Ma also accused of using fake invoices

On a turn that might dictate new rules in Taiwan, Ma got also involved in the “I-don’t-wanna-make-3000-papers-so-I-use-a-fake-invoice” scheme.

Difference this time is that all the blue channels are proactive in defending this scheme, even to the point of TVBS showing that the person who is responsible for that is a extremely good office worker and he does it because he has too much work. The Central News Agency even went to the point of listing the fact that Ma went to be interrogated in the Social news… while saying that Mr. Ma had to miss lunch because of his busy official schedule (we just don’t know which schedule he they talking about, if it is the KMT or the Taipei City one).

admission is already international news: … anpolitics

Here are a few more differences between the two cases:

  • Ma can prove none of the funds ended up in his pocket, since the real receipts are available.
  • Ma didn’t perjure himself in front of government prosecutors.
  • Ma didn’t manufacture evidence.

there are many differences, like Ma’s expenses are not exactly the secret type (including woman’s pads…).

But still the core of the question stays - they used big receipts instead of hundreds of small ones - couldn’t this also apply to the ring? Because the last news I heard about that ring was that the first lady had exchange a diamond wristwatch and some sogo coupons for it. The invoice, as it was a big number, could save a lot of headaches in accountancy.

About the invoices, the secretary was showing the “real” receipts he had, dated of 11 and 12 November…

As it seems both cases will be handled by the same investigators, I would say the chances of this turning into smoke are close to 100%…

And, according to other news

[quote] DPP Legislator William Lai Ching-te (賴清德) and Taipei City Councilors Hsu Chia-chin (徐佳青) and Chou Wei-you (周威佑) told a press conference that Ma’s personal savings had increased after he ran for the chairmanship of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).

Although they estimated that Ma had spent NT$30 million (US$915,503) campaigning for the chairmanship and covered his daughter Ma Yuan-chung’s (馬元中) tuition and living expenses at Brown University in Rhode Island – to the tune of about NT$1 million – Ma’s fortune still increased by about NT$4.4 million last year, Lai said.

The trio said they suspected part of Ma’s campaign funds either came from his special mayoral allowance or illegal political donations, since he does not come from a wealthy family. Lai said Ma would have violated the Political Donation Law (政治獻金法) if he had accepted donations.[/quote]
from taipeitimes

So the depth of the evidence that Ma committed fraud is that he managed to save $100k last year? Just checking.

You have your own bizarre definition of “core differences”. I have mine. Let me reiterate them here again:

  • Chen Shui-bian and those working for him lied to a government prosecutor investigating corruption about where (uninvoiced) funds were spent. Ma did not perjure himself.

  • Chen Shui-bian and those working for him manufactured evidence to support the above lie. Ma did not forge documents.

  • Chen Shui-bian now claims that he is unable to tell anyone in government (regardless of security level) where the funds in question went, except to reassert that he didn’t pocket any of it. Ma knows exactly where the funds went, and are able to prove they were spent on legitimate reasons.

I don’t hold any illusions that I can convince you of anything. But the facts above speak for themselves.

Here are a few more differences between the two cases:

  • Ma can prove none of the funds ended up in his pocket, since the real receipts are available.
  • Ma didn’t perjure himself in front of government prosecutors.
  • Ma didn’t manufacture evidence.[/quote]

It depends upon the details of what he did. If he created a false invoice or PO and passed it off as a genuine one for review and approval, that is still a violation of general accounting rules, and can be in some cases a criminal violation of making false accounts. It does not matter if he did not pocket the proceeds.

In the civilian world, in most firms, that would be grounds for dismissal even if he had 3,000 documents to later support it and even if the employee did not pocket the funds.

I’ve had people investigated by the ICAC (anti-corruption bureau) for doing much less in HKG.

Here are a few more differences between the two cases:

  • Ma can prove none of the funds ended up in his pocket, since the real receipts are available.
  • Ma didn’t perjure himself in front of government prosecutors.
  • Ma didn’t manufacture evidence.[/quote]

Holy double posts!

cctang, the fact that the base crime is the same is what matters.

CSB has no way to get the invoices from own part, as these can never exist…

Some the real receipts also show they are for transactions made in the neighorhood of Chairman Ma’s residence. For items of daily life like milks breads stuff. Are those under public affairs heading?

For now the prosecutors havent come out and accused him of this yet. But they may if they conclude the fund has been misused for personal items.

No, thats the main difference with the other case. Ma has a willing scapegoat. :laughing:

I think Ma would be better served if he could claim confidential state business too. Who knows maybe he can claim some of the money went towards this purpose; … 2003335834

Justice seeking the KMT way. :laughing:

I think Chairman Ma would be popular in prison, if it ever came to that. :smiley:

This is just the beginning. All the politicians with slush funds must be shaking in their boots. :taz:

Is it not too late to hire a “non-lazy” accountant? :roflmao:

It seems that Annette Lu still has a reasonable mind

But Vice President Annette Lu was in no mood for sarcasm as she pointed out that the controversies over government officials’ expense accounts have stemmed from outdated rules.

Describing such expense accounts as “all a mess,” Lu said the entire system and relevant rules governing the expense accounts must be put under close scrutiny, beginning from the central government down to local administrations.

She also said it is not fair to only target incumbents who are simply following the practice of their predecessors.

Through the scrutiny of the outdated system and rules, it would become clear how President Chen is being wrongly accused, Lu said.

The vice president also said the Ma case must not be politicized.
[/quote] from the chinapost…

If it turns out that Ma pocketed these funds (by drinking the purchased soy milk and eating the purchased bread in a private capacity), I certainly think he should be punished. I don’t know what legal penalties apply to this level of embezzlement, but I think they should be brought into play. I think this is another challenge of the independence and effectiveness of the ROC legal system. I think at the very least, there should now be a strong cloud of suspicion that Ma is unable to maintain discipline over his employees.

You see, being intellectually honest and morally consistent isn’t really all that hard to do.

I think now they re saying part of the fund is used to buy breakfast for the mayor and his retinue. Perhaps if its a power breakfast related to discussion of their works… :laughing:

Yes, and if you keep observing others doing it, you may learn how to yourself.

This whole investigation needs to stop, because there is hardly an official in the country who hasn’t falsified receipts. Taiwan needs to be governed, and at the moment it can’t be.

And the slush fund system needs to be abolished before it destroys another generation of officials.


What, are we forgetting the Yoga classes + gun in office + dead body package?

Vork, agree that the slush fund has to be abolished. But the presidential one shouldn’t. It should be changed into a special account for diplomacy (meaning that not only the President but also the MOFA/MND have to sign underneath it).

from chinapost…

[quote]New political storm threat to all public office holders

By Joe Hung The China Post

What started as a low-profile McCarthyist expose of a Kuomintang lawmaker is threatening to engulf practically every high-level public office holder in a new anti-corruption tidal wave.

It was Chiu Yi who began exposing scandal after scandal involving ranking government officials in the summer of last year, acting almost exactly like U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin in the early 1950s.

By innuendoes and demagoguery, McCarthy triggered a communist witch hunt, that left no American officials free from the reckless charges of un-Americanism. He fell after trying to attack President Dwight D. Eisenhower for “being too soft” on the communists.

Chiu succeeded in incriminating first lady Wu Shu-chen in the end. She was indicted on November 3 for corruption. Prosecutors charged her with borrowing receipts and bills from friends and relatives to claim a NT$14.8 million refund from the public fund under her husband’s control for the conduct of “affairs of state.” President Chen was regarded as an unindicted co-defendant. He was not indicted, for he enjoys immunity to prosecution.

To protect the first couple, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party launched an equally vehement counterattack.

It targeted Mayor of Taipei Ma Ying-jeou, who doubles as chairman of the opposition Kuomintang.

Ma was questioned by Taipei district prosecutor Hou Kuan-jen in connection with the misuse of his expense account on Tuesday.

No corruption charges have been pressed against Ma, who, however, said he’s “personally” suffered.

DPP leaders could never miss this golden opportunity. They are now calling on the prosecutor to indict Ma for corruption. They sang a chorus of calls on him to step down as mayor of Taipei and Kuomintang chairman as well.

On the other hand, Kuomintang lawmakers are suing five top DPP leaders for criminal misuse of their expense account.

Named in the suit, which Prosecutor Chen Jui-jen who indicted the first lady has been assigned to investigate, were Vice President Annette Lu, Premier Su Tseng-chang, DPP chairman Yu Shyi-kun, President Chen’s secretary-general Chen Tang Sun, and former Premier Frank Hsieh.

Lu was magistrate of Taoyuan before her election as vice president in 2000. Hsieh was mayor of Kaohsiung from 1998 to 2004. Yu, Su and Chen Tang Sun were former magistrates of Yilan, Taipei, and Tainan.

None of them can be easily cleared. Half of the expense account can be written off without receipts and bills as proof. The other half needs to be justified.

Ma is charged with remitting the half that needs no proof to his personal account, which grew by an average of NT$300,000 a month since he assumed office as mayor of Taipei in 1998.

He admitted that his assistant used “wrong” receipts to write off NT$800,000 from his expense account. That was a clerical mistake. Nobody pocketed the money, he insisted.

Some DPP leaders know how serious the threat to the integrity of the five of them now under investigation is.

That is why Lin Cho-shui, who resigned as DPP lawmaker at large Monday, urged restraint from a new wave of attacks on Ma and other Kuomintang public office holders.

Should more attacks take place, “everybody would lose,” Lin said. Attacks breed counterattacks, and there will be no end to the increasingly fierce struggle between the two political camps.

Hsieh, the DPP candidate for mayor of Taipei, described Ma’s involvement in the expense account misuse as “kicking dust that hurt his own eyes” but warned against the party leaders “getting elated” over the success of their counterattack.

James Soong, chairman of the People First Party “on leave” to run as an independent, is concerned about his old “embezzlement” scandal being talked about again.

He is cautioning the DPP leaders not to continue attacking Ma in an attempt to protect the beleaguered president.

All high public office holders, regardless of their political party affiliation, are afraid they may be the next targets of Taiwan’s reborn McCarthyists.

Taiwan will wind up in political chaos, if parties do not put an end to their muck-raking against each other in time, observers believe.

“When nobody feels safe from reckless charges of corruption,” a political analyst said, “how can the government operate normally?”

But observers are pessimistic about Taiwan’s political future.

With legislative elections scheduled for the end of next year and the presidential race for the spring of 2008, the frenzy whipped up by the anti-corruption McCarthyism cannot be wished away.[/quote]

Just watched FTV News. Judging from what I heard, I’d say a bombshell just hit.

The big issue has switched. The accounting guys - I forget what the departmental name is, but it’s the white-haired guy and scary-looking guy - are suddenly on the block for certifying the Mayor’s Office’s (is that punctuated right?) creative accounting techniques in September in return for what amounts to direct bribes. [edit] (Ministry of Audit)

This won’t reflect well on Ma’s habit of always saying, “I had no idea…”

But it will reflect well on President Chen who has never made any moves to protect himself or avoid responsibility.

Is this for real? This might even sway the upcoming city elections significantly. I can’t help but smirk to myself right now.

Also, I really enjoyed reading that bit of Joe Hung. He’s not often my cup of tea, but he sounds a bit prescient now.

I’m very interested in seeing this where goes.

But, are you serious? Lying to the prosecutor about how funds were spent doesn’t qualify as protecting himself or avoiding responsibility?

[quote=“Vorkosigan”]This whole investigation needs to stop, because there is hardly an official in the country who hasn’t falsified receipts. Taiwan needs to be governed, and at the moment it can’t be.

And the slush fund system needs to be abolished before it destroys another generation of officials.
[/quote]C’mon Michael, you autocrat you. How can you put good governance and efficiency above the pursuit of justice and transparent, democratic rule?!

wait… declaring national secrets isn’t even worse?