In Taiwan, 70-year-old Chen Jincai owed debts to the blind Yan, a “second landlord,” and after being pressed for payment in 2024, stabbed Yan 297 times with a knife. Prosecutors charged Chen with murder. Chen confessed and claimed he turned himself in, and the Taipei District Court's lay judge panel sentenced him to 19 years in prison. Both the prosecutor and Chen appealed. Today (the 4th), the Taiwan High Court concluded arguments. Yan’s children criticized Chen for showing no remorse. They recounted their father teaching them to be honest from a young age, and to remember to pay when riding the bus, but he was butchered into a pile of mangled flesh by Chen, and was even described as a loan shark. They requested Chen be sentenced to life imprisonment.
During their statements, Chen Jincai never looked at Yan’s children, instead rubbing his feet under the table. His lawyer argued that Chen would not flee and should be granted bail after the end of his detention. The High Court scheduled the verdict for March 25.
The Taipei District Prosecutors Office indictment states that Chen Jincai subleased an apartment on Minhe Street in Taipei’s Wanhua district from Yan (78). Although Chen paid his rent on time, he was addicted to gambling and often borrowed money from Yan. Neighbors described often hearing exchanges when Yan asked Chen to pay back money.
On June 9, 2024, unable to bear yet another demand for payment, Chen flew into a rage, stabbing Yan 38 times with scissors, then hacking him 259 times with a kitchen knife. Yan’s skull was fractured and his brains spilled out, causing his death. After the assault, Chen changed out of his blood-stained clothes and took a train south. Near the City God Temple in his hometown of Hsinchu, he borrowed a phone at a convenience store to call and turn himself in. When police arrived, Chen was squatting on the roadside and told them, “I killed someone.”
During questioning, Chen could not say how much he owed Yan and claimed he did not know Yan was blind, insisting that he only wanted to scare Yan a little with the knife.
At the Taipei district court hearings, Chen’s lawyer stated Chen borrowed NT$20,000 (about RM2,500) from Yan, with a monthly repayment of NT$15,000 (about RM1,900) in principal and interest, which later ballooned to NT$80,000 (about RM10,000). Yan allegedly said that if Chen didn’t repay, he should go beg on the street, arguing that Chen was driven to crime by exorbitant interest rates. The lawyer claimed Chen regretted his actions after the killing, called to turn himself in, and met the legal criteria for a sentence reduction for voluntary surrender.
The prosecutor pointed out that Yan had nearly 300 stab wounds all over his body and blood spattered up to 2 meters high on the wall. Chen, addicted to gambling, borrowed money from Yan repeatedly and killed him because he didn’t want to repay. The lay judge panel believed Chen received around NT$30,000 (about RM3,700) monthly in social assistance, earned an additional NT$10,000–30,000 (about RM1,200–3,700) per month from begging, had stable housing, and received regular at-home care and meal services. Yet, he lost his temper and killed out of shame after being criticized, so they sentenced him to 19 years in prison.
Chen felt the sentence was too harsh, and the prosecutor felt it was too light, so both sides appealed. The prosecutor argued that Chen only turned himself in under pressure and not out of genuine remorse; after the murder, Chen even went gambling, so he should not qualify for sentence reduction. The victim lent Chen money, provided housing, and was still brutally killed; given how vicious the crime was, Chen should get the death penalty or life imprisonment.
During the High Court session today, Yan’s daughter said she had argued with her father before the incident and would now never have the chance to reconcile. She drinks two bottles of red label rice wine daily to remember him. She accused Chen of lying in everything he said and of having a worldview that should not exist; she originally thought he would reflect on his actions, but since the first trial, realized he is selfish and bullies the weak, and is not worthy of being called human.
Yan’s son also said that he once naïvely thought letting the perpetrator live would give him a chance to repent. But not only has Chen shown no remorse, he has maligned his father’s name. His father was chopped into a lump of mangled flesh: at the body identification, they could not distinguish what was floor and what was body.
Chen Jincai ignored the victims’ family’s statements and even told the judge, “Let them say whatever they want,” and insisted he didn’t kill anyone—Yan died from “excessive bleeding” on his own, and he never intended to kill him.
Should he qualify for a sentence reduction for turning himself in? Chen Jincai, who has prior convictions for theft and fraud, said he had previously been a fugitive for 2–3 years, and now that he is in the detention center, many people laughed at him for “stupidly surrendering,” but he said he’s already been on TV and couldn’t have run for long anyway. His lawyer argued Chen has a mild intellectual disability, and after the crime he played video games to “calm himself down.” Turning himself in saved judicial resources.
At the end of the arguments, the chief judge asked if Chen had anything to say. Chen then said he wanted to apologize “but they (referring to the victim's children) don't want to talk to me.”
The Taipei District Prosecutors Office indictment states that Chen Jincai subleased an apartment on Minhe Street in Taipei’s Wanhua district from Yan (78). Although Chen paid his rent on time, he was addicted to gambling and often borrowed money from Yan. Neighbors described often hearing exchanges when Yan asked Chen to pay back money.
On June 9, 2024, unable to bear yet another demand for payment, Chen flew into a rage, stabbing Yan 38 times with scissors, then hacking him 259 times with a kitchen knife. Yan’s skull was fractured and his brains spilled out, causing his death. After the assault, Chen changed out of his blood-stained clothes and took a train south. Near the City God Temple in his hometown of Hsinchu, he borrowed a phone at a convenience store to call and turn himself in. When police arrived, Chen was squatting on the roadside and told them, “I killed someone.”
During questioning, Chen could not say how much he owed Yan and claimed he did not know Yan was blind, insisting that he only wanted to scare Yan a little with the knife.
At the Taipei district court hearings, Chen’s lawyer stated Chen borrowed NT$20,000 (about RM2,500) from Yan, with a monthly repayment of NT$15,000 (about RM1,900) in principal and interest, which later ballooned to NT$80,000 (about RM10,000). Yan allegedly said that if Chen didn’t repay, he should go beg on the street, arguing that Chen was driven to crime by exorbitant interest rates. The lawyer claimed Chen regretted his actions after the killing, called to turn himself in, and met the legal criteria for a sentence reduction for voluntary surrender.
The prosecutor pointed out that Yan had nearly 300 stab wounds all over his body and blood spattered up to 2 meters high on the wall. Chen, addicted to gambling, borrowed money from Yan repeatedly and killed him because he didn’t want to repay. The lay judge panel believed Chen received around NT$30,000 (about RM3,700) monthly in social assistance, earned an additional NT$10,000–30,000 (about RM1,200–3,700) per month from begging, had stable housing, and received regular at-home care and meal services. Yet, he lost his temper and killed out of shame after being criticized, so they sentenced him to 19 years in prison.
Chen felt the sentence was too harsh, and the prosecutor felt it was too light, so both sides appealed. The prosecutor argued that Chen only turned himself in under pressure and not out of genuine remorse; after the murder, Chen even went gambling, so he should not qualify for sentence reduction. The victim lent Chen money, provided housing, and was still brutally killed; given how vicious the crime was, Chen should get the death penalty or life imprisonment.
During the High Court session today, Yan’s daughter said she had argued with her father before the incident and would now never have the chance to reconcile. She drinks two bottles of red label rice wine daily to remember him. She accused Chen of lying in everything he said and of having a worldview that should not exist; she originally thought he would reflect on his actions, but since the first trial, realized he is selfish and bullies the weak, and is not worthy of being called human.
Yan’s son also said that he once naïvely thought letting the perpetrator live would give him a chance to repent. But not only has Chen shown no remorse, he has maligned his father’s name. His father was chopped into a lump of mangled flesh: at the body identification, they could not distinguish what was floor and what was body.
Chen Jincai ignored the victims’ family’s statements and even told the judge, “Let them say whatever they want,” and insisted he didn’t kill anyone—Yan died from “excessive bleeding” on his own, and he never intended to kill him.
Should he qualify for a sentence reduction for turning himself in? Chen Jincai, who has prior convictions for theft and fraud, said he had previously been a fugitive for 2–3 years, and now that he is in the detention center, many people laughed at him for “stupidly surrendering,” but he said he’s already been on TV and couldn’t have run for long anyway. His lawyer argued Chen has a mild intellectual disability, and after the crime he played video games to “calm himself down.” Turning himself in saved judicial resources.
At the end of the arguments, the chief judge asked if Chen had anything to say. Chen then said he wanted to apologize “but they (referring to the victim's children) don't want to talk to me.”