Investigative record · Timeline · Verification of the disputes
On October 3, 2026, Taipei's Wanhua Precinct, acting on a search warrant, searched Commander D, a gay / BDSM bar in Ximending, and patrons were taken back to the police station to give statements (the number of people taken back is given in two versions — 51 people, or 52 people in total — shown side by side below). Over the following three weeks, the incident grew from the question "was the enforcement lawful?" into disputes over the treatment of witnesses, video of handcuff threats, self-contradictory official accounts, and demands for an independent investigation. This site records each node in chronological order and singles out the controversies one by one: which items are official accounts, which are allegations by patrons and groups, and which are still pending judicial investigation — always labeled separately, with no adjudication.
The whole site uses only three tags, and a tag itself represents the evidential level of that claim. Allegations are always written in the language of "allege / claim," never as fact; official accounts are likewise not automatically treated as conclusions.
Sourced from public statements, press conferences or press releases by the police, the city government, the Ministry of the Interior or other officials, or matters officials have confirmed. Note: what officials have "acknowledged" is what they stated or did; it does not mean the full picture has been verified by a third party.
Sourced from patrons at the scene, the shop, lawyers, statements by civic groups, press conferences or statements given in interviews. These are one side's claims, not judicially established; where the source is an interested party (for example, a candidate or a complainant), that is noted separately.
Matters that have entered a criminal complaint, petition, inspectorate investigation or prosecutorial procedure and had no public conclusion as of 2026-10-23. This site records only the procedural status and does not presume the outcome.
Every entry in the "Overview of disputes and allegations" has four fixed fields: Allegation / issue, Raised by / source, Official response, and Verification status. Conflicting figures (for example, headcounts) are presented side by side, without adjudicating which is correct.
The main axis follows the finalized nodes N01–N17, with the supplementary Ministry of the Interior record of 10/8 and the latest developments of 10/20–10/22 added (marked "New"). Use the navigation at the top to jump to any section at any time.
The horizontal axis is the date (October 3 to 31, arranged proportionally; September background is listed separately on the left, not to scale). Each marker is one node; nodes on the same day are stacked vertically and the count is shown. Click a marker or a date, and the nodes for that day are listed below; click a title to jump to that node's detailed entry. October 3–7 was the peak of the incident; October 20–22 brought the latest developments.
The newest, and most central, contradiction of the whole case. All of the threats and handcuffing described below are allegations; the police have not acknowledged them, and they are pending judicial investigation. But the on-site video that surfaced on 10/22 raised the contradiction to the level of "public official statements vs. footage."
Point 5 of the Judicial Reform Foundation's statement of 10/20 pointed out that the police description of the 51 patrons was inconsistent: they first said the patrons were dealt with under the Social Order Maintenance Act for being bare-chested, and later said they were "witnesses." That 51 "witnesses" were forcibly taken back to the police station, by improper means, to give statements is the statement's headline-level allegation.
A patron account, confirmed in point 4 of the Judicial Reform Foundation statement: after the manager spoke up in support of a disabled patron who was being mocked, he was handcuffed and ordered to kneel. (Patron account; the police have not acknowledged this part.)
NOWNEWS reported on 10/22 that video of criminal investigation squad captain Chen Yi-kai shouting at the scene had surfaced. In the video, he says:
"Either you come up with me three at a time, or you get handcuffed."
The manager replies in the video: "Just take me away. Why make trouble for everyone else?"
Status of the police response: NOWNEWS reported that the Taipei City Police Department and Wanhua Precinct had still not responded to the handcuff video (as of 10/22).
The two officials' accounts differ; they are presented side by side, with no adjudication. The core unresolved question: people who are nominally witnesses / related persons yet face threats of restraints — does that comply with the principle of proportionality? No conclusion has been reached.
Sources: NOWNEWS 2026-10-22 (republished by PChome); NOWNEWS 2026-10-22, second article (republished by PChome); Full text of the Judicial Reform Foundation statement
Numbered and categorized, item by item. Every allegation entry begins by naming who raised it; the "Official response" field records the response faithfully — including the gap of "no specific response found" itself. Each item is 2–4 lines, for easy scanning.
As of 2026-10-23, the following matters have no public answer or conclusion. This site lists the gaps only, and presumes nothing.
Note pending verification: A commentary article (Duierte Vision, 2026-10-05) cited the police as having reviewed "41 clips" of on-duty footage from the scene before confirming that four officers had used inappropriate language; the figure "41 clips" has not been verified against the original text of a CNA report or a police department press release. It is a citation in commentary, pending verification, and is not stated as fact.
Note on names: The owner is written only as "Mr. Chung" (the version used by CNA and the police); the full name carried by individual media outlets has not been verified by an authoritative source and is not written into the main text.
Allegation (groups): The officer involved, surnamed Chuang, is alleged to have been involved in remarks and conduct connected with the 2023 Diamond Building case, and faces a "sex without paying" (白嫖) allegation.
Official response (Wanhua Precinct, 10/7 11:17): After an investigation in November 2023, no improper remarks or conduct, and no "sex without paying," were found; a reply was given to the councillor on 2023-11-15. This is the official account, not a judicial conclusion.
Sources: Taiwan Green Party, 2026-10-07; Precinct response: Formosa Live, republishing the Precinct's response
The roles and public accounts of each side are listed so readers can follow the original texts themselves. Interests are labeled faithfully.
Taiwan Green Party candidate for Taipei City Councillor in the Zhongzheng–Wanhua district. On the night of 10/3 he received complaints and went to the scene to assist patrons; on 10/4 he released the on-site recording; he was one of the speakers at the 10/5 and 10/7 press conferences and one of the complainants who filed the criminal complaint at the Taipei District Prosecutors Office. He is an interested party (candidate + complainant); his Threads posts and interview statements are a source on the "allegations by patrons and groups" side, not a neutral record.
Threads: @chenting_notes; his on-site post of 10/3: threads.com/@chenting_notes/post/DeCDP0RmBkd
Councillor's interpellation: A CNA report of 2026-10-04 confirmed that DPP Taipei City Councillor Hong Chien-yi had stated in an interpellation at the council some days earlier that he had received reports from parents that underage children were suspected of entering a special-style bar in Ximending, and that photographs showed bondage and intimate interaction, and he asked the city government to confirm whether the shop was operating illegally; he also said the precinct with jurisdiction had already inspected the shop several times over the preceding months and the operator had not improved. The exact date "September 11" appears only in Wang Chen-ting's interview statement (single source). See dispute item 29 for details.
The shop's account (media reporting): The shop's owner held a press conference on the afternoon of 10/7 and denied that the shop had a "dark room," saying the space was a storeroom ("that's a storeroom, it's full of stock"). This is the shop's side of the story, reported by the media and not verified against official records.
Historical context (cited in group statements; not facts of this case): Group statements mention the 1997 Changde Street incident, the 2004 Nong'an party incident, and the 2025 case of a gay men's shop in Taichung that was searched and then closed, as contextual reference. This site records only that the groups made these statements.