Statement | Is a One-Year Salary Fine for Shih Mu-Chin Acceptable? Response to Disciplinary Court Judgment No. 109-Cheng-9

At 10:00 a.m. today (the 24th), the Disciplinary Court issued Judgment No. 109-Cheng-9, finding that former President of the Public Functionary Disciplinary Sanction Commission Shih Mu-Chin had violated judicial ethics and related duties. Under the Judges Act, the Court imposed a monetary sanction equal to one year of his final salary in office, approximately NT$3.44 million.

In response to the Court's press release, the JRF makes the following three points:

1. Shih Mu-Chin's Post-Conduct Attitude Was Appalling-Why Did the Judgment Ignore It?

The controversy over improper contacts between Shih Mu-Chin and Chia Her Group Chairperson Weng Mao-Chung ultimately triggered investigations involving roughly 120 judges and prosecutors. The Judicial Yuan and Ministry of Justice referred 20 judges and 11 prosecutors for disciplinary proceedings, causing serious damage to public confidence in the judiciary.

The record of meals and personal contacts shows that Shih Mu-Chin played a central intermediary role. Yet after the scandal emerged, he never publicly apologized or expressed remorse. Instead, he accused the judiciary of persecuting him through the media, sued the reporting news organization for NT$10 million, and brought a private prosecution against Judicial Yuan President Hsu Tzong-Li for false accusation; he lost those cases. He repeatedly claimed that his "conscience was clear before heaven and earth" and that he was merely a "victim of political struggle," responded harshly to Judicial Yuan and Control Yuan investigators, and defended disputed conduct by saying he did not want to "be a judge to the point of losing his humanity." In the JRF's view, this lack of reflection seriously damages the public's expectations of judicial ethics.

Article 73 of the rules governing adjudication of disciplinary cases by the Disciplinary Court applies Article 10 of the Public Functionaries Discipline Act mutatis mutandis. That provision requires disciplinary sanctions to be determined in light of all circumstances, including the degree of the duty violation, the harm or impact caused, and the person's attitude after the conduct. Yet the judgment's reasoning does not meaningfully address Shih Mu-Chin's post-conduct attitude. The JRF believes that omission is inconsistent both with the governing rules and with the Disciplinary Court's own approach in other cases.

2. Is a One-Year Salary Fine Proportionate to Shih Mu-Chin's Misconduct?

The disciplinary facts accepted by the Court included that Shih Mu-Chin, while serving as a judge, knew Weng Mao-Chung was involved in the Paris case-Weng had consulted him about it-and could not exclude the possibility that he might later preside over the matter. Nevertheless, while the case was pending, Shih learned from Weng about an opportunity to acquire unlisted Lien Shih shares and allowed his second son to purchase and later sell the shares for a profit.

Control Yuan members estimated that Shih Mu-Chin's long-term trading in related shares generated profits of as much as NT$54 million. Against that background, a monetary sanction equal to one year of salary-approximately NT$3.44 million-raises a serious question of proportionality.

Shih Mu-Chin is also already retired, and a monetary sanction does not prevent him from entering private legal practice. The JRF therefore asks whether allowing a retired judge whose misconduct centered on cultivating influential relationships to practice law without further professional consequence is proportionate to the seriousness of the ethical breach.

The JRF compiled prior Disciplinary Court sanctions against judges and prosecutors, summarized below. Former Taiwan High Court Taichung Branch Court Judge Tseng Mou-Kuei was demoted for accepting gifts; Hsinchu District Court Judge Wu Chen-Fu was removed from judicial office for having an assistant massage him; and Taipei High Administrative Court Judge Chen Hung-Bin was removed from judicial office for sexually harassing an assistant. In the JRF's view, those acts were less serious than Shih Mu-Chin's and caused less damage to the judiciary's reputation, yet they resulted in more severe sanctions. The disparity further raises the question whether a one-year salary fine is proportionate.

Judges and Prosecutors Disciplined by the Disciplinary Court (2011-2021)
Sanction	Disciplined Judges and Prosecutors	Number
Removal from office and loss of eligibility for appointment as a public functionary	Tsai Hsiao-Lun (sexual transactions with minors); Hu Ching-Pin (accepting bribes); Yen Han-Wen (attempted murder, etc.)	3
Demotion (bar on appointment for 1 to 5 years)	Tseng Mou-Kuei (accepting gifts); Chen Yu-Chen (accepting bribes); Chen Ping-Chang (acting as litigation agent for spouse); Chan Chao-Shu (accepting bribes); Ching Tien-Po (accepting bribes)	5
Removal from judicial office and transfer to a non-judicial position	Wu Chen-Fu (having an assistant provide massages); Chu Liang (sexual transactions while absent from work); Chen Mei-Chin (false overtime reporting and harassment of subordinates); Ko Sheng-I (insulting an attorney); Yu Li-Hua (delaying case disposition); Lin Chun-Yo (using judicial status to berate a kindergarten); Chen Hung-Bin (sexual harassment of an assistant)	7
Salary fine	Yen Ju-Yu (10 months; poor emotional control); Chuang Ke-Hui (4 months; discriminatory treatment of parties); Ho Yu-Chen (3 months; unlawful evidence gathering); Chang Yao-Yu (6 months; delayed cases); Chu Chung-Ho (12months; prolonged absenteeism); Wang Chuan-Chung ( 3months; acting as litigation or defense counsel for relatives); Kuo Yu-Lin ( 5months; inserting personal disputes into judgments); Chang Chun-Wen ( 3months; serious judgment errors); Chan Yu-Wei ( 2months; delayed cases); Hsu Shih-Wei ( 3months; delayed case handling); Lu Li-Ming ( 6months; dereliction of duty); Tseng Yu-Ming ( 10months; courtroom demeanor and unlawful evidence gathering) 12	12

3. The Limitation-Period Dispute and the Underlying Facts Remain Unresolved-The Control Yuan Should Appeal

    On June 28, the JRF submitted Amicus Curiae Brief (II) arguing, among other things, that the case should not be dismissed on the ground that the period for exercising disciplinary power had expired and that the relevant provisions of the Judges Act should apply. The brief further argued that when alleged misconduct is serious enough to warrant sanctions such as removal from judicial office or demotion-meaning the judge is no longer fit to serve-the case should not be barred by a limitation period.

The judgment nevertheless dismissed the following allegations on limitation grounds:
(1) Multiple meals with Weng Mao-Chung between 1997 and 1999 at which the Paris case was discussed.
(2) Personally escorting Weng Mao-Chung into access-controlled areas of the Supreme Court on June 20, 2003 and June 3, 2004.
(3) Purchasing shares of Yi-An Co. in his spouse's name between 1998 and 1999.
(4) Buying and selling shares of Yi-An Co. in the name of his spouse or second son between 2003 and 2007.

The JRF believes the dismissed portion presents substantial legal questions and may involve failure to apply, or misapplication of, the governing law. We therefore urge the Control Yuan to appeal so that the limitation issue can be clarified.

Because the Court treated the underlying impeachment allegations as time-barred, it also did not fully investigate important facts-including the source of funds used to purchase shares and the substance of meetings between Shih and Weng. With respect to Lien Shih shares in particular, the Court treated the purchase as time-barred and declined to investigate it, while examining the later sale because it fell within the limitation period. The result was effectively an investigation of only "half" the transaction. The JRF believes this lost an important opportunity to clarify the Code of Judicial Conduct and the heightened standards of integrity expected of judges. We therefore also urge the Control Yuan to appeal in order to establish the facts more fully.

Press Contact

Hsiao I-Min / Office Director, Judicial Reform Foundation
Phone: 0978-220-363; (02) 2523-1178 ext. 25
Email: equity@jrf.org.tw