m after Collected)
Central News Agency (Reporter Liu Shih-yi in Taipei on the 10th) – Kuo Che-min, owner of the '88 Club,' involved in illegal foreign exchange and gambling offenses, was sentenced to 11 years and 8 months in the first trial. Kuo Che-min sought NT$200 million bail to suspend detention, stating he had already paid a portion of the criminal proceeds and would not appeal the second instance judgment, willing to serve his sentence. The second instance court ruled to extend his detention by 2 months, starting May 16, and rejected his application.
Kuo Che-min's detention period was set to expire on May 15. The Taiwan High Court, in its second instance, recently held a hearing for extended detention. Kuo Che-min stated in court that the second instance verdict would be announced on the 29th, and he had no intention of appealing, willing to go to prison.
Kuo Che-min emphasized that he had been detained for about 3 years and was willing to provide a NT$200 million guarantee, requesting more than a month to settle his family and bring his mother home. He stated he had already paid NT$126 million in illegal proceeds from underground remittances, and for the remaining illegal gambling proceeds, he would need to be released to borrow from relatives and friends, stressing that he was sincerely facing justice and would never flee.
Public prosecutor stated that the reasons for Kuo Che-min's detention still exist, and he had repeatedly violated monitoring rules during his previous bail period. Considering Kuo Che-min's financial resources, his escape during the investigation period, and possession of foreign passports, once he absconds abroad, the difficulty of repatriation would be extremely high, thus continued detention is necessary.
Kuo Che-min argued that he had always appeared in court as required during past bail periods, and triggering technological monitoring alerts was due to taking his family camping or participating in religious activities, not to evade monitoring. He argued that if he served the first instance sentence, he would be eligible for parole in about 3 years, so there was no need to abandon a huge guarantee and flee abroad. He also cited serious cases like former Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je as examples, arguing that serious crimes do not necessarily entail flight risk, and continuous detention violates the principle of proportionality, proposing alternative dispositions such as limiting electronic fences.
After review, the High Court panel believed that Kuo Che-min was sentenced to a heavy penalty of 11 years and 8 months in the first instance, and heavy penalties usually increase the motivation to flee. Although the second instance debate has concluded, an appeal to the third instance is still possible, and his high possibility of evading subsequent trials and execution still exists. Furthermore, Kuo Che-min repeatedly triggered coastal and port alerts during the monitoring period, indicating suspicion of testing the monitoring effect. Relying solely on increasing bail or electronic monitoring is insufficient to prevent flight.
Regarding Kuo Che-min's claim of returning NT$126 million in illegal proceeds and comparing it to other cases, the panel pointed out that returning proceeds is a matter of confiscation, unrelated to bail; rulings in other cases are individual judgments and cannot be directly cited.
The High Court ruled on the 8th that Kuo Che-min's detention is still necessary, extending his detention by 2 months and rejecting his bail application. The entire case can be appealed.
The case originated from Kuo Che-min, owner of the '88 Club,' who was suspected of operating online gambling and underground remittances. After the incident, he fled to Thailand and was escorted back to Taiwan by the Investigation Bureau in August 2023. The first instance New Taipei District Court determined that Kuo Che-min illegally profited over NT$3.5 billion from gambling operations and handled over NT$21.8 billion in foreign exchange, profiting NT$126 million from it. He was sentenced to 11 years and 8 months in prison for offenses including banking law violations, and his criminal proceeds were confiscated. The case was appealed and is being heard by the High Court in the second instance. (Editor: Chang Ya-ching) 1150510
Choose to stand with facts; your every sponsorship is a force to protect press freedom.
Download the Central News Agency's "First-hand News" APP to get the latest information instantly.
The text, images, and videos on this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, publicly transmitted, or used without authorization.
Kuo Che-min's detention period was set to expire on May 15. The Taiwan High Court, in its second instance, recently held a hearing for extended detention. Kuo Che-min stated in court that the second instance verdict would be announced on the 29th, and he had no intention of appealing, willing to go to prison.
Kuo Che-min emphasized that he had been detained for about 3 years and was willing to provide a NT$200 million guarantee, requesting more than a month to settle his family and bring his mother home. He stated he had already paid NT$126 million in illegal proceeds from underground remittances, and for the remaining illegal gambling proceeds, he would need to be released to borrow from relatives and friends, stressing that he was sincerely facing justice and would never flee.
Public prosecutor stated that the reasons for Kuo Che-min's detention still exist, and he had repeatedly violated monitoring rules during his previous bail period. Considering Kuo Che-min's financial resources, his escape during the investigation period, and possession of foreign passports, once he absconds abroad, the difficulty of repatriation would be extremely high, thus continued detention is necessary.
Kuo Che-min argued that he had always appeared in court as required during past bail periods, and triggering technological monitoring alerts was due to taking his family camping or participating in religious activities, not to evade monitoring. He argued that if he served the first instance sentence, he would be eligible for parole in about 3 years, so there was no need to abandon a huge guarantee and flee abroad. He also cited serious cases like former Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je as examples, arguing that serious crimes do not necessarily entail flight risk, and continuous detention violates the principle of proportionality, proposing alternative dispositions such as limiting electronic fences.
After review, the High Court panel believed that Kuo Che-min was sentenced to a heavy penalty of 11 years and 8 months in the first instance, and heavy penalties usually increase the motivation to flee. Although the second instance debate has concluded, an appeal to the third instance is still possible, and his high possibility of evading subsequent trials and execution still exists. Furthermore, Kuo Che-min repeatedly triggered coastal and port alerts during the monitoring period, indicating suspicion of testing the monitoring effect. Relying solely on increasing bail or electronic monitoring is insufficient to prevent flight.
Regarding Kuo Che-min's claim of returning NT$126 million in illegal proceeds and comparing it to other cases, the panel pointed out that returning proceeds is a matter of confiscation, unrelated to bail; rulings in other cases are individual judgments and cannot be directly cited.
The High Court ruled on the 8th that Kuo Che-min's detention is still necessary, extending his detention by 2 months and rejecting his bail application. The entire case can be appealed.
The case originated from Kuo Che-min, owner of the '88 Club,' who was suspected of operating online gambling and underground remittances. After the incident, he fled to Thailand and was escorted back to Taiwan by the Investigation Bureau in August 2023. The first instance New Taipei District Court determined that Kuo Che-min illegally profited over NT$3.5 billion from gambling operations and handled over NT$21.8 billion in foreign exchange, profiting NT$126 million from it. He was sentenced to 11 years and 8 months in prison for offenses including banking law violations, and his criminal proceeds were confiscated. The case was appealed and is being heard by the High Court in the second instance. (Editor: Chang Ya-ching) 1150510
Choose to stand with facts; your every sponsorship is a force to protect press freedom.
Download the Central News Agency's "First-hand News" APP to get the latest information instantly.
The text, images, and videos on this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, publicly transmitted, or used without authorization.