Chao Chien-ming gets 6 years -- fair sentence or politics?

Well, the infamous presidential son-in-law just got sentenced to six years, the longest sentence ever for insider trading in Taiwan. Quite a few people were shocked at the activism of the sentencing judge, who apparently said that Chao deserved greater punishment due to his being the son-in-law of the president.

Hmmmn. I’m at a loss for cuss words. May the judge be judged himself someday using genuine scales of justice.

I think it’s wonderful news. A guilty verdict for his mother-in-law would make me even happier.

Good for him, i would be more happy if it’s double the time.

In the US, you’d appeal the sentence on the basis that the Judge was biased, and said something like: “You’re more culpable because two years ago you married the daughter of the President, so your sentence will be not only be higher than normal, this will be a historical moment, setting a new high new record in sentencing.” Judges sentence according to precedence and the written law. In China (PRC) some judges didn’t even need to study law, and sentencing is made at a whim (and according to red envelopes) rather than based on the precepts of civil law.

Anyone care to add Chao Chien-ming to the wikipedia list of insider traders that includes Michael Milken and Jeffrey Skilling?


Maybe they should put into the lawbooks: If you are related to a public figure, your sentence should be increased. I’m sure everyone would agree that it’s a perfectly acceptable rule (because you deserve a higher punishment).

Just watch. He’s taking a fall in an attempt to take the heat off the Country Hag.


Just to stir the pot, does this mean if your a member of the KMT any punishments should be reduced?


No, KMT members do not get punished. This is because KMT members have stolen and murdered enough to qualify as statesmen. If you merely arrange insider trading, you are just an ordinary thief. But if you get the French government to kick back $400 million to you on an arms deal, you are a statesman. See the difference? It’s about three zeros, give or take.


I got the rough facts of Worm Boy’s case (the journalist in me always wants a lively moniker for the bad guys and Worm Boy fits Chen Shuai bian’s doctor son in law to a tee.). Anyway back to Worm Boy, I got the facts as found in the judicial panels verdict and then I ran them through the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines to see what Worm Boy would have got in US Federal court.

He would have got 46 to 57 months (i.e. roughly 3 and a half to 4 and a half years).

I have also done some asking around about the 6 year sentence. It is somewhat higher than normal. The norm would almost exactly match up with the US range (i.e. 3 or 4 years).

But I found out that it is perfectly legal for the judge to mention and consider Worm Boys public status. It is kind of the same deal as when American judges nail pro sports players harder because you are a role model for the children of this nation yack, yack, yack.

In any event, as I mentioned in the other thread these District Court proceedings are just pre-season games so Worm Boy should not get too downcast, he might do better in the High Court…of course he could do worse too!

Yours in Taiwanese high profile sentencing,
Judge Dredd Brian

This is Taiwan, IMO comparing his sentence to what he “might have gotten in the USA” is fun - but irrelevant.
As Brian mentioned his time is comparable to US sentencing in other ‘insider cases.’ He would get 3 - 5, usually do 2 or so and get out on probation for 5 years or so. In a case like his, high profile, he would very likely be shifted to a ‘Federal Minimum Security’ prison (read Club Fed Facility) after 90 days or so and work on his basket weaving or ping-pong skills between gardening and tennis.
The only thing I have not seen mentioned, and I admit to not having followed this too closely, is court ordered monies for fines, penalties and restitution.
What about those?

Has anyone come across the details of the case? I remember hearing at one point that the accused were planning to argue that the information was already public and so no insider trading had taken place. Is that what they argued?

At least with the OJ trial, the public got to see the facts of the case. I’m curious because I’m intrigued by the mindset of Chao et al. acting so brazenly to buy such a large number of shares just ahead of an announcement they knew would skyrocket those shares. The crime seemed to blunt for these people. Why did they expect to get away with it?