Court upholds not guilty ruling for ex-TV host in animal import case

Taipei, Jan. 22 (CNA) The Taiwan High Court on Wednesday upheld a "not guilty" ruling for former SET TV host Lee Tian-yi (李天怡) and two others in a breach of faith case related to animal imports, dismissing an appeal filed by prosecutors.

The ruling is final and cannot be appealed.

Lee, her husband, and a businessman were indicted in September 2022 for breach of faith, with prosecutors alleging they acted against the best interests of the Wanpi World Safari Zoo in Tainan, which had planned to import giraffes and zebras from Africa in 2020.

Lee was entrusted by Chang Rong-hua (張榮華), SET Group chairman and zoo owner, as the main contact between the zoo and Pacific Image Ltd., which undertook to import the animals.

Chang signed a contract with Pacific Image to import the wild animals and remitted US$3.79 million to the company, after which it distributed US$250,000 of dividends to Lee's husband, who was also a company director, prosecutors said.

However, the purchase was cancelled the next year due to concerns by Taiwan's animal rights groups over the zoo's record looking after animals, saying it encouraged poaching and threatened the wildlife population.

Thereafter a zoo employee reported to prosecutors a conversation in which he allegedly heard Lee make remarks on the case considered to be suspicious.

Prosecutors found that the defendants quoted a price of US$54,000 for a giraffe and US$14,000 for a zebra -- about four times the price quoted by their contact in southern Africa.

Prosecutors argued that Pacific Image inflated the price of the animals, causing the zoo to lose US$2.37 million.

However, to constitute breach of trust, the defendant must be a decision maker in the case, and the plaintiff has to suffer losses directly caused by the actions of the defendant.

The Taiwan Taipei District Court in July 2024 ruled that Lee was not guilty because she had no decision-making authority related to the purchase and only acted as a messenger between the two parties.

The decisions to sign the contract and then not to go through with the importation was made by plaintiff Chang, the court found.

The plaintiff also understood that the zoo's losses were incurred by it being unable to import the animals, rather than the price of the animals, so there is insufficient evidence to prove the prices quoted by the defendants caused the losses.

In response to the High Court's ruling, the zoo issued a statement saying the decision was "regrettable" and it will discuss other possible measures to seek justice.