Ko Wen-je’s Prosecutorial Complaint Exposes Systemic Flaws in Taiwan’s Justice System

Just three weeks before the anticipated first-instance verdict in the high-profile Core Pacific City case, former Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) made a dramatic and unprecedented move. Having proclaimed his innocence at nearly every court hearing, Ko and his legal team filed a formal complaint with the Ministry of Justice, requesting "individual case evaluations" of prosecutor Lin Chun-yan (林俊言), chief prosecutor Chiang Chen-yu (江貞諭), and Taipei District Prosecutors' Office chief Wang Chun-li (王俊力)​

While Ko's complaint outlines a litany of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, his most serious inquiry strikes at the very heart of Taiwan's legal system: What drove these prosecutors to "collectively deviate from proper legal procedures"? More critically, we must ask whether the targeting of Ko is a politically motivated "special case," or if it merely reflects the standard, everyday habits of Taiwan's prosecutors.

Ko has leveled six primary charges against Lin, which, while shocking in their scope, appear to reflect disturbingly routine prosecutorial behavior.

First, Ko alleges "fraudulent warrant applications and abuse of search powers." He claims prosecutors deliberately misinterpreted laws, fabricated meeting records, and concealed exculpatory evidence to secure search warrants from courts operating with incomplete information. The result, he argues, was "warrant fraud," noting that none of the reasons cited in his eventual indictment matched the original grounds used to justify the searches.

Whether prosecutors actively fabricated records remains to be proven, but Ko's case exposes a troubling reality: How often do judges actually reject prosecutorial search requests? In the case involving former Taoyuan Mayor Cheng Wen-tsan (鄭文燦), prosecutors made 10 unsuccessful warrant applications before resorting to "direct searches" without court approval. Similarly, before stepping down as a legislator, Taiwan People's Party Chairman Huang Kuo-chang(黃國昌) reportedly had five search warrant applications against him rejected by Taipei prosecutors. Without the precedent of Ko's bungled case, a search and seizure against Huang likely would have been rubber-stamped.

Second, Ko alleges blatant violations of investigation confidentiality, pointing to suspected leaks and favoritism toward specific media outlets that systematically damaged his reputation over four months. Ko's case certainly did not pioneer this tactic. Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao(高虹安) faced similar coordinated attacks from the party, prosecutorial, and media networks during her campaign through her election victory; her only fortune was avoiding detention. The case involving Democratic Progressive Party legislator Lin Tai-hua's assistant expenses also saw complete public exposure of investigation details, with private text messages weaponized as "leaked material."

Despite nationwide frustration with these violations, the prosecutorial system remains unchanged. Prosecutors routinely deny being the source of leaks, yet the leaks continue unabated. The question remains: Who is leaking? The justice system has never provided an answer.

Third, Ko alleges prosecutors forcibly transported him to court without a proper summons. Learning from fellow inmates, Ko realized he was repeatedly forced to court early in the morning and only allowed to sign the summons one minute before hearings began. When he protested these violations of criminal procedure law, his objections were weaponized against him as grounds for continued detention, labeled as "resisting court appearance" and "disrespecting the judiciary."

This stands in stark contrast to media personality Jaw Shaw-kong's(趙少康) case involving an illegal ballot display. Though Jaw admitted his mistake and claimed it was unintentional, prosecutors deemed his explanation an "evasive deflection" and requested heavy penalties. Fortunately for him, judges viewed his statements as showing a "good post-offense attitude" and imposed a light sentence. For Ko, it seems his mere "protest" was enough to anger prosecutors.

Why are prosecutors so easily offended? Why do they completely ignore their legal duty to consider evidence favorable to the defendant? Is Lin's alleged hostility targeted specifically at Ko, or is it a broader institutional failure?

Fourth, Ko alleges prosecutors deceived their supervisors and issued false press releases to cover their tracks. This refers to Lin allegedly conducting surprise, coercive interrogations of Shen Ching-ching(沈慶京) at a hospital under the guise of "inspection visits." In response, the Taipei District Prosecutors' Office has issued a series of laughably inadequate press releases denying procedural impropriety. The institution has dug itself into an impossibly deep hole, protesting too much while routinely denying confidentiality violations.

Fifth, Ko's complaint details how Lin and co-prosecutors allegedly "coerced" various witnesses and defendants. Most bizarrely, prosecutors allegedly asked Ko's wife, physician Chen Pei-chi (陳佩琪),, whether "anyone else had slept in the master bedroom bed at home." Whether this constitutes "improper interrogation" is up to the prosecutors' evaluation committee, but the mindset behind such questioning raises serious concerns about the professional standards of legally trained prosecutors.

Finally, Ko alleges Lin "forged testimony records" for Huang Ching-mao (黃景茂), essentially inserting statements Huang never made and "knowingly submitting illegal content for review." This irregularity only emerged during transcript verification in Ko’s final trial stages. Cheng Wen-tsan's case saw identical tactics, with Cheng alleging prosecutors "revised transcripts 800 times." If interrogations and indictments in major, high-profile cases are riddled with such glaring procedural holes, what investigative quality standards remain for ordinary citizens?

Ko concludes that "the entire prosecutorial team is corrupt," arguing that chief prosecutor Chiang Chen-yu and Taipei chief prosecutor Wang Chun-li should be held accountable for "systematic failures" through inadequate supervision. If these evidence-free indictments were the result of their "direction," were they giving the orders, or is someone higher up pulling the strings?

Ko's harshest accusation is that this was not the work of a rogue prosecutor, but a "group effort." Whether his counterattack helps or hurts his verdict in three weeks is difficult to assess. Major cases in Taiwan rarely result in direct first-instance acquittals. The usual, politically safe pattern involves guilty verdicts followed by endless appeals and retrials. Prosecutorial indictments represent safe career advancement, leaving judges to sort out the mess. （Related： South Korean Parties Unite to Pass U.S. Investment Bill in Face of Threat of Tariffs ｜ Latest ）

This is how self-serving bureaucratic "groups" are formed, and tragically, this is how justice gets destroyed by group after group.