Another KMT trick … 2003279229

[quote] According to Jao Jin-yi (趙進一), the elder son of Jao Ke-ji (趙克璣), a radiologist and one of the original co-owners of the hospital, a KMT-affiliated capital venture company expressed its wish to “jointly manage” the hospital with the co-owners in March 1999.

However, after obtaining two thirds of the hospital’s shares, the company forced through the acquisition of the remaining shares, using a legal loophole. It then used a forged accord it claimed was signed by Jao Ke-ji with the company. The agreement said that Jao Ke-ji was subject to a punitive fine of NT$50 million to the company if he refused to change the hospital’s ownership.

The paper was dismissed by the Taipei High Court as a forgery.

Still, the company requested an injunction on his monthly salary, totaling NT$2 million, Jao Jin-yi said.[/quote]

My question and surprisement is … how the hell can they get away with forgery?

Sounds like the Taipei high court dismissed the paper as evidence, probably on grounds that its legitimacy can’t be proven.

That doesn’t mean the opposite must be true: that if the paper’s legitimacy can’t be proven, then those carrying the paper must be criminally guilty of fraud/forgery.

Com’on if there is a forged signature on it, it’s a forgery … and those that carry it should be proscecuted.

I think it is more dependent on the chop and not the signature.

That’s just not legally the case.

Say you found a similar letter “anonymously” mailed to you regarding your own inheritance; an updated will, perhaps. You take it for analysis by the experts, and they’re split on whether the signature/chop is legitimate or fake.

You use the letter while the estate is being disputed. The court decides the letter’s legitimacy isn’t certain, and chooses to use an older will. Therefore, you end up in jail for… fraud/forgery?