Statement | Judges' Evaluation Board Clears the Way with Light Penalties: Where is Public Trust in the Judiciary Headed? Flight Prevention Demands Proactive Accountability and Institutional Improvement

Last Friday (August 1), the Judges' Evaluation Board (JEB) issued its Resolution No. 2 No. 114 (Evaluation), addressing controversies arising from the whereabouts of a released defendant and the release rulings in Taiwan High Court Criminal Case No. 110-Chin-Shang-Chung-Su-2 (Chung Wen-chih's violation of the Securities Exchange Act, etc.). The JEB concluded that while the actions of the then-Presiding Judge of the division, Chiu, Chung-Yi, severely compromised public trust in the judiciary and constituted a serious offense, considering his good record, disciplinary action was deemed unnecessary. Meanwhile, the commissioner judge of the division, Chen, Yung-Sung, whose actions compromised the dignity of the judicial office, the reputation of the institution, and public trust in the judiciary, was found to have committed a serious offense and was referred by the Judicial Yuan to the Disciplinary Court with a recommendation for a fine equivalent to 10 months of his current monthly salary.

This Foundation previously issued a statement on March 31 of this year, calling on relevant authorities to proactively hold individuals accountable for this grave judicial error in specific cases and to promptly initiate institutional reforms so that the public can regain confidence in the judiciary. In response to the JEB's latest resolution, this Foundation hereby issues the following further statement:

I. Actions Seriously Compromised Public Trust in the Judiciary, Yet Only Subject to Administrative Supervision and Financial Fines—Is This Reasonable?

Due process of law is the cornerstone of impartial justice. As established by the facts determined by the JEB, Commissioner Judge Chen only notified defense counsel regarding rulings that lifted Chung Wen-chih's electronic monitoring, removed his overseas travel restrictions, and changed his reporting location, failing to promptly notify the prosecutor of the High Court to afford them an opportunity to appeal the rulings. Furthermore, Commissioner Judge Chen and Presiding Judge Chiu attempted to cover up the matter after the final judgment by altering the hearing slip and the official telephone inquiry record sheet prepared by the court clerk. Referring to the determination criteria in JEB Resolution No. 2 of 2025, in assessing whether there is "a necessity for disciplinary action" against an evaluated judge, consideration must be given to the motives, objectives, and means of the judge's dereliction of duty, the damage or impact caused to public order or infringed legal interests, as well as the deterrent effect on the evaluated judge. Under the principle of proportionality, the purpose and means of deterrence must correspond, leading to the selection of an appropriate disposition.

However, the disputed resolution fails to thoroughly examine the motives and objectives behind Commissioner Judge Chen's repeated failure to legally serve the rulings he issued; nor does it consider that Judges Chiu and Chen, merely due to external scrutiny, arbitrarily supplemented and swapped out the hearing slips and the official telephone inquiry record sheets prepared by the clerk after the judgment had become final—methods that may carry suspicion of false official entries and favoritism. Furthermore, it fails to account for the fact that their actions severely shook public trust in final judicial judgments. Even worse, when interviewed by the media on March 29, Judge Chiu attempted to shift the blame for the failure to legally notify and serve the rulings onto the clerk. It is truly difficult to acknowledge that Judge Chiu has "learned his lesson."

The legislative intent of Article 1 of the Judges Act states: "This Act is enacted to uphold judges' independent trial in accordance with the law, protect judges' tenure, and establish a judges' evaluation mechanism to ensure the people's right to a fair trial." The function of judicial evaluation is fundamentally to weed out incompetent judges, or to issue warnings and hold individuals accountable when judges engage in improper conduct, thereby supervising the judicial system—which bears the responsibility of impartial trials—to maintain a healthy ethos, enhance public credibility, and ensure that other judges possess the basic dignity of remaining unquestioned.

In this case, while different dispositions were imposed on the two judges based on the varying degrees of their involvement, this is understandable. However, from the resolution text, the public can only perceive that even when actions have severely compromised judicial trust and constituted a serious offense, they can be let off lightly based on such a hollow reason as a "good record." The JEB's resolution this time completely disregards public expectations that judicial evaluation should uphold a healthy judicial ethos, increase public trust in the judiciary, and secure the basic dignity of other judges free from suspicion. This Foundation expresses deep regret over this outcome.

II. Flight Prevention Failed, and the Prosecutorial System Also Bears Inescapable Responsibility

The repeated occurrence of defendants fleeing severely damages public confidence in the judiciary. During the 5th Division of the 2016 National White Paper on Judicial Reform, a resolution (No. 64-1) was passed regarding "Strengthening the Flight Prevention System": "In response to insufficient alternatives to detention, defendant rights, and flight prevention effects, alternatives to detention and supporting measures should be studied and deliberated." Although legal amendments were completed in July 2019, malfunctions in the mechanism continue to emerge to this day.

In this case, the High Court issued a ruling on December 16, 2024, extending the period of Chung Wen-chih's restrictions on leaving the country and the sea. The text of the ruling reveals that Chung's electronic monitoring equipment had already been lifted. In other words, the prosecutor could have expressed their views on whether Chung posed a flight risk no later than after the aforementioned ruling was issued, yet they remained silent and took no action.

From the occurrence of the incident to the present, the JEB has at least made a preliminary clarification regarding judicial responsibility, but what about the responsibility of the prosecutorial system? How will the prosecutorial system prevent the next failure?

III. Flight Prevention Demands Proactive Accountability and Institutional Improvement to Rescue Public Confidence in the Judiciary

This Foundation firmly believes that only when the judicial system maintains a high degree of introspection and self-demands regarding its own actions can it uphold a sound judicial ethos, enhance public trust in the judiciary, and restore public confidence.

According to media reports, regarding the criminal liability involved in this case, the Taipei District Prosecutor's Office previously accepted public accusations and opened a case for investigation. Furthermore, Control Commissioners of the Control Yuan have also applied to investigate whether there were procedural flaws in the rulings. Meanwhile, Commissioner Judge Chen will be referred to the Disciplinary Court, and Judge Chiu will undergo administrative supervision by the Personnel Examination Committee of the Judicial Yuan. It is evident that the JEB's investigation and resolution are not the endpoint of investigation and accountability in this case.

To rescue public trust in the judiciary, this Foundation calls upon the Taipei District Prosecutor's Office—currently conducting investigations—to swiftly clarify the criminal responsibility in this case. We also urge the Judicial Yuan, the Control Yuan, and even the Disciplinary Court not to be lenient when subsequently determining whether there is "a necessity for disciplinary action" and "selecting disciplinary dispositions." Regarding the responsibility of the prosecutorial system since the incident, this Foundation will also continue to monitor whether the Taiwan High Prosecutor's Office conducts investigations in accordance with Article 94 of the Judges Act.

Following the occurrence of this incident, the prosecution promptly cited this case that same month, pointing out that instances of defendants jumping bail and absconding are commonplace, and successfully appealed rulings on that basis. However, simply abandoning alternative measures and leaning toward detention in individual cases is ultimately not a fundamental solution to the problem. To strengthen the flight prevention system, implement the spirit of the National White Paper on Judicial Reform, and resolve recurring controversies over defendants fleeing, this Foundation once again calls upon President Lai Ching-te to fulfill his pre-election promise by establishing a permanent "Judicial Reform Committee" with civic participation. When competent authorities such as the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice promote reforms, this committee can actively engage and effectively implement the resolutions of the National White Paper on Judicial Reform, bringing about genuine change for the judiciary.

＊Further Reading: Statement | Unfathomable Ruling Leads to Defendant's Flight: Judicial Navigation Lost and Public Credibility Vanished | Seven Demands by the JRF

Press Contacts

Chang Hua-che, Director of the Individual Action Department, Judicial Reform Foundation
TEL: 02-2523-1178#22
E-mail: ven@jrf.org.tw