Corruption scandals are always about money. All you need to do is follow the money, and it will invariably lead you to the culprit.
In the mother of all political scandals, the Watergate scandal, it was the sequential serial numbers on banknotes found in the possession of the burglars that were subsequently traced to the campaign headquarters of then-US president Richard Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President that implicated the resident of the White House.
Following the money led the investigation to the people responsible. From that point on, it was a question of how far up the buck was to be passed.
Then-US senator Howard Baker, who was serving on the US Senate committee investigating the scandal, famously asked: “What did the president know and when did he know it?”
Following that, the White House recordings, which came to be known as the “smoking gun tapes,” proved conclusively that Nixon not only had knowledge of what was happening, but that he had also abused his powers in an attempt to conceal the truth, and was therefore guilty of obstructing the law.
Earlier this year, the New York branch of Mega International Commercial Bank was accused of violating US money laundering regulations and was ordered to pay a huge fine by US regulators.
In addition to evidence of illegal transactions, then-bank chairman Mckinney Tsai (蔡友才) failed to heed an order from US regulators and take corrective measures. After the US authorities stepped up their investigation, the parties involved in the transactions that violated banking rules had nowhere left to hide.
When the Watergate scandal first broke, the White House tried to pass it off as a “third-rate burglary.”
Mega Bank also tried to pass off the serious problem as “administrative oversight,” and ignored warnings by US regulators.
It is quite easy to understand why the White House wanted to cover up the Watergate scandal; it is less obvious why Mega Bank would want to cover for its clients.
The only possible explanation is that the clients involved were not ordinary bank customers: They must wield considerable influence over the bank. Otherwise, the bank would not have exposed itself to the risk and allowed itself to be involved in illegal activity unlikely to have gone unnoticed by US authorities.
There have been rumors of irregular arrangements for personnel and funds by the administration of former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) between 2013 and 2014.
A reasonable explanation might be found there.
Evidence for this case exists, and with the change of government early this year, and the new government’s emphasis on introducing judicial reform, the Mega Bank case has picked up steam, and there is a renewed opportunity to seek out the facts in the case and find those responsible.
The government’s strict supervisory measures mean there is no longer any place to hide.
It is not only Taiwanese who are watching the government’s progress on dealing with this case. The US officials who originally discovered Mega Bank’s shady dealings are taking a keen interest, too.
Someone out there has something to hide, but the evidence exists: it just needs to be checked.
The public would dearly like to see a difference between this government and the last lot; it owes us some answers.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
RSS