Media reports on Sunday said that the Ministry of Justice had asked the Special Investigation Panel to look into whether some media reports on the money laundering investigation into former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) breached confidentiality regulations.
If reports are found to be in breach of these regulations, prosecutors will have acted in violation of the secret investigation principle and would be in breach of Article 132 of the Criminal Code, which covers disclosure of classified information other than on matters related to national security.
The secret investigation principle is outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. This states that prosecutors or other individuals involved in the handling of a case cannot publicly disclose information they obtain through their work on a case, unless it is required by law, is in the public interest or when doing so is deemed necessary to protect legal rights.
In order to enforce this, the MOJ promulgated a set of outlines for media coverage of criminal cases involving prosecutors and law enforcers in 2002, which requires that media coverage of investigations into criminal cases be carried out in line with the secret investigation principle.
The fourth section of this law lists seven instances when details of an investigation may be made public, with the majority of these limited to situations when a case may pose a serious risk to social order.
These seven circumstances are the only time anyone involved in an investigation is allowed to make a statement or release news on the details of a particular case. However, cases of corruption involving politicians do not fall within the scope of publicly disclosing details of a case.
The rules and regulations of Section 8 of the same outline state that if prosecutors and those involved in law enforcement break the related regulations and disclose information to the media without prior permission, they should receive demerits based on the severity of their actions.
The outline states that those found to have disclosed confidential information gained during an investigation shall be held criminally liable.
The rules also state that when leaders of various government departments and those responsible for monitoring and guiding the staff in these departments fail to ensure that their staff act in accordance with the guidelines, investigations into their failure should be carried out with those responsible being held to account for their negligence. However, to date, we have not seen a single report of anyone being punished.
This shows that the MOJ has blatantly ignored the existence of these outlines. This indicates a weakness of the rule of law and our law enforcers should take ultimate responsibility.
At most, a prosecutor can only ascertain whether an individual was involved in a certain crime. Even when an individual is found to have broken the law, the case must pass through the courts with hearings carried out between a prosecutor and the defendant’s legal team to determine whether the individual in question is guilty or not.
Therefore, compared with the hard evidence that is needed when a case reaches the final sentencing stage, what professes to be evidence gained during investigations, which alone is insubstantial in proving whether an individual is guilty or not, a lot of the time is really just “politically focused gossip.”
Its content should not be disclosed to the public by prosecutors, as this is a huge encroachment on human rights.
Tim Hsu is an assistant professor in the Department of Law at Chinese Culture University and is a practicing lawyer.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
The FBI on Sunday arrested Wanying “Heather” Chang (張婉瑩) on suspicion of surveiling the family of the son of President William Lai (賴清德) on behalf of China, an example of “transnational repression” to suppress dissent in Taiwan and abroad. Zhang, a 34-year old realtor in California, was arrested on charges of working as an unregistered agent for China. She and an accomplice were accused of taking photos and videos of Lai’s son and his family, and sending information about their whereabouts and license plates to Chinese officials. “The information could be used by China to gain leverage over the Taiwanese president
On Oct. 10, 1911, gunfire in Wuchang (武昌) shattered the stillness of late-Qing China. What began as a regional uprising quickly ignited a chain reaction across the empire, toppling a dynastic order that had endured for more than two millennia and ushering in one of Asia’s first republics — the Republic of China (ROC). From that moment, the 10th day of the 10th month became a date of epochal significance, not merely in Chinese history, but in the broader arc of Asia’s encounter with modernity. Yet today, as Taiwan marks Double Ten National Day, the holiday’s meaning has undergone a transformation
A few days ago, we left our breakfast midway to catch a glimpse of the fighter jets in formation. It was a spectacular sight. We knew it was part of practice drills for Double Ten National Day celebrations and reminded us of the Annual Republic day celebration in India. While channel surfing, I came across a news debate about immigration laws, where an academic asked a fellow panelist: “Why should we be interested in your point of view when you don’t even belong here?” That got me thinking. Was our enthusiasm about the upcoming Double Ten celebrations unwarranted? Was this
Taiwan might just give up. That’s the argument Simon Shuster made in The Atlantic’s October issue. The US is unreliable, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leadership is aligned with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and Taiwan does not have the military capability to defend itself in a prolonged war without help. What hope does Taiwan have? Quite a bit more, in fact, than Shuster lets on. Shuster points to genuine problems. The first Donald Trump administration had a mostly positive record on Taiwan policy. It regularized the arms sales process, enhanced the military-to-military relationship, and treated Taiwan more like a normal
RSS