The Illegal Abuses of Power Potentially Hidden Beneath Investigative Secrecy

In October 2009, I participated in a high-profile yet bizarre court hearing. It was bizarre because the defense attorneys did not even dare to unseal or review the indictment; they worried that if the indictment itself were classified as a state secret, they would not only face travel restrictions but also bear unforeseen liabilities. It is extremely rare for an indictment—which is crucial to a criminal defendant's right to information and right to the assistance of counsel—to potentially be classified as a secret, which shows that this case involved vital state secrets. The first hearing was tried jointly by a panel of three judges, and its purpose was to resolve issues such as which documents constituted secrets and how to conduct file reviewing.

Given such a controversy, as the accompanying judge, naturally it was only during the hearing that I saw the indictment for the first time. This was the one and only time; later, due to a reassignment, I no longer participated in the trial of this case, and the indictment was returned. However, after reading the indictment in court, doubts arose in my heart: according to the relevant case files and evidence, could the defendants be convicted? Indeed, after the trial conducted by my colleagues in the court of first instance, the two defendants were found not guilty. After the prosecutor appealed, the second instance upheld the acquittal, and the case was finally finalized with a verdict of not guilty.

How Can One Leak Secrets Just to Be a Case-Solving Hero?

The facts of the case are as follows... Oh! I must state in advance that the following summary comes from media reports. I fear that the prosecutorial system—which currently has no one to keep it in check and decides what is a secret or not by its own word—might also prosecute me for the crime of leaking secrets, just as they did to Judge Chou Chan-chun. Because after Judge Chou was definitively acquitted, Prosecutor Li Chia-ming, who back then "catered to the superiors' wishes" to prosecute Judge Chou, not only bore no responsibility whatsoever, but was even promoted to prosecutor at the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office. Be that as it may, in this case, the prosecution accused former National Security Council Secretary-General Ch'iu I-jen of fabricating the "Anya Project" to fraudulently obtain 500,000 USD, with former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Kao Ying-mao cooperating by instructing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to disburse the funds; the two were implicated in the crime of fraudulently obtaining public property. The prosecution also applied to detain Ch'iu I-jen on the grounds of serious offenses and the risk of colluding with other witnesses, which the court approved on October 31, 2008.

Having "brought down" high-ranking officials and dignitaries, according to the investigative culture of Taiwan's prosecution and investigation authorities, a "hero" was bound to emerge. As expected, the United Daily News reported on November 2: The Investigation Bureau traced the flow of funds related to the "Anya Project." Initially, they did not find that the 500,000 USD traveler's checks had been cashed in Las Vegas casinos, but female investigator Liu Chin-chia possessed "meticulous case-solving acumen" and, while filtering financial details, discovered the English stamp of the casino company on the back of the traveler's checks, thereby uncovering evidence that Ch'iu I-jen had fraudulently obtained public funds. On the same day, CTi News followed up with a report: A 29-year-old glamorous female investigator busts former intelligence chief Ch'iu I-jen. To this day, this news report can still be found on YouTube.

This kind of behavior violating the principle of non-publicity of investigations was already bad enough, but there was something even more serious! Mirror Weekly, published on November 6, further reported: The "Anya Project" executed by Ch'iu I-jen was mainly used to bribe former WTO Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi. Confidential diplomacy under active investigation was thus exposed by the media, which not only involved the issue of whether state secrets were leaked, but also severely affected the reputation of the WTO and Taiwan's diplomatic advancement. Therefore, on the same day, the Central News Agency issued a report: The Special Investigation Division immediately registered an official case of leaking secrets to investigate whether public officials leaked secrets and whether journalists violated the Classified Information Protection Act, and relevant personnel would be summoned to appear for questioning in the near future. However, after the Special Investigation Division interrogated the defendant on the same day, the China Times still reported the next day: It is understood that Ch'iu I-jen still insisted that the 500,000 USD indeed subsidized Thai dignitary Supachai.

The Illegal Abuses of Power by Prosecution and Investigation Authorities Should Be Held Accountable

Many textbooks tell us: prosecutors are the most objective and independent organs, capable of supervising judges and checking police and investigative personnel to protect human rights and uphold social justice. However, Taiwan's prosecutorial system is more like an out-of-control, self-propelled powerhouse, repeatedly harming innocent people while handling cases. Aside from this case, they have indicted Lee Teng-hui, Ma Ying-jeou, Annette Lu, Peng Pai-hsien, Hsieh Ching-chih, Yeh Chang-tung, Shih Shou-chien, and so on; they even indicted Shih Mao-lin, who was once their superior. These individuals were either heads of state, county magistrates or mayors, heads of ministries or councils, commanders-in-chief, or social elites, yet one after another, after being indicted, they were all found not guilty. Which country's prosecutors could be so clumsy yet so bold? After making so many mistakes, no one is held accountable!

At the time of the incident, Mr. Lin Cho-shui submitted an op-ed to the media, pointing out that they had once filed a complaint with the Special Investigation Division regarding the leakage of secrets. How were these secret-leakage cases handled? Who knows! After Ch'iu I-jen was definitively acquitted, he applied for criminal compensation. Today, it has long been over a year since the erroneous compensation was finalized, and the judicial system has initiated the accountability mechanism according to law. It is rumored that not long ago, the High Court judge responsible for drafting the investigation report did not shield wrongdoing and pointed out that the prosecution and investigation personnel in this case were suspected of abusing their power in prosecution. May I ask, months have passed, has the criminal investigation procedure been initiated? Please make public the results of the indictment or non-indictment, and stop hiding behind administrative file-closings or the secrecy of investigations where you are the sole judge of what goes!