The Taipei District Court on Friday found Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Lai Su-ju (賴素如) guilty of bribery and sentenced her to 10 years in prison. However, this is not the final verdict and no one knows whether the final verdict is set to be as severe.
The reason the charges stood must have been that the transaction in question violated some legally defined limits to official authority. In other words, if the transaction had not been part of a civil servant’s official duties, it would have been very difficult to prove bribery and issue such a heavy sentence, even if a huge sum had been received from the counterpart.
As city councilors are elected representatives, no administrative affairs fall within the scope of their official duties. If they receive funds or benefits in their private capacity, it is difficult to prove the quid pro quo required for corruption.
WIDER DEFINITION
The judicial interpretation often applies a wider definition of official conduct. This has been particularly true of the Supreme Court in recent years, which has followed the Supreme Court of Japan’s verdict in the case against former Japanese prime minister Kakuei Tanaka, and adopted a wider definition of practical influence.
According to this view, because they have far-reaching monitoring powers over administrative agencies, if a city councilor with concrete practical influence over administrative affairs accepts donations from the public and then lobbies in their favor or uses budget decisions to threaten the concerned agencies, bribery can also be involved.
In the case of Lai, the court felt that while the bid for the Taipei Gateway project fell within the legally defined authority of the Taipei City Government, Lai could use the budget or the passage of legislation to protect the developer. Therefore, it was determined that she had practical influence and that bribery in connection to the practice of official duties could thus be involved.
DIFFERENT VERDICTS
However, because the definition of “practical influence” is vague and unclear, it is difficult to prevent different judges establishing different verdicts in similar cases based on the view of the individual judge. At the same time, since no precedent has been set, no restrictions are placed on the judge.
One obvious comparison is the case against former Cabinet secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世). When the court of first instance issued its verdict last year, it took a strict view of official powers based on a strict legal interpretation of the practice of official duties and did not issue a heavy penalty based on the Anti-Corruption Act (貪污治罪條例).
This means that if Lai appeals there is a chance that the verdict might be overturned. So whether Lai is found guilty of corruption in the final verdict depends not on objective legal regulations and stipulations, but on the interpretation of the judge.
More importantly, even if a heavy sentence is issued in the court of first instance, the current state of investigations into corruption and bribery implies that there is still a long way to go before a final verdict is reached.
This means that the accused can continue to stand in elections and even use her “victimhood” to win sympathy and votes as a “victim of judicial procedure.”
It is clear that all talk of heavy sentencing for corruption is all about propaganda and grand statements.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor and chair of Aletheia University’s law department.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS