[quote=“Hokwongwei”]You’re not supposed to donate into a personal account abroad… That’s not how it works.
It’s painfully clear that Chen is guilty, but the courts couldn’t get him on it. My stance is he should be free because the judges couldn’t adequately find the evidence to convict him… even though, again, I don’t for a second doubt his complicity.[/quote]
Yes, ideally that shouldn’t be the case. However, just saying that shouldn’t be how things go doesn’t mean it’s illegal. Explain how the law prohibits donations to the Super PAC go to the candidate’s pocket, or pay for the candidate’s expenses?
The fact is Taiwan’s regulation on political donations was only setup in 2004, that’s after both of CSB’s presidential elections. I recall something about protection from retroactive law or ex post facto principles in regards to modern rule of law.
Again… Did CSB pocket public money and try to hide it? In my mind, undoubtedly yes. Should he be in prison? Not if the court isn’t able to convict him on reasonable grounds.
It’s basically the same as the Dean Zain… Zean Dain… 林克穎… case. Obviously did wrong, but the court shouldn’t shouldn’t bend over backwards to press a case it can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
[quote=“Hokwongwei”]Again… Did CSB pocket public money and try to hide it? In my mind, undoubtedly yes. Should he be in prison? Not if the court isn’t able to convict him on reasonable grounds.
It’s basically the same as the Dean Zain… Zean Dain… 林克穎… case. Obviously did wrong, but the court shouldn’t shouldn’t bend over backwards to press a case it can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt.[/quote]
Before the political donation act was put in place before 2004, political donations to a candidate was not public money, so I don’t really get the analogy.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Chen found guilty in the 二次金改案 by the Supreme Court? My understanding is the High Court said 實質影響力 (how do we translate this… substantial power of influence?) and the Supreme Court later found him guilty of accepting bribes.
A good while back, I used to actually get tempted to haul off and take a good shot at learning Chinese so I could understand more about this case and the other case that Hokwongwei mentioned, especially details such as might be found in hearing and trial transcripts. But one poster–who has been here a long time, who knows Chinese, and who knows a lot more than I do about Taiwan–indicated that in Taiwan, transcripts of court proceedings aren’t available to the public.
So although there are lots of good reasons to learn Chinese, I’ve scratched that one (i. e., the ability to read transcripts of court proceedings) off the list. That’s probably just an excuse for me to be lazy, but along with my other excuses, it’s been working for me so far.
The second financial restructuring case is now being processed by Taiwan High Court for the first appeal court (更一審), however, trials have been suspended due to the deteriorating health conditions of both CSB and his wife.
The way to translate 實質影響力說 is “There’s no word for this in judicial jargon of any other languages because some judge pulled it out of his arse.”
So the Supreme court was super supreme in using forced confessions as evidence to convict CSB and his wife, despite the fact that Tu had made the fact that her statement was forced by the SIU public.
SIU’s exact words were:
[quote]Say it’s just a political donation one more time and we will detain you.
再說是政治獻金就羈押妳[/quote]
In another words, the only two cases that CSB were found guilty involved SIU forcing confessions out of key witnesses. Mind you, it all started with 國務機要費 case, which was trumped up and fabricated. CSB had been incarcerated since then, and SIU spent a lot of time and money to dig up stuff that can actually get CSB locked up, something assigned to my by their boss. Since there was nothing that resembled concrete evidence of CSB’s corruption, they just shoot in the dark and indict CSB with as many charges as they can, hoping that one would stick. When none seems to stick, they coerced statements from witnesses, and when that failed, the special judges that replaced the original judges on these cases pulled out the “There’s no word for this in judicial jargon of any other languages because some judge pulled it out of his arse.”
I find the effectiveness of this abuse of the legal system to destroy a person and a party’s credibility fascinating, because after all the smokes and mirrors, many intelligent people simply have given up on caring about these cases, and have their minds made up about the persons or parties involved.
So… only the 國泰 / 世華 part is back for further trial. 定讞 should, I believe, mean absolutely entirely case closed, no? So Chen and Wu were found guilty in that case. It seems pretty open-closed to me.
So… only the 國泰 / 世華 part is back for further trial. 定讞 should, I believe, mean absolutely entirely case closed, no? So Chen and Wu were found guilty in that case. It seems pretty open-closed to me.[/quote]
Tu’s statement is directly relevant to the 元大併復華案. She was the one who introduced 元大’s CEO to CSB’s wife.
Koo’s statement was directly relevant to the 龍潭案, which is also 定讞。 Those are the only two cases that reached final verdicts with a guilty sentence for CSB. Both involved SIU forcing statements out of key witnesses, and using “There’s no word for this in judicial jargon of any other languages because some judge pulled it out of his arse” as the reason for the guilty sentence.
I don’t want to be that guy, but… what’s the evidence that the testimony was forced, other than them now saying it was? And was there other corroborating evidence to convict him aside form Tu and Koo? I know it’s an opaque system so asking that question isn’t really going to get an answer, but it should be asked.
If SIU did things by the law and hasn’t destroyed the recordings by now, they are suppose to record their interrogations. By the way, what’s the benefit of them admitting to their statements being forced? Especially both of them made the facts public during Ma’s administration?
Both Koo and Tu are business people, to quote Donald Trump when asked about inviting Hilary to his wedding “I was a business people, and I get along with everybody, that was my job, to get along with people.”
So what’s in it for them to discredit Ma? Especially Tu, as an owner of health food restaurants?
One has to wonder where CSB accumulated $22 million dollars to put into a Swiss bank account.[/quote]
Political donations. In the list I made, just the first 3 points alone indicates CSB gave up over $1 billion NTD, the fact that he has 800 mil in the bank means that he received a lot of donations.[/quote]
I don’t know what the campaign finance laws in the ROC are, however, here in the USA, you don’t pocket a single cent of donations. Certainly, you don’t send it to a personal Swiss bank account.
The Chinese Nationalist regime claims that the money in Chen’s account is not political donation, and that’s the excuse they used to jail Chen FOR LIFE.
Okay, but whose testimony did the regime rely on to back up their claim?
[quote=“sofun”]The Chinese Nationalist regime claims that the money in Chen’s account is not political donation, and that’s the excuse they used to jail Chen FOR LIFE.
Okay, but whose testimony did the regime rely on to back up their claim?
There you go.[/quote]
Ok, so, answer my first question. Where did he get $22 million? He didn’t disclose that asset when he became President. Did he?
Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s the right, responsible, or justifiable thing to do. Let’s face it – Chen should not have pocketed that much money, regardless of legality. Separate the immoral behavior from the totally broken legal system.
I’ll also refer you to my post to Dirt about political donations in the US.
That means George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and most the presidents before that bagged leftover campaign money.
Bagging campaign donations is not acceptable now, but at least it’s not tax payer’s money. At the time it was a legal and acceptable behavior. Otherwise the SIU would not need to threaten key witnesses to claim it wasn’t political donations.
If the society has evolved for the better and decides to do away while such a practise, and possible avenue for corruption, then remedy the law (which they did under CSB’s administration), and as said before, new laws should not be ex post facto in a modern society.
The worst thing you can do is selective prosecution, which is just legal persecution and the perfect tool for authoritarians.