Prosecutor, Are You Tired? "Hunting Down Bad Prosecutors" Press Conference Series (I) – Response to the Ministry of Justice's Statement
Last edited: 2026-07-27
In response to the Ministry of Justice's statement last night (29th) addressing three specific cases raised by our foundation regarding potential over-prosecution by prosecutors, our foundation hereby responds as follows:
1. We deeply affirm the Ministry of Justice's prompt expression of welcome toward opinions from the public and civic groups, demonstrating its determination to act proactively, and we eagerly look forward to the implementation of the prosecutor evaluation system starting next January.
2. Regarding the three cases involved:
(1) Regarding "Just Indict, Truth Doesn't Matter!?"
- The focus of our foundation's concern is whether the prosecutor in this case acted carelessly in filing the indictment and unnecessarily appealed the decision. Given that the defendant retracted their confession and physical evidence such as text messages and communication records were already in the case file, does this not constitute a careless indictment?
- After the District Court clarified the facts and rendered a judgment of acquittal, why was an unnecessary appeal still lodged?
- Even more, why did the Taichung Branch of the Taiwan High Prosecutor's Office file yet another appeal to the Supreme Court? Can this truly be considered free from over-prosecution?
- Moreover, while punishing the defendant for taking the blame for another person aims to remedy a past mistake, it remains unclear whether the prosecutor pursued further investigation or investigative measures regarding the potential drug-trafficking case that may have been swapped. Is the truth truly irrelevant?
(2) Regarding "Indicting Without Key Physical Evidence!?"
- The lack of the "key physical evidence"—namely, the "document" required for the crime of forgery—was a specific criticism made in the ruling of the Kaohsiung District Court. We believe the court's criticism was not detached from the facts.
- As the court pointedly stated in its ruling: during the preparation proceedings on July 19, 2005, the public prosecutor was orally instructed to supplement the missing materials; a formal document was issued again on August 17, 2005, requesting supplementation to no avail; the court had no choice but to issue a formal ruling on November 4 ordering supplementation, and finally dismissed the public prosecution by ruling on December 12. The court waited for the prosecutor for more than half a year, causing the public to suffer the unjust burden of litigation. Can it truly be said that the prosecutor bore no negligence whatsoever?
- If, as reported in the news, the Kaohsiung District Prosecutors Office blamed the court, claiming that the appeal was overdue because the court made an "invalid service of process" upon the prosecutors office, the court and the district prosecutors office are located right next to each other—what difficulty could there possibly be in serving documents? How was the service invalid?
(3) Regarding "Even Getting the Defendant's Identity Wrong"
- "Clerical errors" may perhaps be inevitable in the document-processing workflow, and omissions or mistakes can easily occur in complex cases with numerous defendants.
- However, from the public's perspective, a defendant listed on an indictment is not merely a "name" in a "16-point BiauKai font"; it may involve an individual or an entire family. When an "erroneous listing" of a defendant occurs as a mistake, and the prosecutor is unwilling to withdraw the indictment but instead waits for the court to dismiss it, is there truly no negligence or carelessness involved?
3. Finally, our foundation once again affirms the statement and preliminary response of the Ministry of Justice, and we look forward to the release of further investigation results.
Press Contacts
Executive Director of JRF, Attorney Lin Feng-cheng (林峰正)
Office Director of JRF, Attorney Kao Jung-chih (高榮志)
Statement by the Ministry of Justice Regarding the Judicial Reform Foundation's Allegations of Unlawful and Improper Prosecution by Prosecutors
Ministry of Justice Press Release
Date of Issuance: November 29, 2011
Issuing Unit: Department of Prosecutorial Affairs, Ministry of Justice
Contact Person: Teng Ting-chiang (鄧定強)
Contact Number: 23884894 No.: 00-100
In response to the Taiwan Judicial Reform Foundation's pointing out today (29th) that prosecutors' indictments involved unlawful and improper conduct!?, our Ministry states as follows:
Our Ministry has requested the relevant district prosecutors offices to review the aforementioned cases, and the investigation findings are as follows:
Regarding the report "Just Indict, Truth Doesn't Matter!?", a preliminary investigation by the Taichung District Prosecutors Office shows that the defendant in that case was instigated by another person to take the blame for the illegal possession of a modified handgun, resulting in an acquittal in the firearms offense case. Subsequently, the prosecutor registered a separate case and indicted the defendant for taking the blame for another, which was finalized with a guilty verdict rendered by the court. The situation described in the aforementioned report did not occur. Next, regarding the report "Indicting Without Key Physical Evidence!?", a preliminary investigation by the Kaohsiung District Prosecutors Office shows that the case involved the defendant fraudulently using the identity of a mutual aid association member organized by them to bid for the association funds. At the time of the indictment, there were already statements from the victim and documentary evidence such as the member list of the defaulted association. However, the court ruled for supplementation and subsequently dismissed the case. Although the prosecutor filed an interlocutory appeal, the court dismissed the appeal. Afterwards, when the handling prosecutor reopened the investigation, they were unable to further obtain the victim's testimony, making it impossible to meet the indictment threshold of the Kaohsiung District Court, which led to a non-prosecution disposition for the defendant. This was not a situation where an indictment was brought without any physical or documentary evidence, as claimed in the report. Furthermore, regarding the report "Even Getting the Defendant's Identity Wrong", a preliminary investigation by the Taipei District Prosecutors Office shows that the prosecutor made a clerical error in the defendant's name within the facts of the crime section of the case file, while the defendant section itself was correct; the defendant was not erroneously listed.
Regarding errors in the content of documents produced by prosecutors, our Ministry has issued official letters requiring prosecutors to cross-check and verify case files and evidence to prevent clerical errors, and requiring all district prosecutors offices to meticulously review documents produced by prosecutors in order to enhance the quality of document production.
Our Ministry will pull the case files for an in-depth review of the aforementioned three cases. If it is found that the handling prosecutors did indeed commit negligence, they will be disciplined according to the severity of the circumstances in accordance with the reward and punishment standards for personnel in prosecutorial agencies subordinate to our Ministry. In addition, the prosecutorial agencies subordinate to our Ministry will adopt a humble attitude in accepting corrections and criticisms from all sectors to improve themselves.
This article is an AI-generated translation of the original Chinese text. In the event of any discrepancy, the Chinese version shall prevail.