Taiwan Supreme Court Vacates Key Rulings in Four-Man Espionage Case

Taiwan’s Supreme Court has vacated the guilty portions of the appellate judgments against Huang Chu-jung, Chiu Shih-yuan and Wu Shang-yu, as well as the appellate acquittal of Ho Jen-chieh. All four matters return to the Taiwan High Court for a new hearing. The ruling is a remand, not a fresh finding that any defendant is guilty.

The Supreme Court challenged the reasoning beneath both sides of the split appellate result. It questioned whether documents assembled partly from public information could simply be treated as non-secret, identified legal errors in the treatment of gathering and disclosure, and said the scope of alleged money laundering had not been fully investigated. The justices also said the lower court had left unresolved whether Ho’s work exposed him to sensitive foreign-affairs material and whether he supplied it.

That action is distinct from the original prosecution. In September 2025, the Taipei District Court sentenced Huang to 10 years, Ho to eight years and two months, Chiu to six years and two months, and Wu to four years. Its official summary described two official secrets and one classified item allegedly passed to Huang. The June 2026 appeal then cut the sentences for Huang, Chiu and Wu and acquitted Ho; the Supreme Court has now disturbed those appellate outcomes without reinstating every first-instance conclusion.

Ho’s defense had won substantial ground in the High Court. Central News Agency reported that phone forensics showed only holiday greetings between Ho and Huang, with no secret contact or deleted-message evidence. The appellate court also found that Ho’s normal duties did not involve sensitive diplomatic files, that access controls were strict, and that Huang had used Ho’s name to make an intelligence source appear more impressive rather than because Ho took part.

The response record remains divided. Huang and Ho denied wrongdoing at the first trial, while Chiu and Wu admitted conduct during the investigation and trial, according to the official court summary. No new defense response to the Supreme Court remand appeared in CNA’s full report on Thursday.

The High Court must now separate several questions the previous appeal compressed: which material legally remained secret, which acts amounted to gathering or disclosure, what money can be tied to proven offenses, and what evidence connects Ho to any transfer. Until that rehearing is completed, the vacated guilty findings and vacated acquittal cannot be presented as final judgments.