Seeking justice in the Chung Hsing case

Taipei Times: What is your purpose in presenting new facts and new evidence?

Chuang Po-lin (莊柏林): As a person in the legal profession, I only hope the Chung Hsing Bills Finance (興票案) case can be solved in accordance with the law, reason and sensibility so that society can be given an acceptable answer.

By giving up applying for a reconsideration of the case, the KMT was trying to use political means to resolve a legal issue. This would distort society's view of the judiciary.

TT: The Taipei District Prosecutors' Office had decided not to indict James Soong (宋楚瑜). What are the new facts and new evidence you suggested to the prosecution?

Chuang: Some people provided me with some newspaper material, according to which [former president and chairman of the KMT] Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) had -- via the KMT spokesman -- denied that he had authorized Mr Soong to deal with the party funds in question. The prosecutors should have at least interviewed Lee but they didn't. Therefore, Lee's denial [represents] new facts and new evidence.

Besides, the Control Yuan had also made an investigative report into the case, as had the Ministry of Finance, but the prosecutor did not cite these materials.

I'm not the only person to present new facts and new evidence to the Taiwan High Court Prosecutors' Office. I know that some other lawyers and legal scholars have also done so. Actually, many have written articles in newspapers about facts and evidence that the prosecutors failed to consider.

TT: So you mean the new facts and new evidence are nothing really new to the public, but were only unexamined by Taipei District prosecutors?

Chuang: Right. I hope the prosecutors will now interview Mr Lee, because he's the key man in the case.

This is not necessarily bad for Mr Soong. Maybe Lee will say that he forgot something at the time, that he did authorize Soong to open accounts or deposit money into his accounts. Wouldn't it be good to clear Mr Soong's name if Mr Lee now recalled such things? Why leave the whole thing unclear?

If Mr Lee now said, well, I was old, I forgot, it was a mistake, then this would be a very good way to [solve the problem].

TT: Wouldn't that again be taking politics into consideration?

Chuang: No. It's not political. At least it would be sustainable in legal terms.

TT: But if so, couldn't Lee and Soong settle the case privately? In a statement you signed [before the KMT announced its decision not to apply for reconsideration] you said that the case was not just private business between the KMT and James Soong and should not be settled privately. What if Soong actually misappropriated the money but Lee now lets him off the hook?

Chuang: But if the prosecutors question Mr Lee now, he should testify as a witness, and if he tells a lie he could face perjury charges.

I don't have any personal grudge against Mr Soong. And I don't want him to think I am finding fault in him. The public also wants the case to end soon. With this idea in mind, I think the best way for Soong [to solve the problem] is to talk to Mr Lee.

TT: Is that what you want to see?

Chuang: No. What I want is just for the truth of the whole case to be clarified by the law. The rights and wrongs over this case have been upside down. I worry that the prosecutors' previous decision in this case will become a legal precedent and set a bad example for society.