Jacqueline Liu (劉姍姍), the former director-general of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Kansas City, recently pleaded guilty in the US to mistreating her housekeeper. After signing a plea agreement she was ordered to pay about US$80,000 in compensation and was then deported. However, should this allow her to draw a line under the whole sorry affair?
The US court held that the circumstances of this case fell outside the scope of duties carried out by a Republic of China (ROC) national in her capacity as a public servant, so it was not bound under the bilateral Agreement on Privileges, Exemptions and Immunities. Liu therefore did not enjoy diplomatic immunity and was consequently liable to prosecution.
There is a special feature of criminal courts in the US, which is that if both parties in a case come to an agreement, the defendant does not necessarily have to be subjected to a trial by jury, since they have already pleaded guilty.
This is on condition that the presiding judge, who is to pass sentence according to the terms of the agreement, is satisfied with the arrangement. As Liu had undertaken to pay compensation to her housekeeper and pleaded guilty, the case was considered closed in the US.
That was a view not mirrored by the authorities in Taiwan on her return. For them, the case was far from closed. As the decision was made on foreign soil in a foreign court, based on the independence of a sovereign power, it carried no legal weight in Taiwan. It was an established fact — and that is all.
According to Article 9 of the ROC’s Criminal Code, the Liu case was still awaiting resolution, regardless of the fact that a court decision had already been made in the US. The courts here, based on the principle of double jeopardy, still have the option of exempting her from prosecution for this crime through a qualifying clause found in Article 9.
As the aspect of the case involving the mistreatment of the housekeeper has been thus resolved, this part of any investigation would be of symbolic value only.
However, the verdict of the US court was in regard to the mistreatment of the housemaid alone. Other aspects of the case, such as whether Liu docked the housekeeper’s salary or paid for it with taxpayers’ money, lies beyond the jurisdiction of the US courts. If any country fell foul of Liu’s alleged corruption, it was Taiwan, not the US.
Although her actions took place on US soil, Article 6, Clause 1 of the Criminal Code states that any individual who, in their capacity as a public servant, engages in corruption or malfeasance on foreign soil is liable to prosecution in Taiwan. Since Liu was charged while stationed overseas as a public servant, prosecutors were obliged to investigate the matter upon her return to Taiwan.
As for whether the amount of compensation paid and the legal fees thus far accrued should come out of the national coffers, it really does not matter if Liu is eventually found guilty or innocent on the corruption charges.
She has already pleaded guilty to mistreating the housemaid, demonstrating that she is guilty of dereliction of duty. Consequently, her high legal fees should not be paid with taxpayers’ money and ought to come out of her own pocket.
Liu is now back in Taiwan, having been deported from the US, where she pleaded guilty as charged.
It would be entirely unjust and unfair, and a failing of politics in this country, if the taxpaying public were expected to pay for all this.
Wu Ching-chin is an assistant professor in the Department of Financial and Economic Law at Aletheia University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS