Former Taiwan Sugar Corp (Taisugar) chairman Wu Nai-jen (吳乃仁) and I have been convicted in connection with Taisugar’s sale of a plot of agricultural land and our sentences have been finalized.
It necessary to point out that the court’s findings in the case run counter to what actually happened. During the trial, our evidence and statements were completely ignored. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法), we still have recourse to a retrial or to an extraordinary appeal. Meanwhile, this is our final review of the crumbling judicial neutrality.
The premise for the verdict in the first and second trial was that “the accused were well aware of the fact that Taisugar always only rented, never sold, its land.” However, the Ministry of Economic Affairs in 2001 abolished the regulations governing the provision of land for rent and the determination of superficies rights for state owned enterprises under the ministry, and authorized each enterprise to legally sell any land that they did not use, or had no commercial need to hold on to.
In May 2000, before Wu was appointed chairman of Taisugar, the company updated its operating guidelines governing land sale and exchanges and was already stating the revenue and losses resulting from land sales in each annual budget.
There simply was no so-called “principle” according to which Taisugar “always only rented, never sold, its land.”
In April 2002, the Cabinet established a National Asset Management Committee and announced that it would dispose of public land as one way to solve the government’s financial crisis. Perhaps due to administrative pressures, prosecutors deliberately distorted and misused this, and even if the courts, which should be independent, were not aware of this, the budget records were clear and the government policies of the time were unambiguous. Still, this was not taken into consideration and the court made an arbitrary decision.
The main charge against us is breach of trust. According to Article 342 of the Criminal Code, this requires that one “acts contrary to [one’s] duties and thereby causes loss to the property or other interest of the principal.”
The verdict states that Wu sold land by way of public tender at a price below market value and that this caused losses to Taisugar. The issue here is that, since there was a public tender, the highest bidder of course won the bid and that highest price is what constitutes the market price.
The courts of first and second instance seem to have made the subjective judgment that a market price exists that is greater than the highest bid offered in the public tender.
During the trial, we submitted evidence that at the time of this tender, neighboring land was sold at a price lower than Taisugar’s tender price and we therefore requested that specialized agencies conduct an appraisal of the situation. If no losses had arisen, how could “breach of trust” have occurred? However, the courts ignored our request.
As to the claim that Taisugar “always only rented, and never sold, its land,” the judge spent no time on this issue and instead directly gave a verdict based on the prosecutor’s mistaken and distorted evidence. In terms of the appraisal, that request was also ignored and was not properly investigated.
In other words, this was a matter of not investigating evidence that should have been investigated at the trial according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, and this neglect meets the intent of the Council of Grand Justices’ Constitutional Interpretation No. 238 — which addresses the issue of procedural violations of the law in trial proceedings — as well as the intent of the findings at the fourth meeting of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court in 2008, which deals with extraordinary appeals.
In addition, taking an overall view of our case, every finding — from the premises to the so-called “criminal result” and “the losses” caused — is ambiguous. There are also repeated mentions of “finding true new evidence” and even failure to consider important evidence that would have an effect on the verdict.
In order to protect our rights, we will request a retrial in accordance with proper legal procedure.
Hong Chi-chang is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) at a ceremony on July 30 officially commissioned China’s BeiDou-3 satellite navigation system. The constellation of satellites, which is now fully operational, was completed six months ahead of schedule. Its deployment means that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is now in possession of an autonomous, global satellite navigation system to rival the US’ GPS, Russia’s Glonass and the EU’s Galileo. Although Chinese officials have repeatedly sought to reassure the world that BeiDou-3 is primarily a civilian and commercial platform, US and European military experts beg to differ. Teresa Hitchens, a senior research associate at the University of
There are few areas where Beijing, Taipei, and Washington find themselves in agreement these days, but one of them is that the situation in the Taiwan Strait is growing more dangerous. Such a shared assessment quickly breaks down, though, when the question turns to identifying sources of rising tensions. Several Chinese experts and officials I have consulted with recently have argued that Beijing’s increasingly belligerent behavior in the Taiwan Strait is driven mostly by fear. According to this narrative, Beijing is worried that unless it puts a brake on Taiwan’s move away from the mainland, Taiwan could be “lost” forever. They
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) this week came under fire over his speech at a Rotary Club meeting in Taipei on Monday, when he said that Beijing’s military strategy toward Taiwan was “to let the first battle be the last.” If China started a cross-strait war, it would end quickly, without time for other nations to react, he said in his “Cross-Strait Relations and Taiwan Security” address, criticizing President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for saying that she hoped other nations would come to Taiwan’s aid in Beijing’s first wave of attacks. A president should prevent war from happening, not talk about how