Taipei District Court has issued a verdict in the Jinghua City corruption case. Former Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je was convicted of violating the Anti-Corruption Act by misconduct involving accepting bribes, profiteering, public property encroachment, and breach of trust, resulting in a combined prison sentence of 17 years and a six-year deprivation of civil rights. Taipei City Councilor Ying-Hsiao Wei was sentenced to 15 years and 6 months for accepting bribes and money laundering. Shen Qingjing, chairman of Weijing Group, was convicted of profiteering, sentenced to 10 years in prison, and fined 20 million NT dollars.
But the most关注 in the crypto community is whether the “1500 Bitcoins” are real. For now, we won’t make political judgments. The official legal documents from the prosecution only mention “USB recorded + 15 million NT dollars in cash.” As for claims about “1500 Bitcoins” and “cold wallets,” these mainly come from political talk shows and Taipei City Councilor Zhong Xiaoping, and have been denied by the Taipei District Prosecutors Office.
The Taipei District Court’s press release states that the workbook on the USB, which was compared based on editing time, testimony, and content, is highly confidential and is a personal record of Ko Wen-je. The key issue is whether the 15 million NT dollars was actually delivered. Ko had told Huang Shanshan that “Xiao Shen has already given it,” and the court considers this could also refer to Shen Qingjing’s 2.1 million NT dollars in political donations, so other explanations cannot be ruled out. Ultimately, the court found that there was a lack of sufficient evidence. Even if proven, it would only be linked to the already convicted conduct and would not constitute a new crime; thus, due to insufficient evidence, no acquittal was declared.
The “1500 Bitcoins” was mentioned by Zhong Xiaoping; the prosecution only referenced the USB and 15 million NT dollars in cash.
First, let’s clarify three long-standing confusions: “USB,” “1500,” and “Bitcoin.” According to the verdict and available data, their sources and credibility differ: the official legal documents from the prosecution only mention “USB recorded + 15 million NT dollars in cash,” with no mention of Bitcoin; claims about “1500 Bitcoins” and “cold wallets” mainly come from political talk shows and media figures, and have been denied by the Taipei District Prosecutors Office.
Tracing back the source, between August and September 2024, when the prosecutors searched Ko Wen-je’s residence, they seized a USB drive/external hard drive containing an Excel workbook, called a “mysterious ledger” by the media. A weekly magazine first revealed a line reading “2022/11/1 Xiao Shen 1500 Shen Qingjing,” which was seen as an important new piece of evidence for the prosecution.
Subsequently, interpretations of “1500” were dominated by media and political talk shows, mostly understood as “15 million NT dollars in bribe money,” with some extending to claims of “1500 Bitcoins,” notably Taipei City Councilor Zhong Xiaoping stating on a program, “1500 is definitely not ten thousand; it’s 1500 Bitcoins.” However, overall, the court and prosecution in their official legal documents only dealt with the “15 million NT dollars” in cash, not cryptocurrencies.
The prosecution seized the workbook file on the USB, confirming it as Ko Wen-je’s personal record.
The Taipei District Court, in its reasoning for the verdict related to former Mayor Ko Wen-je’s involvement in the Jinghua City corruption case, made a key legal determination regarding the highly关注 “USB recording 15 million NT dollars in bribes.” The court did not directly find that the 1.5 million NT dollars in bribes was established but also did not declare an acquittal. Instead, it cited “lack of corroborating evidence” and chose not to issue a not guilty ruling.
The court first confirmed that the “workbook” file on the seized external hard drive was indeed created by Ko Wen-je. It noted that the last edit time of the files was before the search, and after comparing the content with witness testimony, most of the content was deemed authentic, aside from some minor items. The court emphasized that the workbook was highly confidential and sufficient to identify it as Ko Wen-je’s personal document, not created by staff assisting with fundraising. It was considered a personal record rather than a forged external document.
Key issue: The workbook does not have the status of a business ledger under criminal procedure law.
Regarding the disputed record “2022/11/1 Xiao Shen 1500 Shen Qingjing,” the court further compared communication records and identified “Xiao Shen” as Shen Qingjing, chairman of Weijing Group. The court cited LINE chat messages showing Shen Qingjing referring to himself as “Xiao Shen” or “Weijing Xiao Shen,” with messages like “Please call back, Xiao Shen” and “At the company… Xiao Shen,” confirming the consistency of the nickname. Therefore, the court concluded that “Xiao Shen” in the workbook clearly refers to Shen Qingjing.
However, the critical issue remains whether the 15 million NT dollars was actually delivered. The court explicitly stated that the workbook does not have the evidentiary status of a “business ledger” under criminal procedure law and is merely an inadmissible statement made outside of court by the defendant.
Source: Taipei District Court press release, generated by NotebookLM, may contain errors.
The court emphasized: “The defendant’s confession cannot be the sole basis for a guilty verdict.” Even if the workbook content is proven true, corroborating evidence is still required, and such evidence must reach the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt and independently establish the elements of the crime.
The court also examined another key piece of evidence: Ko Wen-je’s communication with then-campaign staff Huang Shanshan. Ko had replied, “Weijing Xiao Shen has already given it, don’t contact him again,” which the prosecution viewed as evidence of receipt. However, the court believed this could also refer to Shen Qingjing’s 2.1 million NT dollars in political donations via an employee, not an additional 15 million NT dollars. In other words, this message cannot exclude other reasonable explanations.
Taipei District Court: Lacking evidence to establish the completion of the 15 million NT dollars transfer.
Therefore, the court’s final conclusion is: aside from the workbook record, “there is currently a lack of corroborating evidence to establish that the 15 million NT dollars was actually delivered,” and it cannot be proven that the bribe existed. However, since if it were established, it would overlap with the already convicted conduct (called “imaginary concurrence” in law), it is not separately declared as innocent.
In plain terms: the court believes that even if this 15 million NT dollars really exists, it essentially concerns the same act already convicted (called “imaginary concurrence” in law), and would not constitute a new, independent crime. So, even with insufficient evidence now, the court does not need to declare “this is not a crime,” because if proven, it would just merge with the original conviction.
In summary, this article mainly focuses on “Xiao Shen 1500.” For those interested in the case details, you can refer to the diagrammatic summary generated from the Taipei District Court press release by NotebookLM.
This article, “Xiao Shen 1500” — Is it Bitcoin? How the judge interprets the USB evidence in Ko Wen-je’s verdict, first appeared on ABMedia.
