The largest trial in the history of money laundering cases! 1,601 witnesses set a record, with the main suspect denying all charges.

Taiwanese currency involved in money laundering case of 2.3 billion yuan enters preparatory stage; main suspect Shi Qiren fully denies the charges and summons 1,601 witnesses. The Shilin District Court approves all, setting a record in Taiwan’s judicial history; trial schedule may be pushed to April next year.

“Bihsiang” case enters preparatory stage, main suspect fully denies 2.3 billion money laundering charges

The shocking “Bihsiang” case in Taiwan’s crypto circle continues to advance in the Shilin District Court. According to the Mirror Daily on December 17, the case has seen intensive preparatory hearings since the Taipei District Prosecutors Office indicted it in August this year, aiming to clarify the massive cash flow and organizational details.

Prosecutors believe that Taiwan responsible person Shi Qiren, along with cash flow handler Wang Xuezhi and Business Director Yang Jiwen, collaborated through franchise stores across Taiwan to assist the scam group in converting cash into Tether (USDT) for money laundering. The involved amount reaches up to 2.3 billion yuan, with as many as 1,544 victims.

This scale is extremely rare in Taiwan’s crypto crime history. The 2.3 billion yuan involved equals over 76 million USD, far exceeding most virtual currency scam cases. More importantly, 1,544 victims indicate this is not a targeted scam against a few high-net-worth individuals but a widespread systemic crime network with many victims.

However, in stark contrast to several defendants who have pleaded guilty, Shi Qiren has consistently denied all charges. During detention, he assembled a large team of lawyers, actively strategizing to overturn the prosecution’s case. This “lone wolf” stance has drawn much attention to the case and added variables to its proceedings.

From a legal strategy perspective, Shi Qiren’s full denial means he will force the prosecution to present more substantial evidence, rather than relying on co-conspirators’ confessions. While this may significantly prolong the trial, if the defense successfully challenges the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence, it could lead to acquittal or lighter sentences.

Unprecedented summons of 1,601 witnesses, all approved by Shilin District Court, setting a record

The Mirror Daily reports that Shi Qiren’s defense team recently adopted a rare approach, applying three times to summon witnesses, totaling 1,601 people, including 1,544 victims, 54 franchise store managers, and 3 “character witnesses.”

This enormous number is almost unimaginable. Summoning over 1,600 witnesses to testify not only poses a huge challenge to judicial resources but may also become one of the cases with the most witnesses in Taiwan’s legal history. Even more surprising, the Shilin District Court ultimately “accepted all” and approved the summons of all witnesses.

Defense lawyers argue that the victim interrogation records cited in the indictment lack evidentiary capability and must be personally testified by victims in court to verify their credibility, thereby weakening the prosecution’s case. This argument has some legal basis, as the Criminal Procedure Law emphasizes the principles of “direct trial” and “oral debate,” granting defendants the right to confront witnesses and cross-examine.

Practically, this strategy could also be a “wearing down” tactic. Summoning such a large number of witnesses will greatly extend the trial duration, possibly delaying the case for years. For detained defendants, if ultimately acquitted or given a light sentence, this prolonged detention might be viewed as an “unjust pretrial detention.” Conversely, if convicted heavily, the extended trial time could be credited toward their sentence, producing a “time credit” effect.

Additionally, the defense has also requested to summon alleged upper-level gang co-conspirators identified by the prosecution, including nicknamed “Lin Shanghai,” “Huang Zong,” and “Jia Da,” aiming to prove Shi Qiren has no gang background and to sever his ties with the scam group. The core of this strategy is to challenge the prosecution’s assertion that Shi Qiren is the “mastermind,” attempting to portray him as a “exploited businessman” rather than an “active participant.”

Unprecedented trial scale, court sessions scheduled until April next year

According to current court schedule, starting January 22, the court will hold almost daily full-day hearings every 1 to 2 weeks, with about 80 victims expected to testify each day. The witness questioning alone may extend the trial until April next year, a scale quite rare in Taiwan’s judicial practice.

This dense court arrangement is a huge challenge for all involved. Judges will need to listen to over 1,500 witnesses’ testimonies over several months and extract key facts, testing their memory, judgment, and stamina. Prosecutors and defense attorneys will face enormous workloads in cross-examining each witness.

For victims, testifying in court is a second trauma. Many scam victims are already psychologically distressed; having to recount their experiences and face cross-examination may worsen their mental health. Moreover, with victims spread across Taiwan, requiring all to appear at the Shilin District Court entails significant transportation and time costs.

More importantly, whether this “human wave” tactic of summoning witnesses can achieve the defense’s expected effect remains to be seen. If the 1,544 victims’ testimonies are highly consistent and all point to the franchise stores operated by Shi Qiren as the key scam points, then the large number of witnesses may actually strengthen the prosecution’s case. Conversely, if contradictions and inconsistencies are found among these testimonies, it could weaken the evidence chain.

From a procedural perspective, April next year is only an estimated time to complete witness questioning. Afterwards, evidence investigation, debate, and closing statements are needed, and the first-instance trial may not conclude until late 2026 or even later. If either party appeals, the case could drag into 2027 or beyond.

Frequent lawyer changes raise alert; court temporarily restricts visits

Besides the unprecedented scale of witnesses, Shi Qiren’s frequent lawyer changes during detention have also raised judicial concern. The Mirror Daily reports that within just one month, Shi Qiren appointed over 9 defense lawyers, with some lawyers carrying power of attorney to sign at the detention center and then immediately withdraw.

This abnormal behavior immediately drew judicial vigilance. The Shilin District Court considered the motives questionable and feared tampering, forgery, evidence alteration, or collusion with co-conspirators or witnesses. Therefore, on September 23, it issued a rare restriction order limiting certain lawyers’ visits to Shi Qiren.

This decision sparked controversy in legal circles. On one hand, defendants’ right to choose defense counsel is protected by the constitution; restricting lawyer visits may infringe on the defendant’s right to defense. On the other hand, if the defendant abuses this right to tamper with evidence or commit other misconduct, the court has a duty to take necessary measures to maintain judicial fairness.

Although one lawyer subject to restrictions filed an appeal, the High Court ultimately only revoked restrictions on that lawyer, maintaining the original ruling for others. This indicates the High Court generally agreed with the District Court’s assessment of tampering risks but found the reasons for restrictions on individual lawyers insufficient.

Ultimately, Shi Qiren’s defense team was confirmed to be composed of former prosecutors Zhuang Shengbo, Yuan Jianfeng, and Chen Weifang. All three have extensive experience in criminal litigation, especially Zhuang and Yuan’s prosecutor backgrounds, making them more familiar with the prosecution’s logic and evidence, which may aid their defense strategies.

Co-conspirators plead guilty, revealing gang backgrounds and cross-regional cash flows

Contrasting Shi Qiren’s full denial, his wife Lin Kewen, store manager Luo Daxiang, risk control supervisor Cai Yayu, and five others all pleaded guilty in October, with the court ruling to convert their sentences to summary judgments.

This “mastermind denies, co-conspirators plead guilty” pattern is not uncommon in criminal cases. Co-conspirator pleas are often motivated by hopes for lighter sentences, avoiding lengthy trials, or because they believe the evidence is overwhelming. The mastermind’s insistence on denial may be due to facing heavier sentences or believing they can overturn the case.

Investigations show that Shi Qiren and his wife invested about 192 million USD into “Bihsiang Technology,” obtaining a legitimate operating license, then recruiting franchise stores across Taiwan, collecting high franchise fees. These stores ostensibly engaged in virtual currency trading but in reality served as cover for fake USDT investment scams and money laundering.

This “legitimate facade + illegal activity” business model has become increasingly common in recent crypto crimes. Criminal groups exploit the gray areas of virtual currency transactions, establishing seemingly legitimate store networks that actually facilitate scams and laundering. For ordinary people, it is difficult to distinguish whether these stores are legitimate or criminal tools.

Prosecutors also point out that Shi Qiren has a gang background, with some franchise operators involved with other gangs, and even instructing victims on how to bypass enterprise verification processes to reduce cash flow interception risks. These details show that the Bihsiang case is not just a simple scam but an organized, systematic criminal network.

As 1,601 witnesses are gradually called to court, the Bihsiang case is likely to become one of the largest and longest-running crypto money laundering cases in recent years. Its subsequent developments will not only determine the fates of Shi Qiren and others but also have a profound impact on how the judiciary handles large-scale crypto cash flow crimes.

For the entire crypto industry, the Bihsiang case serves as a warning. How to balance innovation and crime prevention, and how to establish effective regulatory frameworks without stifling legitimate businesses—these issues require deeper discussion during the case proceedings.