Taipei, July 23 （CNA） A panel of judges examined Monday a controversial videotaped deposition of a witness in the trial of former Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou on an charge of embezzlement, but withheld its ruling on whether the disputed written version of the deposition could serve as evidence.

In the presence of defense lawyers and public prosecutors representing the state, the judges spent about two hours viewing the tape, in which prosecutor Hou Kuan-jen interrogated Taipei city government cashier Wu Li-ju on Jan. 25.

The dispute occurred when the defense side found that the abridged transcript of the deposition contained words which either Wu had not said during the interrogation, or had been changed to mean exactly the contrary.

The defense lawyers urged that a revised written record of the re-examined deposition should be used to replace Hous abridged version, but the prosecutors insisted there is no need for doing so.

The prosecutorial team has insisted since last week that the transcript of Wus deposition presented by Hou was a truthful record and that no discrepancies existed between Hous record and the original recordings submitted to the court.

Instead of issuing a ruling on the issue, the panel of judges stated that in the final verdict concluding the trial, the court will explain whether the disputed written deposition submitted by Hou could serve as useful evidence.

Ma, who is the opposition Kuomintangs candidate for the 2008 presidential election, has been indicted on charges of embezzling NT$11.17 million from a special allowance fund designated for his discretionary use while he served as Taipei mayor from 1998 to 2006.

Prosecutors stated in their Feb. 13 indictment that the special fund was set aside by the government to reimburse the mayor for job-related spending.

They said that although the governments regulations allow the mayor to use half of the fund by simply signing a receipt instead of providing vouchers to account for his spending, the money should go towards job-related spending and that any remaining funds should be returned to the governments coffers.

The prosecutors did not take issue with the city governments practice of having half of the fund remitted to the mayors account, but charged Ma on the grounds that he didnt spend all of it and yet kept the remaining stipend as personal income. （By Han Nai-kuo）