Clipping Board » Illness Enters through Mouth ─ The information that has been made public is often just the tip of the iceberg...
[Reporter Huang Lixiang / Taipei Report]
Jin Guo Wang and Jin Ji Wang companies, which sold concentrated fruit juice containing plasticizers, were sentenced by the Shilin District Court yesterday. The court ruled that the owner, Chen A-he, violated the "joint attempted fraud" charge and the Food Sanitation Management Act, sentencing him to one year and four months in prison. The two companies were fined a combined total of only NT$800,000.
In the same case, accountant Lin Mei-hui was sentenced to ten months in prison, while the formulator Zhang Yi-zhi (Chen A-he's eldest son) and employee Chen Xie-zeng were acquitted as they were only responsible for mixing and processing without knowledge of the wrongdoing. The case can still be appealed.
**Prosecutors Originally Sought 12 Years, Judge Ruled Leniently**
During the indictment, Chen A-he was initially charged by the Shilin District Prosecutors Office under the Criminal Code's "circulation of toxic food" clause, commonly known as the "thousand-faced poisoner clause." Prosecutors sought a 12-year prison sentence and a fine of NT$10 million, with all four defendants and the two companies facing a combined fine of NT$64 million. However, the judge ruled leniently, considering there was no evidence that Jin Guo Wang continued to mix plasticizers after May 19, when the company was notified that the emulsifier was toxic. Only two shipments made after that date were deemed liable.
Prosecutor Gu Hui-zhen, who indicted Jin Guo Wang last year, has since been promoted to chief prosecutor at the Chiayi District Prosecutors Office and was unavailable for comment yesterday due to maternity leave. Shilin District Prosecutors Office spokesperson Yan Nai-wei stated that they would review the possibility of an appeal after receiving the written judgment. A reporter visited Jin Guo Wang's office in Shilin yesterday, but no one was present, and Chen A-he's phone was turned off, leaving his response unknown.
Shilin District Court administrative presiding judge Li Yu-ren explained that although Jin Guo Wang and Jin Ji Wang purchased large quantities of emulsifiers containing plasticizers, there was no evidence that they continued to use them to produce concentrated juice after May 19. The companies also sourced qualified emulsifiers from Yang Kun Company, though trace amounts of toxic substances were later detected, likely due to contamination from old equipment. Therefore, the court only held them accountable for two shipments made with "old stock" after May 19, leading to a significant difference between the indictment and the verdict.
The collegial panel also ruled that the "thousand-faced poisoner clause" applies to cases where harmful substances are publicly displayed for sale or mixed into publicly sold food and beverages. Since Jin Guo Wang was an upstream supplier rather than a direct seller of tainted products, the legal requirements were not met, and the clause should not be broadly interpreted.
Source: http:/ / www. libertytimes. com. ……12/ new/ mar/ 7/ today- life7. htm
Plasticizer Case: King Car Boss Gets Light Sentence of 1 Year 4 Months
Jin Guo Wang and Jin Ji Wang companies, which sold concentrated fruit juice containing plasticizers, were sentenced by the Shilin District Court yesterday. The court ruled that the owner, Chen A-he, violated the "joint attempted fraud" charge and the Food Sanitation Management Act, sentencing him to one year and four months in prison. The two companies were fined a combined total of only NT$800,000.
In the same case, accountant Lin Mei-hui was sentenced to ten months in prison, while the formulator Zhang Yi-zhi (Chen A-he's eldest son) and employee Chen Xie-zeng were acquitted as they were only responsible for mixing and processing without knowledge of the wrongdoing. The case can still be appealed.
**Prosecutors Originally Sought 12 Years, Judge Ruled Leniently**
During the indictment, Chen A-he was initially charged by the Shilin District Prosecutors Office under the Criminal Code's "circulation of toxic food" clause, commonly known as the "thousand-faced poisoner clause." Prosecutors sought a 12-year prison sentence and a fine of NT$10 million, with all four defendants and the two companies facing a combined fine of NT$64 million. However, the judge ruled leniently, considering there was no evidence that Jin Guo Wang continued to mix plasticizers after May 19, when the company was notified that the emulsifier was toxic. Only two shipments made after that date were deemed liable.
Prosecutor Gu Hui-zhen, who indicted Jin Guo Wang last year, has since been promoted to chief prosecutor at the Chiayi District Prosecutors Office and was unavailable for comment yesterday due to maternity leave. Shilin District Prosecutors Office spokesperson Yan Nai-wei stated that they would review the possibility of an appeal after receiving the written judgment. A reporter visited Jin Guo Wang's office in Shilin yesterday, but no one was present, and Chen A-he's phone was turned off, leaving his response unknown.
Shilin District Court administrative presiding judge Li Yu-ren explained that although Jin Guo Wang and Jin Ji Wang purchased large quantities of emulsifiers containing plasticizers, there was no evidence that they continued to use them to produce concentrated juice after May 19. The companies also sourced qualified emulsifiers from Yang Kun Company, though trace amounts of toxic substances were later detected, likely due to contamination from old equipment. Therefore, the court only held them accountable for two shipments made with "old stock" after May 19, leading to a significant difference between the indictment and the verdict.
The collegial panel also ruled that the "thousand-faced poisoner clause" applies to cases where harmful substances are publicly displayed for sale or mixed into publicly sold food and beverages. Since Jin Guo Wang was an upstream supplier rather than a direct seller of tainted products, the legal requirements were not met, and the clause should not be broadly interpreted.
Source: http:/ / www. libertytimes. com. ……12/ new/ mar/ 7/ today- life7. htm