Our defense arguments are primarily structured around both procedural violations and substantive defenses: 1. Regarding the procedural issues in this case (1) The court lacks jurisdiction over this case, and the subsequent retroactive designation of jurisdiction cannot rectify the earlier procedural violations in the review and prosecution process, seriously infringing upon Wang’s legitimate rights. (2) Prior to the trial, the defense counsel submitted requests for transferring jurisdiction, requesting evidence retrieval, consolidation of cases for joint trial, and summoning witnesses to testify—but received no response whatsoever. This constitutes a significant procedural violation. (3) Some of Wang’s statements were reportedly obtained through torture and coercive interrogation, meaning the contents of the recorded statements do not reflect his true intentions and should therefore be excluded. 2. On the Crime of Embezzlement by Office Holders (1) Wang did not subjectively harbor the criminal intent to commit embezzlement; he was neither the initiator of the project, nor the organizer, commander, or negotiator of the contract. Moreover, he was neither the proposer nor the decision-maker behind the scheme to transfer funds by inflating the scope of work—nor did he actively participate in its execution. Instead, he merely carried out tasks as arranged by his predecessor and based on the handover documentation. (2) The funds involved were transferred to the account of Company B, which is not under Wang’s direct control, and there is no evidence that Wang appropriated these funds for personal use. (3) The transfer of the 160 million yuan in project payments followed Y Group’s internal approval process, initiated to address the issue of rising tax costs caused by insufficient original invoices. S Company’s minority shareholders were informed about and approved this arrangement. Documentary evidence, including the framework agreement, memorandum, and official submission documents, clearly confirms the existence of a 200-million-yuan debt, which S Company’s minority shareholders were fully aware of and endorsed. (4) Y Group leveraged its own expertise to provide comprehensive consulting services spanning design, bidding, construction, acceptance, and management. Additionally, the group mobilized human resources from other companies to support the project. Charging service fees as stipulated in the contract is a standard business practice. The prosecution has conflated engineering cost consulting with on-site management consulting services. Importantly, the funds never ended up in Wang’s personal possession, thus absolving him of any charges related to embezzlement.

The first-instance court ruled: "The evidence on record is insufficient to establish that the funds in question belong to Wang or a company he directly controls. Nor is it enough to prove that Wang acted under someone else's instruction or shared a common intent with others to misappropriate the funds—key elements necessary to demonstrate an intention for illegal appropriation. Therefore, the prosecution's allegation that Wang committed embezzlement through his official position lacks clarity and sufficient evidence, and is not supported by this court. The relevant defenses and arguments raised by Wang and his counsel have been thoroughly examined and found to be credible; hence, they are accepted." In the end, the first-instance court determined that Wang was guilty only of the crime of issuing false invoices and handed down a suspended sentence. As a result, Wang was released on June 1st and explicitly stated that he would not appeal. He has now safely returned to Taiwan, where he has reunited with his family. The defense efforts of attorneys Cheng Xiaolu and Wang Ping have earned high praise from Wang, his family, and his employer.

Layout: Wang Xin

Review: Management Committee