台灣民眾黨前主席柯文哲因涉入京華城案，目前仍在押，檢方曾以其妻陳佩琪為關鍵證人，並指控有勾串之虞，作為羈押理由之一。然而，台北地院於19日的審理中，檢方改口表示陳佩琪的偵訊筆錄未列入本案證據，因為另有案件正在偵辦。此舉引發柯文哲律師團的強烈不滿，指責檢方捏造證據，並要求法院制止檢方對證人的不當施壓。

審判長在庭上詢問檢方是否同意刪除起訴書中引用的「證人陳佩琪」相關偵訊內容，公訴主任檢察官林俊廷表示，是否提供這份筆錄屬於另案偵辦檢察官的職權範疇，公訴檢察官無法決定。審判長建議辯方提出具體理由聲請調閱，並由合議庭函請另案偵辦檢察官依職權決定。

柯文哲與同案被告、威京集團主席沈慶京的律師團，要求調閱陳佩琪的偵訊筆錄。該筆錄中，陳佩琪於去年11月7日向檢方表示，案中被查扣的編號A1-37行動硬碟是柯文哲在使用，她不清楚裡面的資料內容。硬碟內的「工作簿」檔案記載了多筆捐款資料，其中一筆「小沈1500」被檢方指為沈慶京行賄柯文哲1500萬元的證據。辯方策略是傳喚帳面記載的捐款人作證，以證明實際捐款者另有其人，並試圖證明「工作簿」檔案不可信。

林俊廷表示，公訴檢察官團隊並未持有這份筆錄，但目前審理進度已可確認A1-37硬碟是柯文哲使用。公訴方同意刪除起訴書中引用的「證人陳佩琪」應訊內容，不作為本案證據。若辯方希望查看這份筆錄，可請合議庭依職權函調。

（圖/AI生成示意）

柯文哲的律師鄭深元批評檢方為了羈押、延押柯文哲，不惜捏造不實證據，並指控檢方所謂的另案偵辦是為了辦理陳佩琪涉犯財產來源不明罪嫌，故意將重要證據留在地檢署。鄭深元呼籲譴責檢方的作法，並指出檢方在本案審理時，另案搜索威京旗下公司，形同施壓證人，違反公平審判原則。

沈慶京的律師蘇振文指出，檢方在去年9月偵辦聲押時，就曾以柯文哲與陳佩琪有勾串之虞為理由。柯文哲的律師陸正義強調，起訴依法應將卷宗與證據併送法院，檢方對此毫無裁量空間。

審判長表示，合議庭不贊同訴訟程序外的任何試圖影響對造的行為，並強調法院會依法審酌涉及案情的證據。沈慶京的律師徐履冰當庭請求合議庭命檢方補送陳佩琪的偵訊筆錄，以備近期以證人身份詰問柯文哲所需。徐履冰指出，檢方起訴將陳列為證人，但偵訊筆錄卻未列入證據清單，這是檢方的問題。

此案的進展引發社會廣泛關注，檢方與辯方的攻防戰仍在持續，未來的審理結果將對柯文哲及相關人士產生重大影響。

台灣民眾黨前主席、台北市前市長柯文哲因涉入「京華城案」遭檢方起訴並羈押，案件至今仍在審理中。今（19日）台北地方法院再度召開庭訊，法庭氣氛一度劍拔弩張，爆出激烈攻防。核心爭點在於檢方先前聲押、延押柯文哲時，曾明確以「其妻陳佩琪是關鍵證人，存在勾串之虞」作為理由之一，但今日公訴檢察官卻在法庭上突然改口，表示陳佩琪的筆錄屬「另案偵辦」，不應列入本案證據，甚至同意刪除起訴書中引用的相關內容。

此舉引發柯文哲與同案被告、威京集團董事長沈慶京的律師團當場「炸鍋」，怒斥檢方「捏造證據」、「選擇性隱匿」，並質疑檢方企圖藉此操作案件節奏。審判長則在場中冷靜表態，表示法院將依法審酌，提醒雙方尊重程序正義，但不會容忍「訴訟程序外」的不當影響。

爭議核心：A1-37硬碟與「小沈1500」

京華城案最受關注的證據之一，是一顆編號「A1-37」的行動硬碟。據檢方主張，該硬碟由柯文哲使用，內部存有名為「工作簿」的檔案，記載大量捐款資料。其中一筆標註「小沈1500」的紀錄，被檢方認為是沈慶京涉嫌行賄1500萬元的鐵證。

然而，這份證據真實性早已爭議不斷。律師團指出，陳佩琪在2024年11月7日接受檢方偵訊時，雖承認硬碟確實由柯文哲在用，但她強調並不知道裡面具體存有什麼資料。律師團據此認為，檢方誇大了筆錄的效用。更重要的是，該硬碟在送往數位鑑識前，曾被辦案人員翻閱12天，存在「檔案可能被動手腳」的疑慮，因此不能當成定罪依據。

律師團的策略是逐一傳喚「工作簿」上記載的捐款人作證，藉此凸顯紀錄與實際金流可能不符，進而動搖硬碟作為「鐵證」的正當性。

（圖/AI生成示意）

檢方改口：刪除證據引用

今日庭訊過程中，公訴主任檢察官林俊廷當庭表明，陳佩琪的偵訊筆錄未納入本案證據，原因在於此屬「另案偵辦」範疇，公訴檢察官無權處理是否提供。但他同時表示，既然辯方有疑慮，公訴方願意刪除起訴書中引用的相關應訊內容，不再作為本件證據。

林俊廷進一步指出，目前審理進度已能釐清「A1-37硬碟確實由柯文哲使用」，即便不引用陳佩琪筆錄，檢方仍有足夠理由主張硬碟屬柯。若辯方堅持要閱覽筆錄，可以透過合議庭向「另案偵辦檢察官」函請，交由其依職權決定。

律師團強烈反彈：痛批檢方「黑箱操作」

對於檢方的「改口」，律師團表達極大不滿，甚至用「司法黑箱」、「捏造證據」來形容。

柯文哲的律師鄭深元憤怒指出，去年12月底案件移審時，檢方在聲押理由中明確指稱「陳佩琪為關鍵證人，存在勾串之虞」，這也是法院同意續押的重要依據。但當時律師團就已反映，證據清單中並無陳的筆錄。檢方當場承諾「會補送」，如今卻時隔八個月才在法庭上改口，這是對司法誠信的重大打擊。

鄭深元更直言：「檢方為了羈押、延押柯文哲，不惜捏造理由，令人痛心。更嚴重的是，他們刻意將筆錄扣在地檢署，準備以『財產來源不明罪』另案偵辦陳佩琪，根本是把證據當作籌碼使用，這樣的操作嚴重違反公平審判原則。」

沈慶京的律師蘇振文則補充，檢方早在去年9月偵辦聲押時，就曾以「柯與陳可能勾串」為理由，如今卻自行否定，顯見檢方一開始就是「說一套、做一套」。另一名律師陸正義更強調，依《刑事訴訟法》規定，起訴後應將卷宗與證據完整送交法院，檢方根本沒有裁量空間，卻選擇性提供，等於違法。

（圖/AI生成示意）

法院立場：依法審酌、保持中立

審判長在聽取雙方激烈攻防後，冷靜做出表態。他指出，法院依「不告不理」原則，無法主動調查起訴外的證據，但若涉及案情核心，仍會依法審酌。他並提醒，任何企圖透過偵查優勢影響對造攻防的行為，法院都不贊同。

為了化解爭議，審判長建議辯方可以正式具狀聲請，由合議庭依職權函請另案檢察官，決定是否提供陳佩琪筆錄。這一方案既可維持程序完整，也避免爭議持續延燒。

延伸爭議：檢方同步搜索相關企業

律師團進一步抨擊，檢方在本案審理期間，仍持續對威京集團相關企業展開搜索，包括中工公司、中石化公司等，並以涉嫌違反《證券交易法》為由約談相關人員。其中，京華城案已認罪並獲緩起訴的朱亞虎，也被再次約談。

律師團質疑，這種「邊審理、邊偵查」的做法，形同對證人施壓，可能導致證詞受到影響，嚴重破壞公平審判原則。他們呼籲法院應出面制止，避免檢方濫用偵查優勢。

社會觀察：司法公信力再受考驗

柯文哲案爆發以來，持續牽動社會與政治神經。身為台灣民眾黨創黨領袖與前總統大選候選人，柯的司法風暴不僅關乎個人清譽與自由，更影響黨內士氣與政治版圖。

支持者認為，此案處處透著「政治追殺」的影子；反對者則主張，這正是檢驗柯文哲多年政治與財務操作的關鍵時刻。如今檢方突然改口刪除陳佩琪筆錄，更讓外界質疑司法程序是否受到外力介入，司法獨立、公平審判的信任度再次被推上風口浪尖。

專家分析：制度與程序的雙重挑戰

法律學者認為，此案凸顯台灣司法三大挑戰：

有律師界人士直言，此案不單是柯文哲的個人官司，而是台灣司法體制的「壓力測試」。倘若處理不慎，恐進一步加深人民對司法「不透明」與「政治化」的印象。

京華城案的審理過程，再度展現司法攻防的高張力。檢方一方面主張證據充分，一方面又以「另案偵辦」為由拒絕提供關鍵筆錄，讓案件陷入「黑箱疑雲」；辯方則全力反擊，質疑檢方刻意操作程序、違反公平審判原則。

這場攻防戰，已不再只是單純的司法爭議，而是攸關政治信任與制度改革的戰場。未來法院是否能在程序正義與實質正義之間取得平衡，將決定台灣社會對司法公信力的信心。

Taiwan Opposition Leader Ko Wen-je’s Trial Sparks Controversy as Prosecutors Withdraw Key Testimony

The high-profile trial of former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party founder Ko Wen-je took a dramatic turn on Tuesday (19), as prosecutors abruptly withdrew testimony from Ko’s wife, Peggy Chen (Chen Pei-chi), which had previously been cited as a key reason for his detention. The sudden reversal provoked an outcry from Ko’s defense team, who accused the prosecution of “fabricating evidence” and engaging in selective disclosure to manipulate the proceedings.

Prosecutors Backtrack on “Key Witness” Testimony

When Ko was first detained late last year over the so-called “Jinghua City case”, prosecutors justified continued detention by labeling Chen as a “critical witness” who could collude with Ko. However, during Tuesday’s court session at the Taipei District Court, lead prosecutor Lin Chun-ting declared that Chen’s interrogation record was not included in the official evidence list, as it belonged to a “separate ongoing investigation.”

Prosecutors even agreed to remove references to Chen’s testimony from the indictment, a move that sparked outrage among defense attorneys.

“This is appalling,” said senior defense lawyer Cheng Shen-yuan. “For months, the prosecution insisted Chen’s testimony was grounds for Ko’s detention. Now, eight months later, they claim it was never part of the case file. This is nothing short of judicial manipulation.”

The Disputed Hard Drive and the “Xiao Shen 1500” Entry

At the center of the case is an external hard drive labeled A1-37, allegedly used by Ko. The device contained a spreadsheet with donation records, including an entry marked “Xiao Shen 1500.” Prosecutors argue the note refers to NT$15 million (approx. US$480,000) in illicit funds from real estate tycoon Shen Ching-jing, chairman of the Wei Ching Group.

The defense strongly disputes this interpretation. Attorneys argue that the hard drive was accessed by investigators for 12 days before undergoing forensic analysis, raising the possibility of tampering or data contamination. They further contend that the spreadsheet may not have been authored by Ko and plan to call listed donors to testify, hoping to undermine the reliability of the records.

Ko’s wife, during questioning in November 2024, admitted the hard drive belonged to Ko but insisted she had no knowledge of its contents.

Defense Accuses Prosecutors of “Double Standards”

Defense attorneys blasted prosecutors for a “double-standard approach”:

• 
  

  On one hand, using Chen’s testimony as a reason to keep Ko in custody.

  
  


• 
  

  On the other, classifying the same testimony as part of “another case” to avoid disclosure.

  
  

“This is a blatant violation of due process,” argued attorney Lu Cheng-yi. “Under Taiwan’s Criminal Procedure Law, all evidence cited in an indictment must be presented to the court. Prosecutors do not have the discretion to cherry-pick.”

Court Urges Restraint, Maintains Neutrality

Presiding Judge sought to defuse tensions, reminding both sides that the court is bound by the principle of “no trial beyond indictment” but would nevertheless scrutinize evidence critical to the case.

The judge suggested the defense formally request that the tribunal issue a letter to prosecutors in charge of the separate investigation, compelling them to decide whether Chen’s testimony should be disclosed.

“The integrity of the proceedings must be preserved,” the judge remarked, stressing that fairness could not be compromised by investigative tactics.

Wider Concerns: Searches on Related Companies

The defense also accused prosecutors of applying pressure by continuing to raid Wei Ching Group subsidiaries, including China Engineering and China Petrochemical, during the trial. Individuals previously granted deferred prosecution agreements, such as businessman Chu Ya-hu, were also summoned again. Defense lawyers claim these tactics amounted to “witness intimidation” that jeopardized the fairness of the trial.

Political and Social Implications

Ko Wen-je’s case has become more than a legal battle; it is a political storm with national implications. Once considered a maverick figure in Taiwanese politics, Ko founded the Taiwan People’s Party in 2019 and ran for president in 2024. His detention has sparked debates over whether the judiciary is being politicized.

Supporters portray the case as “political persecution”, while critics argue it exposes long-standing questions about Ko’s financial dealings.

The controversy over Chen’s testimony and the disputed hard drive has only deepened public mistrust in Taiwan’s judicial system, already perceived by some as vulnerable to political influence.

Expert Analysis: A Stress Test for Taiwan’s Judiciary

Legal scholars say the case underscores three fundamental challenges:

“This trial is no longer just about Ko Wen-je,” one professor of criminal law commented. “It is a stress test for Taiwan’s entire judicial system. The world is watching to see whether Taiwan can demonstrate judicial independence in a politically sensitive case.”

Conclusion

As the trial unfolds, the outcome remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the courtroom clash over evidence disclosure has already exposed deeper fissures in Taiwan’s legal and political landscape. Whether Ko is ultimately convicted or acquitted, the handling of the case will likely shape public confidence in Taiwan’s judiciary for years to come.

更多eNews報導
土城惡男當街殘殺妻子、小姨子！死者身份曝光 李進良悲痛：幫到底
賀瓏「公開天殘遺書」掀議！友人怒揭真相 凱莉不捨5字力挺被讚爆