Chen Shui-bian Not Guilty of Money Laundering

From what I understood in the Chinese papers, the bribery charge was one of the things that he was said to be not guilty of today. The court said all the prosecutors proved was people gave him money (ie, contributions), but there was never even a hint as to what he did in return for that money…actually, the prosecutors never even tried to present evidence to that. Therefore, it’s a contribution, not a bribe. They never made any connection between favors and money…it was all bogus.
Edit: And people keep saying Chen did this, he knew that, etc…actually, from what I have gathered, the only thing he was guilty of is that he didn’t know shit about what was going on. There was never a connection made that he knew anything about bribery (which never happened), money laundering (which is just weird), or moving campaign contributions overseas (that was his wife). People seem to be getting a whole lot of facts mixed up (ie, he moved bribe money overseas? Y’all readin’ the apple daily? :laughing: )

Yeah so Ma gets money by using a patsy who gets convicted, but he still got to keep those ilegally gained funds right?

So it would appear:

  1. All politicians in Taiwan are on the take in some way or ways.
  2. The system is unjust, its WHO you know that may keep you out of jail, or if you happen to belong to the ruling party.
  3. Never be a subordinate (fall guy) for a politician because YOU may be the one jailed.
  4. Many have gotten away with gains that may be considered as wrong and/or immoral.
  5. Its business as usual.

I can’t say that it was actually planned that way, but that’s the way it happens to be working out: [quote]KMT urges voters to show discontent with Chen ruling[/quote]–Taipei Times headline, today
taipeitimes.com/News/front/archi … 2003487905

The judge’s reasoning is very strange indeed!

He’s apparently saying that if the president receives a huge sum of money from a big private financial services firm that is bidding to take over a smaller state-owned financial services firm (to the enormous benefit of the former) but needs approval from the Ministry of Finance to do so, and the president then lets the Minister of Finance know that he approves of the takeover, and the takeover is subsequently approved by the MOF, it cannot be construed as corruption since the president technically does not have the power to order the MOF to make such a decision, and therefore there is insufficient nexus between the receipt of the payment and the MOF’s decision. That, of course, is absolute nonsense. If the president lets it be known to any government official from the premier down that he wishes for X, Y or Z to be done, then X, Y or Z will most certainly be done if it is doable. That is the reality of presidential power in Taiwan.

No wonder Tsai, Su and other DPP bigwigs don’t want to say anything that appears to be applauding or approving so misguided an interpretation of the law, which is all but certain to be rectified on appeal.

He still took the money, though, that wasn’t denied. The court just said it wasn’t illegal to do so. They might be right, but it sure as hell is immoral. Chen is a slimy politician, make no mistake.

Also, I thought it was a mistake to EVER accuse him of having laundered money. I understood that he just stole it or was given bribes. Money laundering is a different thing altogether, and I have no idea why people ever thought this was one of his sins.[/quote]

Because if you’ve stolen money or gotten it through other illegal means (such as bribery) and then try to move it out of the country through various people to obscure its ownership and source then this is laundering. Not quite sure if you’ve thought your point through.[/quote]
Sure I have. If I take money and deposit it into a secret account, that isn’t laundering it, that’s hiding it. If I take illegally-gotten money and anonymously donate it to a temple of which I am a guardian, (a legal and very common practice in Taiwan), so that I can access that money in a legitimate way, THAT is laundering. Chen was found out NOT by declaring the money, but by Swiss authorities alerting the gov’t of the secret accounts.

[quote=“Omniloquacious”]The judge’s reasoning is very strange indeed!

He’s apparently saying that if the president receives a huge sum of money from a big private financial services firm that is bidding to take over a smaller state-owned financial services firm (to the enormous benefit of the former) but needs approval from the Ministry of Finance to do so, and the president then lets the Minister of Finance know that he approves of the takeover, and the takeover is subsequently approved by the MOF, it cannot be construed as corruption since the president technically does not have the power to order the MOF to make such a decision, and therefore there is insufficient nexus between the receipt of the payment and the MOF’s decision. That, of course, is absolute nonsense. If the president lets it be known to any government official from the premier down that he wishes for X, Y or Z to be done, then X, Y or Z will most certainly be done if it is doable. That is the reality of presidential power in Taiwan.[/quote]

Of course it’s nonsense but it is the law and the judge was correct. Would you have Chen held to different standards than other public officials? In Taiwan, as numerous reports have explained, it is not bribery to accept money related to an act beyond your official capacity. Yes, it’s crazy, but that’s the law.

There is also the matter that Chen was never tied to the money in the first place. Even the first trial accepted that but the judges, with completely wrongful reasoning even by Taiwan’s legal standards, said that he should have known what his wife was doing.

Like it or not, under Taiwan’s laws, Chen is likely guilty of a few minor charges. Under a better system he would be guilty of much more but so would a lot of politicians in Taiwan.

The first trial was a farce. This trial seems fair but reveals the farce the are corruption laws in Taiwan.

[quote=“Mucha Man”]Out of the blue we get this:

Recall that in June the Taipei District Court found Chen not guilty of embezzling diplomatic funds which led to a reduced sentence.

Er, so what is left? A few minor bribe convictions, forging documents?

Oh my god, the one man cancer on Taiwanese society may soon be back among us. :popcorn:[/quote]

Doesn’t surprise me in the least. I always thought he was as innocent as any other government official in Taiwan and was very poorly treated. They needed him in jail and humiliated so as to get the Taiwan Independence agenda to the fringe. That has succeeded. Now Ma is looking to the future and what might happen to him if he were to lose power. The system simply cannot work if the next guy keeps locking up the last guy.

In a way, I’d read it as a good sign for democracy in Taiwan and that the present system is going to continue. There will be no winding back of the clock if it can be avoided, but there will be no independence movement either.

He still took the money, though, that wasn’t denied. The court just said it wasn’t illegal to do so. They might be right, but it sure as hell is immoral. Chen is a slimy politician, make no mistake.

Also, I thought it was a mistake to EVER accuse him of having laundered money. I understood that he just stole it or was given bribes. Money laundering is a different thing altogether, and I have no idea why people ever thought this was one of his sins.[/quote]

Because if you’ve stolen money or gotten it through other illegal means (such as bribery) and then try to move it out of the country through various people to obscure its ownership and source then this is laundering. Not quite sure if you’ve thought your point through.[/quote]
Sure I have. If I take money and deposit it into a secret account, that isn’t laundering it, that’s hiding it. If I take illegally-gotten money and anonymously donate it to a temple of which I am a guardian, (a legal and very common practice in Taiwan), so that I can access that money in a legitimate way, THAT is laundering. Chen was found out NOT by declaring the money, but by Swiss authorities alerting the gov’t of the secret accounts.[/quote]

I suggest you go and read the legal definition of laundering money. It’s much broader than you think. BY breaking down illegally obtained funds into numerous accounts (which Chen’s wife did) she was engaged in laundering if the money was truly illegally gained.

She didn’t just put the money into secret accounts. She broke it all up into various family accounts to conceal its origins and source. That is laundering as the money could easily have been returned to her or Chen without it looking like it was in fact their own money coming back.

Good article from Commonwealth on attempts two years to bring in laws making simple possession of large amounts of undeclared assets a crime for public officials. Of course it went nowhere as did laws requiring civil servants to declare their assets.

The reality is the KMT controlled legislature, and most of the civil service, does not want strict and tough anti-corruption laws passed. For obvious reasons. Attempts to force the law to scapegoat Chen are hypocritical and do nothing to fix corruption in Taiwan. It was always pure ostrich behavior to think that the Chen trial had any broader meaning beside getting one man behind bars.

english.cw.com.tw/article.do?act … w&id=10412

Loopholes, unenforced laws, weak fines. Oh my. :laughing:

Omni, just for you. You’ll enjoy this China Times article as it argues much as you have, and I believe any fair minded person would argue. The article is from Dec 2009 and shows the judges interpretation is not at all odd in the Taiwan context but appears to be consistent with even the Ministry of Justice’s interpretation.

I’ll pull this quote out just to give people a taste:

[quote]Yesterday the Special Investigation Unit handed down indictments in the Second Financial Reform mergers and acquisitions scandal. But it sharply narrowed the range of those targeted for indictment, provoking a storm of public outrage. The most heavily criticized aspect was the Special Investigation Unit’s interpretation of the clause, “bribery not inconsistent with the performance of one’s official duties.” According to its interpretation of this clause, government officials who accept bribes have have no criminal liability under current law, as long as accepting the bribe did not affect the official’s performance of his duties. This newspaper has recently attempted to clarify the issue. Unfortunately we have been unable to persuade the legal hacks involved to change their definition. The Special Investigation Unit has even rationalized Chen Shui-bian’s euphemistically-named “Second Financial Reform Program,” a transparently obvious sweetheart deal. All we can do is explain the issues, yet again, not only to the Special Investigation Unit, but to every prosecutor within the Ministry of Justice. All we can do is enlighten them about the meaning of “mergers and acquisitions” and “dereliction of duty.”
Publicly owned banks are the nation’s cash cows. Even though their operational efficiency cannot match that of private banks, they receive a fixed annual income from the national treasury. The central government has only one reason to privatize these banks and sells off shares, and that is to maximize the wealth of the treasury. Other considerations include protecting the rights of employees, but these are invariably of secondary importance. They are the most important reason for selling off shares.

When the Ministry of Finance sells shares of say, Bank A, it must of course sell to the highest bidder, or at least to the most appropriate bidder based on other considerations. Say for example, that Bidder A and Bidder B are both interested in acquiring Bank A. Bidder A bids 100 billion. Bidder B bids a mere 30 billion. Yet the Ministry of Finance sells the bank to Bidder B. The National Treasury loses 70 billion, for no good reason. If this is does not constitute dereliction of one’s duties as a civil servant, what does? Is this does not constitute a violation of government procurement laws, what does? All of the government’s laws pertaining to the procurement process, including the Administrative Procedure Act, stipulate open bidding and transparent evaluations, in order to protect the national interest. Only under special circumstances, when the national interest is not involved, are officials free to choose between Bidder A and Bidder B. In other words, when the government sells off shares of public banks, there is definitely a “right price.” If offiicals ignore the higher bid, and hapharzardly award contracts without proper authorization, they are impoverishing the national treasury, in order to benefit special interests. This is clearly a dereliction of their duty as civil service employees. They may be prosecuted for such conduct. The person offering bribes may also be subject to criminal prosecution for “bribery inconsistent with the performance of one’s official duties.”

Let’s examine bribery from another point of view. Say Bidder A, Bidder B, and Bidder C all want to bid on Bank A. The government must award the bid to the highest bidder. If the highest bidder is awarded the bid, then there is no need to pay bribes. Only when someone who is not the highest bidder wants to be awarded the bid, that is it necessary for him to pay a bribe. Therefore, the act of bribing an official is prima facie evidence of an attempt to induce an official to violate correct procedure. It is prima facie evidence that the bidder wants an official to grant them a franchise inconsistent with the national interest. Those attempting to bribe officials are clearly guilty of attempting to induce them to engage in “bribery inconsistent with the performance of one’s official duties.”

Conceptually, only one situation can be classified as “bribery not inconsistent with the performance of one’s official duties.” That is when the person offering the bribe is merely seeking to ensure rights he was already entitled to. For example, if a person has passed a driving test, he is entitled to a driver’s license. But officials may make him jump through hoops. In such a case, he may attempt to bribe them, merely to ensure the rights he was already entitled to. To absolve such a person of a crime is publicly acceptable. A holding company’s acquisitions, on the other hand, are another matter entirely. The Tsai family, which owns the Cathay Corporation, has no god-given right to acquire the United Bank. The Koo family or Wu family have no god-given right to acquire the Changhua Bank. These are not matters of rights. Therefore if officials illicitly transfer tens of billions from the state treasury into the private accounts of these wealthy families, they are course derelict in their duty. Officials transfer tens of billions in government assets into the pockets of private individuals. And yet prosecutors maintain that these officials were not derelict in their duty, and that these were not sweetheart deals for the sake of special interests. This is not merely an inability to reason. This is willfull, head in the sand blindness.

Former University of Chicago president Robert Hutchins once commented on the shortcomings of today’s legal education. He said that if those who enforce the law know only how to apply the law mechanically, but know nothing about the philosophy of law and the concept of justice, then they are a menace to society. Unfortunately the legal hacks in the Special Investigation Unit and the Ministry of Justice Prosecutors Office have an understanding of bribery and official responsibility that deviates from society’s. Worse, it is not even consistent with the most basic principles of justice. They must indict those guilty of bribery in the Second Financial Reforms Program scandal. They must insist that the bribery involved dereliction of duty. If they refuse to do so, then they are declaring that those who have stolen hundreds of billions in national assets may get off scot-free. They are demonstrating that those who enforce the law live in a decadent, self-imposed isolation.

We offer the prosecutors of the Special Investigation Unit and the Ministry of Justice a refresher course in jurisprudence. We call upon Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng to address the serious problem of ignorance among those who interpret the law, and who indiscriminately expand the definition of the clause, “bribery not inconsistent with the performance of one’s official duties.” To the vast majority of the public on Taiwan, this is unacceptable. It rationalizes official discretion in the accepting of bribes. It is a major scandal that has shaken the foundations of the nation. Addressing the problem does not require amending the law. All that is necessary is for prosecutors to clarify the various legal concepts. The good name of government administrators and private entrepreneurs must not be destroyed by this group of legal hacks with a flawed understanding of the law![/quote]

taipeitimes.com/News/front/a … 03487984/1

[quote]President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) yesterday urged the justice system to avoid “detaching itself from the outside world” and “departing from public expectations” after the Taipei District Court on Friday acquitted former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and his wife, Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍), of money laundering and corruption charges, a verdict that prosecutors have said they would appeal.

As head of state, Ma said it was “inconvenient” for him to comment on an ongoing case. However, while the judiciary must be independent — something he emphasized during his Double Ten National Day address — it must not isolate itself from the outside world or deviate from public expectations, he said.[/quote]

So the judiciary should be independent, but only as long as it follows “verdicts” of the media court.

[quote=“Cueball”]Justice system mustn’t isolate itself: Ma - Taipei Times

[quote]President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) yesterday urged the justice system to avoid “detaching itself from the outside world” and “departing from public expectations” after the Taipei District Court on Friday acquitted former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and his wife, Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍), of money laundering and corruption charges, a verdict that prosecutors have said they would appeal.

As head of state, Ma said it was “inconvenient” for him to comment on an ongoing case. However, while the judiciary must be independent — something he emphasized during his Double Ten National Day address — it must not isolate itself from the outside world or deviate from public expectations, he said.[/quote]

So the judiciary should be independent, but only as long as it follows “verdicts” of the media court.[/quote]

Interesting too how Ma never made these comments when it was powerful businessmen who were being found not guilty of bribery because of a strict interpretation of existing anti-corruption laws.

For what it’s worth, I fully agree with Ma’s sentiments. We saw with the scandals of judges failing to find child rapists guilty that there is an unjust reliance on the literal interpretation of the law in too many court cases. But Chen cannot be made a scapegoat for the failings of the judicial system. True reform I am in favor for. Scapegoating I am not.

Remember theres things happening behind closed doors. MUch of the money has been returned to the rock. Chen is on his way out of detention. He may even run for President again (am not sure if he can because of the two term thing, but he may run for DPP big man ).

Ma is going to say what hes supposed to say, other key players will mouth off what they are supposed to say. Its a PLAY. The actors and actresses will act out their roles and speak their lines, but the script has largely been written.

[quote=“tommy525”]Remember theres things happening behind closed doors. MUch of the money has been returned to the rock. Chen is on his way out of detention. He may even run for President again (am not sure if he can because of the two term thing, but he may run for DPP big man ).

Ma is going to say what hes supposed to say, other key players will mouth off what they are supposed to say. Its a PLAY. The actors and actresses will act out their roles and speak their lines, but the script has largely been written.[/quote]
Totally agree.

[quote=“tommy525”]He may even run for President again (am not sure if he can because of the two term thing, but he may run for DPP big man ).[/quote]The dumbest thing the DPP could do is give CSB any power positions. The guy is political poison-the fact that the DPP has done very little to support him publicly shows that they are aware of this on some level. Even my most loyal DPP friends will all admit that he has no credibility after this.

Not me. I think the point was to discredit him royally and it worked, but the reality is there was very little difference in how he used political funding, his discretionary fund etc. than any of his predecessors. What tommy points to and he’s right as far as I can see is what people accept as being real when they already know the reality to be something else (in terms of corruption on both sides. Ma himself said of the mayoral discretionary fund that he thought it was part of his salary package). People should be more concerned about how they are being manipulated and to what ends. Ma and the present democratic system couldn’t move forward with the risk of Ma being arrested the minute he moves from the presidency. It might tell you that the DPP has some serious shit on Ma.

I agree with Suiyuan. His crime was not so much the–in relative terms–minor dishonesty itself, as the shattering stupidity and selfishness in not realizing the political situation demanded he be scrupulously honest. People weren’t expecting the KMT from the DPP.

DPP is largely divided over CSB issue. Bringing him back will only divide DPP further, possibly resulting in a spin-off party which would ensure they win nothing at all. He is the symbol of a soon-forgotten era of Taiwanese politics. Not the scandals themselves, but back in the haydays of KMT when few Taiwanese had the balls to say what he said (without getting killed). The times have changed. The old duke-it-out-for-your-ethnicity patriotism does not work in the present day of global economics where the power elites are in bed with each other (and both parties).

CSB is best to ride into the sunset. Do some philanthrophy work from his spanky apartment in Kaohsiung.

His son is already running for office, but I don’t think anybody in their right mind would vote for CSB’s son. There are other more deserving local DPP candidates to begin with.

Perhaps he thought he was or at least was in relative terms.

Taiwan politics is now just a circus for the securing of the National Palace Museum.