After proposed legislation criminalizing the possession of assets of undeclared origin was blocked during the previous legislative session — despite the Ministry of Justice’s strong efforts to promote the bill — the ministry has now changed tack and is instead proposing legislation to criminalize non-declaration of the origin of assets for individuals charged with corruption.
But is this development the result of mature deliberation or is it a knee-jerk reaction?
A memorandum from the ministry states that in order to avoid an excessive expansion of the application of the count of possessing assets with an undeclared origin and political infighting based on individuals’ alleged possession of such assets, the scope of the proposed law is restricted to those under investigation for suspected corruption.
The memorandum also states that prosecutors will only be authorized to demand that a defendant declare the origin of their assets when there is an abnormal increase in these assets. If a defendant refuses to offer an explanation or if the explanation is proved to be false, they will be guilty of the proposed crime of not declaring the origin of their assets when charged with corruption.
This could result in a prison sentence of up to three years, or a fine of no more than the value of the assets for which the origin is undeclared, or both.
The restrictions on the scope of these regulations seem to imply that the purpose of criminalizing the possession of assets with an undeclared origin is not that they shall be used to issue a final verdict, but, rather, that they are intended to complement investigations into more serious corruption.
This seems to mean that restricting the scope of the law may help avoid an excessive expansion of the application of the count of possessing assets with an undeclared origin.
However, restricting the law to dealing with individuals suspected of the actions described in articles 4 to 6 of the Anti-Corruption Act (貪污治罪條例) leads to problems defining the term “suspect.” Because Taiwan has no clear legal definition of the terms “suspect” and “defendant,” prosecutors have leeway to define the terms as they see fit.
A prosecutor can thus request an explanation from a defendant as he or she sees fit, and if the defendant refuses to offer an explanation, he or she will be sentenced for possessing assets with an undeclared origin, completely nullifying a defendant’s right not to incriminate him or herself.
If a satisfactory explanation is provided and accepted by the prosecutor, then the assets concerned cannot enter into a corruption investigation. The question thus arises whether a law against non-declaration of the origin of one’s assets when charged with corruption instead becomes a means of escaping corruption charges.
This can in any case be decided at will by the prosecutor, without any restrictions or counterbalancing measures. Not only will the avowed original intent of the proposed law not be met, the law also risks being abused by people with ulterior motives.
Wu Ching-chin is an assistant professor in the Department of Financial and Economic Law at Alethia University.TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.