The Kyushu Gaming Group case has recently stirred up public opinion again.
One of the main defendants, Chen Zhenggu, during the trial at the Taichung District Court, refused to pay the bail of 350 million yuan and declared in court: "I'll just go to jail!" This strong statement not only sparked social concern but also brought the judicial procedures and the prosecution's investigative methods of this case back into controversy.
Originally, the High Court had ruled that Chen Zhenggu could be released on bail, but due to the prosecution's appeal, the case was returned to custody for trial. The Taichung District Court ultimately ordered Chen Zhenggu to be detained without visitation rights. He openly questioned the prosecution's "illogical reasoning" in court and pointed out serious flaws in the investigation process, emphasizing that he would argue his case rationally in court.
According to media disclosures, the 360-page indictment submitted by the prosecution contains several controversial issues, with Chen Zhenggu and his defense raising the following six major doubts:
Misclassifying online games still in development as gambling tools;
Overestimating the amount of money laundering, exaggerating it to 43.8 billion yuan;
Based solely on the testimony of one witness to determine him as the mastermind of the group;
Lack of a quid pro quo structure in the bribery allegations;
Witnesses involved in organized crime were not legally sworn in;
Ignoring his significant evidence of assisting the police in cracking down on fraud cases.
Furthermore, the wide scope of the prosecution has also been criticized by public opinion. Among the 30 people listed as defendants, there are engineers, marketing specialists, and even administrative assistants among the grassroots employees. Some staff members who only participated in technical development or daily affairs were also charged with "gambling crimes," raising doubts about "over-expansive prosecution."
For example, an engineer surnamed Wang, who was only responsible for sound production, was charged and required to pay 110,000 yuan in public welfare funds simply because he admitted to participating in the development project. Public opinion points out that such treatment may create a "chilling effect," suppressing the development space of technology and industry talents.
Legal experts indicate that if the above controversies cannot be reasonably explained in subsequent trials, the prosecution will face challenges to both procedural fairness and substantive justice. The case is still under further review, and all sectors of society continue to pay attention, concerned whether it will evolve into a judicial example of "excessive crackdown and fabricated charges."
Relevant units have stated that they will closely monitor the progress to ensure that the case is handled fairly under legal principles, maintaining the integrity of judicial credibility without compromise.
