方改口佩琪 柯文哲律怒「捏造」
台民前主席柯文哲因涉入京城案，目前仍在押，方曾以其妻佩琪人，指控有勾串之虞，作押理由之一。然而，台北地院於19日的理中，方改口表示佩琪的未列入本案，因另有案件正在。此引柯文哲律的烈不，指方捏造，要求法院制止方人的不施。
判在庭上方是否同意除起中引用的「人佩琪」相容，公主任察官林俊廷表示，是否提供份於另案察官的，公察官法定。判建方提出具理由，由合庭函另案察官依定。
柯文哲同案被告、威京集主席沈京的律，要求佩琪的。中，佩琪於去年11月7日向方表示，案中被查扣的A1-37行硬碟是柯文哲在使用，她不清楚面的料容。硬碟的「工作簿」案了多捐款料，其中一「小沈1500」被方指沈京行柯文哲1500元的。方策略是面的捐款人作，以明捐款者另有其人，明「工作簿」案不可信。
林俊廷表示，公察官未持有份，但目前理度已可A1-37硬碟是柯文哲使用。公方同意除起中引用的「人佩琪」容，不作本案。若方希望查看份，可合庭依函。
（/AI生成示意）
柯文哲的律深元批方了押、延押柯文哲，不惜捏造不，指控方所的另案是了理佩琪涉犯源不明罪嫌，故意重要留在地署。深元呼方的作法，指出方在本案理，另案搜索威京旗下公司，形同施人，反公平判原。
沈京的律振文指出，方在去年9月押，就曾以柯文哲佩琪有勾串之虞理由。柯文哲的律正，起依法卷宗送法院，方此毫裁量空。
判表示，合庭不同程序外的任何影造的行，法院依法酌涉及案情的。沈京的律徐履冰庭求合庭命方送佩琪的，以近期以人身份柯文哲所需。徐履冰指出，方起列人，但未列入清，是方的。
br />此案的展引社泛注，方方的攻防仍在持，未的理果柯文哲及相人士生重大影。
台民前主席、台北市前市柯文哲因涉入「京城案」遭方起押，案件至今仍在理中。今（19日）台北地方法院再度召庭，法庭氛一度拔弩，爆出激烈攻防。核心在於方先前押、延押柯文哲，曾明以「其妻佩琪是人，存在勾串之虞」作理由之一，但今日公察官在法庭上突然改口，表示佩琪的「另案」，不列入本案，甚至同意除起中引用的相容。
此引柯文哲同案被告、威京集董事沈京的律「炸」，怒斥方「捏造」、「性匿」，疑方企藉此操作案件奏。判在中冷表，表示法院依法酌，提醒方尊重程序正，但不容忍「程序外」的不影。
核心：A1-37硬碟「小沈1500」
京城案最受注的之一，是一「A1-37」的行硬碟。方主，硬碟由柯文哲使用，部存有名「工作簿」的案，大量捐款料。其中一「小沈1500」的，被方是沈京涉嫌行1500元的。
然而，份真性早已不。律指出，佩琪在2024年11月7日接受方，承硬碟由柯文哲在用，但她不知道面具存有什料。律此，方大了的效用。更重要的是，硬碟在送往位前，曾被案人翻12天，存在「案可能被手」的疑，因此不能成定罪依。
律的策略是逐一「工作簿」上的捐款人作，藉此凸金流可能不符，而硬碟作「」的正性。
（/AI生成示意）
方改口：除引用
今日庭程中，公主任察官林俊廷庭表明，佩琪的未入本案，原因在於此「另案」，公察官理是否提供。但他同表示，既然方有疑，公方意除起中引用的相容，不再作本件。
林俊廷一步指出，目前理度已能清「A1-37硬碟由柯文哲使用」，即便不引用佩琪，方仍有足理由主硬碟柯。若方持要，可以透合庭向「另案察官」函，交由其依定。
律烈反：痛批方「黑箱操作」
於方的「改口」，律表大不，甚至用「司法黑箱」、「捏造」形容。
柯文哲的律深元怒指出，去年12月底案件移，方在押理由中明指「佩琪人，存在勾串之虞」，也是法院同意押的重要依。但律就已反映，清中的。方承「送」，如今隔八月才在法庭上改口，是司法信的重大打。
深元更直言：「方了押、延押柯文哲，不惜捏造理由，令人痛心。更重的是，他刻意扣在地署，以『源不明罪』另案佩琪，根本是把作使用，的操作重反公平判原。」
沈京的律振文充，方早在去年9月押，就曾以「柯可能勾串」理由，如今自行否定，方一始就是「一套、做一套」。另一名律正更，依《刑事法》定，起後卷宗完整送交法院，方根本有裁量空，性提供，等於法。
（/AI生成示意）
法院立：依法酌、保持中立
判在取方激烈攻防後，冷做出表。他指出，法院依「不告不理」原，法主查起外的，但若涉及案情核心，仍依法酌。他提醒，任何企透查影造攻防的行，法院都不同。
了化解，判建方可以正式具，由合庭依函另案察官，定是否提供佩琪。一方案既可持程序完整，也避免持延。
延伸：方同步搜索相企
律一步抨，方在本案理期，仍持威京集相企展搜索，包括中工公司、中石化公司等，以涉嫌反《券交易法》由相人。其中，京城案已罪起的朱虎，也被再次。
律疑，「理、查」的做法，形同人施，可能致受到影，重破公平判原。他呼法院出面制止，避免方用查。
社察：司法公信力再受考
柯文哲案爆以，持社政治神。身台民袖前大候人，柯的司法暴不乎人清自由，更影士政治版。
支持者，此案透著「政治追」的影子；反者主，正是柯文哲多年政治操作的刻。如今方突然改口除佩琪，更外界疑司法程序是否受到外力介入，司法立、公平判的信任度再次被推上口浪尖。
家分析：制度程序的重挑
法律者，此案凸台司法三大挑：
防益的保障：方同持有拒提供，被告的防免受，程序正受到侵。
押制度的合理性：若方在押理由中引用不存在的，致押理由正性受到重大疑。
社信任危：方若被外界定「性提供」，使司法形象雪上加霜，恐引社「案有立」的疑。
有律界人士直言，此案不是柯文哲的人官司，而是台司法制的「力」。倘若理不慎，恐一步加深人民司法「不透明」「政治化」的印象。
京城案的理程，再度展司法攻防的高力。方一方面主充分，一方面又以「另案」由拒提供，案件陷入「黑箱疑」；方全力反，疑方刻意操作程序、反公平判原。
攻防，已不再只是的司法，而是攸政治信任制度改革的。未法院是否能在程序正正之取得平衡，定台社司法公信力的信心。
Taiwan Opposition Leader Ko Wen-je’s Trial Sparks Controversy as Prosecutors Withdraw Key Testimony
The high-profile trial of former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party founder Ko Wen-je took a dramatic turn on Tuesday (19), as prosecutors abruptly withdrew testimony from Ko’s wife, Peggy Chen (Chen Pei-chi), which had previously been cited as a key reason for his detention. The sudden reversal provoked an outcry from Ko’s defense team, who accused the prosecution of “fabricating evidence” and engaging in selective disclosure to manipulate the proceedings.
Prosecutors Backtrack on “Key Witness” Testimony
When Ko was first detained late last year over the so-called “Jinghua City case”, prosecutors justified continued detention by labeling Chen as a “critical witness” who could collude with Ko. However, during Tuesday’s court session at the Taipei District Court, lead prosecutor Lin Chun-ting declared that Chen’s interrogation record was not included in the official evidence list, as it belonged to a “separate ongoing investigation.”
Prosecutors even agreed to remove references to Chen’s testimony from the indictment, a move that sparked outrage among defense attorneys.
“This is appalling,” said senior defense lawyer Cheng Shen-yuan. “For months, the prosecution insisted Chen’s testimony was grounds for Ko’s detention. Now, eight months later, they claim it was never part of the case file. This is nothing short of judicial manipulation.”
The Disputed Hard Drive and the “Xiao Shen 1500” Entry
At the center of the case is an external hard drive labeled A1-37, allegedly used by Ko. The device contained a spreadsheet with donation records, including an entry marked “Xiao Shen 1500.” Prosecutors argue the note refers to NT$15 million (approx. US$480,000) in illicit funds from real estate tycoon Shen Ching-jing, chairman of the Wei Ching Group.
The defense strongly disputes this interpretation. Attorneys argue that the hard drive was accessed by investigators for 12 days before undergoing forensic analysis, raising the possibility of tampering or data contamination. They further contend that the spreadsheet may not have been authored by Ko and plan to call listed donors to testify, hoping to undermine the reliability of the records.
Ko’s wife, during questioning in November 2024, admitted the hard drive belonged to Ko but insisted she had no knowledge of its contents.
Defense Accuses Prosecutors of “Double Standards”
Defense attorneys blasted prosecutors for a “double-standard approach”:
On one hand, using Chen’s testimony as a reason to keep Ko in custody.
On the other, classifying the same testimony as part of “another case” to avoid disclosure.
“This is a blatant violation of due process,” argued attorney Lu Cheng-yi. “Under Taiwan’s Criminal Procedure Law, all evidence cited in an indictment must be presented to the court. Prosecutors do not have the discretion to cherry-pick.”
Court Urges Restraint, Maintains Neutrality
Presiding Judge sought to defuse tensions, reminding both sides that the court is bound by the principle of “no trial beyond indictment” but would nevertheless scrutinize evidence critical to the case.
The judge suggested the defense formally request that the tribunal issue a letter to prosecutors in charge of the separate investigation, compelling them to decide whether Chen’s testimony should be disclosed.
“The integrity of the proceedings must be preserved,” the judge remarked, stressing that fairness could not be compromised by investigative tactics.
Wider Concerns: Searches on Related Companies
The defense also accused prosecutors of applying pressure by continuing to raid Wei Ching Group subsidiaries, including China Engineering and China Petrochemical, during the trial. Individuals previously granted deferred prosecution agreements, such as businessman Chu Ya-hu, were also summoned again. Defense lawyers claim these tactics amounted to “witness intimidation” that jeopardized the fairness of the trial.
Political and Social Implications
Ko Wen-je’s case has become more than a legal battle; it is a political storm with national implications. Once considered a maverick figure in Taiwanese politics, Ko founded the Taiwan People’s Party in 2019 and ran for president in 2024. His detention has sparked debates over whether the judiciary is being politicized.
Supporters portray the case as “political persecution”, while critics argue it exposes long-standing questions about Ko’s financial dealings.
The controversy over Chen’s testimony and the disputed hard drive has only deepened public mistrust in Taiwan’s judicial system, already perceived by some as vulnerable to political influence.
Expert Analysis: A Stress Test for Taiwan’s Judiciary
Legal scholars say the case underscores three fundamental challenges:
Defendants’ Right to Defense Withholding evidence undermines fair trial principles.
Detention Justifications If prosecutors used non-existent evidence to argue for detention, it calls into question the legitimacy of the process.
Judicial Credibility Public perception of selective prosecution risks eroding confidence in Taiwan’s rule of law.
“This trial is no longer just about Ko Wen-je,” one professor of criminal law commented. “It is a stress test for Taiwan’s entire judicial system. The world is watching to see whether Taiwan can demonstrate judicial independence in a politically sensitive case.”
Conclusion
As the trial unfolds, the outcome remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the courtroom clash over evidence disclosure has already exposed deeper fissures in Taiwan’s legal and political landscape. Whether Ko is ultimately convicted or acquitted, the handling of the case will likely shape public confidence in Taiwan’s judiciary for years to come.
- 者：之亨
- 更多社新 »
