laitimes

Taiwan veteran media person: Ke Jianming's son involved in a strange drug case

Taiwan veteran media person: Ke Jianming's son involved in a strange drug case

In recent years, the DPP caucus legislature has always summoned Ke Jianming to involve cases, and it has always been possible to ship to the bridge and naturally straighten out, and there are some facts that have passed the pass without any danger, which has long given our society a considerable understanding of Ke Jianming's ability. Nowadays, the marijuana cream parcel case involving Ke Jianming's second son, Ke Junyao, can be given a non-prosecution sanction by the prosecutor, which makes people see the investigation of the procuratorate and the ability to turn around in the face of power.

I comment on the drug case involving Ke Jianming's son in this way, not because I think that the prosecutor must not prosecute Ke's son. After all, when investigating criminal cases, the highest code of conduct is not to be reckless. Don't let go of a bad person, let alone wrongfully accuse a good person.

However, from several news media reports, anyone who has a little understanding of the case handling mode of the procurator and the investigation bureau can easily see from the content of the Taipei District Procuratorate's non-prosecution of Ke Jianming's son that there are many "unreasonable investigations" and "inconsistencies between the use of admitting things and social knowledge", which need to be explained in detail by the procuratorate to the outside world to solve doubts.

The objective fact of this drug case is that in July this year, a parcel sent from the United States to Taiwan was found by Keelung Customs, which contained a statutory second-class drug marijuana paste. The recipient on the parcel wrote the English name and address of Ke Jianming's second son. After Keelung Pass was discovered, the case was transferred to the Keelung Investigation Station of the Aviation Division of the Bureau of Investigation for investigation as usual.

It is worth noting that the media reported that at the beginning of the investigation by the procurator of the Taipei District Procuratorate, Ke Junyao's hair was taken and sent for testing, and the result was that Ke Junyao's hair was drug-positive, and Ke Junyao was suspected of drug use. According to the regular pattern of prosecutorial investigations, the recipient of the marijuana parcel, since he is suspected of drug abuse, his suspicion of being involved in the marijuana parcel case is extremely significant.

Unexpectedly, the prosecutor took Ke Junyao's case involving drug abuse and marijuana parcels into a one-size-fits-all dichotomy. The marijuana parcel case involving Ke was punished without prosecution, and the case involving Ke involving drug addiction was separated out and asked for addiction treatment as a condition for suspension of prosecution.

The procurator believed that Ke Junyao's guilt was insufficient, and the reason for giving the punishment of non-prosecution was based on the report that the procuratorate "weighed all the common senses" and believed that transporting drugs was a felony, and if Ke Junyao did have the intention of transporting second-level drugs, he could choose other secret methods of transportation and collection, and could also instruct the cousin who sent the document to record false personal name data to avoid investigation.

The prosecutor also argued that Ke Junyao should not have stated his real English name and residence on the parcel, but added the possibility that the judicial organs could easily seize it, which can prove that Ke Junyao subjectively did not know that his cousin would indeed send drugs to Taiwan, and did not have the intention of transporting second-class drugs.

Under the evidence that the defendant is suspected of drug abuse, this kind of "balance of common sense" inferences of the procurator is rare with my many years of experience in running judicial news. If the defendant is not Ke Jianming's son, it is likely that the procurator's inference of "weighing all the common senses" is that he believes that "the defendant has a bad habit of drug use, sends drugs in international parcels, acts boldly, and the amount of drugs is large, and if it flows into Taiwan, it will be very harmful", and he prosecutes him and asks the court to impose a heavy sentence and set an example.

In addition, the procurator's "parcel indicates the recipient's real name and address" can "fully prove that there is no intention of transporting drugs", and if it is widely used in various cases, it is equivalent to encouraging all those who sell drugs or firearms to no longer have to conceal the identity of the recipient when sending gun and drug parcels, and use their real names and real addresses.

In addition to the prosecutor's unreasonable dichotomy, in fact, the most suspicious place in this case is in the customs section. According to the practice of the Bureau of Investigation to investigate the mailing or freight delivery of drugs, after receiving the case, as long as they find out that the recipient is indeed his person and the receiving address is real, they will wait for the recipient to go to the customs or post office to collect the goods in a waiting manner.

However, it is obvious that when the procuratorate investigated ke Junyao's parcel case, it did not wait for the rabbit, but before Ke Junyao came forward to collect the parcel, it took the initiative to discover that the recipient was Ke Junyao, the second son of Ke Jianming, and instead handled the case by passing on the contract to the case, or letting Ke Junyao take the initiative to investigate the case, resulting in the fact that "Ke Junyao did not receive the marijuana parcel" and also giving Ke Junyao plenty of space to defend that he did not know about the marijuana parcel.

As for why the procurator "happened to" be involved in the case involving Ke Jianming's second son, the DPP legislature, there is such an unusual way of handling the case and the inference of innocence, and whether it involves the suspicion of "technical negligence" involving the people involved in the case is for public debate.

(Author Gao Yuanliu, Senior Media Personality, Taiwan, reprinted from Taiwan China Times)