Taipei prosecutors indicted the former visitor on suspicion of using false entries in business records. An indictment is not a conviction.
SPECIAL REPORT · PUBLIC RECORD
QUESTIONS OVER LIN HSIN-TZU’S VISIT RECORDSThe Missing Four Days
Was the visit made on September 22, or on September 26 as recorded? When dates, photographs and forms do not align, is the system seeing the child—or merely a completed record?
Combined four-language views…
PROJECT READING GUIDE
Project reading guide
JUDGMENT & STATUS
Judgment and case status
As of 13 August 2026, publicly available information shows that the case has been indicted and no public judgment has been identified. Allegations and judicial findings are presented separately.
The matter is before the court. Hearing dates and procedural developments should be checked against Judicial Yuan notices.
The case must not be described as a confirmed conviction. The court still has to determine every legal element from evidence.
TWO VISITS · TWO RECORDED DATES
Not one discrepancy, but two
According to public reports of the indictment, prosecutors allege that the dates of two actual visits differed from those entered in visit and reimbursement records.
PAIR ONE
Visit date alleged by prosecutors06/30
→
Date entered in records07/12
PAIR TWO
Visit date alleged by prosecutors09/22
→
Date entered in records09/26
01 · THE RECORD
How a record becomes institutional fact
A visit record is not merely a worker’s note. Once placed in an agency or government workflow, it may shape later judgments about care, risk and whether intervention is required.
A child cannot correct the record. The system must make every visit traceable, verifiable and open to meaningful review.
DATEVerifiable chronologyArrival, record creation and upload times should leave an audit trail.
IMAGEOriginal files retainedKeep source files, capture time and necessary provenance.
EDITChanges remain visibleLater edits must not erase prior versions.
REVIEWSubstance over checkboxesSupervision should detect contradictions and risk, not just completed fields.
02 · ALLEGATIONS
What do prosecutors allege?
Public reporting says prosecutors believe Lin did make the visits, but—because of scheduling around continuing education and visit-upload deadlines—allegedly entered different dates in two visit records and related reimbursement documents, then submitted them for review by an unaware supervisor.
The most visible injury-related question concerns a large bruise on Kai-Kai’s forehead. According to public reports on the indictment, photographs taken during child-welfare social worker Chen Shang-chieh’s visit on 25 September 2023 showed a large bruise on the child’s forehead. Yet Lin’s disputed visit record was dated 26 September and noted no injury. Prosecutors further allege that Lin’s actual visit and photographs occurred on 22 September. The development and chronology of the injury across 22, 25 and the recorded date of 26 September therefore remain matters for evidence to clarify.
These are issues presented in the indictment and public reporting. They do not establish what Lin knew or determine criminal liability; those questions remain for the court.
Recognition noteA large forehead bruise on a young child should prompt an immediate inquiry into its cause, careful documentation, preservation of original images and comparison with earlier and later visit records. An injury alone does not prove abuse, but conflicting dates, photographs and explanations must trigger renewed verification and risk assessment.
03 · TO BE PROVED
What must the court still decide?
- How were the two visit dates, record-creation times and reimbursement documents produced?
- Did the defendant knowingly make and use false business records?
- Can original photographs, system logs, schedules and witness accounts corroborate one another?
- Does each alleged act independently satisfy every legal element of the charged offense?
- Does the defense evidence create reasonable doubt?
An indictment is not a finding of guilt. This report separates public allegations, evidentiary questions and procedural status; it does not decide the case.
04 · CASE PATH
From discrepancy to indictment
First disputed pair of dates
Prosecutors allege that the actual visit and the later record bore different dates.
Second disputed pair of dates
The four-day difference and its relationship to other photographs later became a focus of inquiry.
Referral for investigation
Public reports state that Taipei City referred the unresolved record discrepancies to prosecutors.
Testimony in the Chen Shangjie case
Lin appeared as a witness and was examined about differences in visit records.
Investigation concluded; prosecution filed
Prosecutors filed charges concerning allegedly false business-record entries.
First instance; no public judgment yet
Future hearings, arguments and any judgment will be updated from public judicial information.
05 · SYSTEM
The system must ask more than “Was the form completed?”
Meaningful review should establish who visited, when they arrived, what they observed, where the photographs came from, when the record changed and how supervision tested its reliability. Conflicts among dates, images and accounts should automatically trigger escalation.
01Visit audit trailsArrival, departure, schedule and subject can be sampled and checked.
02Immutable originalsPhotographs and record versions retain reliable timestamps.
03Cross-record checksConflicts between visitors’ dates or observations generate alerts.
04Enhanced risk visitsAn anomaly is not a verdict, but it should start verification and protection.
SOURCES & UPDATE
Sources and update policy
Case status follows public judicial information. News reports are used only to organize the allegations and procedural history; future hearing dates or judgments will be added when publicly available.