Statement: Massive Public Disclosure of Investigation into Alleged Chinese Spy Case Risks Compromising Criminal Investigation; Relevant Authorities Must Promptly Clarify Responsibility for Leaks

The Taiwan Ciaotou District Prosecutors Office conducted searches on January 16 and successfully applied for the detention of CTi News reporter Lin Chen-yu (also known as Ma Te) on January 17 in connection with a national security case. The investigation drew extensive media coverage, prompting the prosecutors office to issue press releases providing information to the public. However, comparison with a series of media reports reveals that the reports contained a substantial amount of detail that should have remained confidential during the investigation. If those reports are accurate, investigative personnel may have unlawfully disclosed confidential investigative information, constituting a serious violation of the principle of non-disclosure of investigations.

We understand that, in cases involving significant public interest, there may be a legitimate need for appropriate disclosure. Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Regulations Governing Non-Disclosure of Investigations therefore provides exceptions permitting certain investigative information to be appropriately made public or disclosed. Nevertheless, pursuant to Article 10, Paragraph 2 of the same Regulations, such information must be released in a centralized manner by the agency's spokesperson or a designated person. Yet the "additional" information reported by the media could not be derived from either of the prosecutors office's two press releases. This inevitably raises concerns that confidential investigative information may once again have been leaked, in serious violation of the principle of non-disclosure of investigations.

In response, the Judicial Reform Foundation (JRF) issues the following three-point statement:

1. Extensive reporting of information that should remain confidential during an investigation not only damages the credibility of investigative authorities, but may also obstruct the investigation of related cases.

2. The Ministry of Justice has failed to take proactive action, and its credibility has fallen to an all-time low.

3. Trial by media does not serve the public interest; the relevant authorities must promptly clarify responsibility for the leaks.

---

1. Extensive reporting of information that should remain confidential during an investigation not only damages the credibility of investigative authorities, but may also obstruct the investigation of related cases

The two press releases issued by the Taiwan Ciaotou District Prosecutors Office generally stated only that "Lin Chen-yu is suspected of providing active-duty military personnel with amounts ranging from several thousand to tens of thousands of New Taiwan dollars, after which the military personnel provided sensitive military information to individuals in China," and that "Sergeant Chen transmitted sensitive military information via LINE to an individual in China using the alias 'Jixiang.'"

However, the series of media reports contained information extending far beyond what appeared in the press releases. The reports described not only the alleged relationship between Lin Chen-yu and "Jixiang," but even items allegedly seized by prosecutors and investigators and the substance of prosecutorial questioning.

For example, the Taiwan Ciaotou District Prosecutors Office's press releases did not disclose what incriminating evidence investigators had obtained. Nevertheless, media reports directly stated that Lin Chen-yu's "mobile phone and computer were seized at the scene."

If potential accomplices had communicated with Lin Chen-yu, such reporting could enable them to infer that prosecutors and police had already identified them and allow them to take steps to evade criminal responsibility. Prosecutors and investigators should, of course, have attempted to investigate as thoroughly as possible before applying for Lin Chen-yu's detention. However, because of limitations in time and personnel, portions of the investigation may still have remained incomplete. Premature and extensive media reporting of investigative details can only hinder a criminal investigation.

The principle of non-disclosure of investigations exists not only to prevent prejudgment, but also to ensure the effective exercise of the state's power to investigate and prosecute crimes. Once investigative information becomes public, persons potentially involved in the case may seek to evade investigation by colluding in advance with accomplices or witnesses, concealing themselves or fleeing, or destroying evidence that has not yet been searched for or seized.

The following investigative information was allegedly disclosed in media reports:

1. According to the prosecutors' January 9 press release concerning Sergeant Chen and the January 17 press release concerning Lin Chen-yu, the only information that can be established is that the individual in China using the alias "Jixiang" communicated through LINE. Media reports, however, directly stated that "Jixiang" and Lin Chen-yu belonged to the same organization and that Lin contacted military personnel through WeChat.
2. The prosecutors' press releases did not disclose any content from investigative questioning. Media reports, however, stated that most of the nine active-duty and retired military personnel summoned that day told investigators that they were not well acquainted with Lin Chen-yu and had not borrowed emergency funds from him, sharply contradicting Lin's account. The reports further described Lin's alleged responses to investigators, claiming that he repeatedly answered "I don't know," "I forgot," or "I was only helping someone," and even described his demeanor after learning that prosecutors would seek his detention.
3. The prosecutors' press releases stated only that Lin was suspected of providing active-duty military personnel with sums ranging from several thousand to tens of thousands of New Taiwan dollars. Media reports, however, claimed that funds allegedly used to bribe active-duty military personnel were transferred from Lin's account and could total more than NT$1 million, together with a substantial amount of Tether (USDT), which was allegedly believed to be connected to Chinese Communist Party infiltration funding. The reports further claimed that some of the funds were used to buy off military personnel while the remainder constituted Lin's remuneration.
4. The prosecutors' press releases did not describe the intelligence Lin Chen-yu allegedly collected. Media reports, however, directly claimed that the targets of the alleged intelligence-gathering operation included classified information concerning missile deployments, and that military personnel allegedly recruited by Lin included volunteer noncommissioned officers assigned to a rocket and missile unit who were asked to obtain information such as parameters and operating manuals for new missile systems.
5. The prosecutors' press releases did not describe the process through which search warrants were sought. Media reports, however, directly claimed that the Lin Chen-yu espionage investigation originated with the Taoyuan City Field Office of the Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau, which had obtained information suggesting that Lin was using money to recruit active-duty military personnel, and that multiple applications for search warrants submitted to the Taiwan Taipei District Court in the previous year had been denied.

The loss of testimonial or physical evidence, or the flight and concealment of accomplices, may allow individuals who are actually guilty to escape criminal accountability. This concern is particularly serious in a national security case, where the organizations and individuals potentially involved may be extensive and the confidentiality of investigative information is therefore especially important.

To ensure that those responsible are brought to justice without wrongfully implicating innocent persons or allowing guilty persons to escape liability, authorities must exercise particular caution in deciding whether and how investigative information in national security cases should be disclosed. Prosecutors, police, and investigators must all take seriously the implementation of the principle of non-disclosure of investigations to ensure the orderly progress of criminal proceedings and the effective enforcement of criminal law.

2. The Ministry of Justice has failed to take proactive action, and its credibility has fallen to an all-time low

In the controversy over investigative authorities' suspected violations of the principle of non-disclosure of investigations while handling the Ko Wen-je case, reports by certain media outlets concerning details of the investigation ultimately corresponded closely with the facts alleged in the indictment.

In response to this serious issue, the Supreme Prosecutors Office and the Prosecutor-General issued statements and discussed possible responses in 2024, while the Ministry of Justice consolidated proposals for review and reform. Yet to this day, the public has received no explanation as to who bears responsibility for the leakage of investigative information in the Ko Wen-je case.

Major cases involving apparent violations of the principle of non-disclosure of investigations continue to appear repeatedly in the media, with virtually no visible improvement or accountability. The public has gradually become accustomed to this phenomenon, seriously undermining confidence in prosecutors, investigators, and law enforcement authorities.

In the present case, the same media outlet once again published a substantial amount of detailed information while the investigation remained ongoing. Even if the information has not yet been verified as accurate, its publication has once again seriously damaged public confidence in the Ministry of Justice, prosecutors offices, and law enforcement personnel.

When investigative information concerning major cases repeatedly appears in particular media outlets, and members of the public begin to question whether the prosecutorial system is cooperating with the media to shape public opinion or engage in political manipulation, how can the prosecutorial system dispel those suspicions?

Suspected leaks of investigative information are no longer isolated incidents. In the present investigation, the media has once again reported substantial information that would ordinarily be accessible only to persons inside the investigative system.

The JRF therefore once again calls upon the competent authorities to investigate promptly: Why did confidential investigative information appear in media reports? Was the information leaked by internal personnel? How will the Taiwan Ciaotou District Prosecutors Office determine responsibility? Faced with the recurring problems of excessive and indiscriminate disclosure of investigative information, what concrete reforms will the Ministry of Justice adopt? Does the Minister of Justice bear no responsibility for this situation?

3. Trial by media does not serve the public interest; the relevant authorities must promptly clarify responsibility for the leaks

Under the principle of the presumption of innocence set forth in the Code of Criminal Procedure, even when a defendant has been detained, this means only that the judge conducting the detention hearing has found substantial grounds to suspect that the defendant committed an offense. It does not mean that the defendant has been found guilty. Until a final judgment of conviction has been rendered, the defendant must be presumed innocent.

The principle of the presumption of innocence requires not only that adjudicatory bodies remain neutral. Under General Comment No. 32 of the United Nations Human Rights Committee concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all public authorities have a duty to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial.

Accordingly, prosecutors, police, and investigators must strictly observe the principle of non-disclosure of investigations throughout the investigative process. Doing so not only prevents interference with the investigation, but also protects the privacy and reputation of persons involved and reduces the risk of prejudgment.

Cross-strait tensions have increased in recent years, and cases involving Taiwanese citizens allegedly recruited to engage in espionage for China are no longer uncommon. When such cases emerge, they often provoke public outrage and generate media coverage that tends toward trial by media.

However, we must not forget the lessons of the erroneous espionage case involving Kuo Mei-lan. After investigating that case, the Control Yuan pointed out that the Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau had investigated Kuo for years for suspected violations of the National Security Act, but ultimately referred the case to prosecutors based only on the contents of her emails. After searches were conducted, investigators failed to uncover concrete evidence establishing her involvement, yet the investigation was not concluded with a non-prosecution disposition until December 2014. Kuo therefore endured approximately 10 months of serious physical and psychological distress despite ultimately not being prosecuted. The Control Yuan called upon the Ministry of Justice to learn from the case and conduct a thorough review.

The purpose of the principle of non-disclosure of investigations is both to protect the privacy, reputation, and other rights of persons involved in a case and to prevent interference with investigations so that criminal justice may be properly administered.

What public interest is served by disclosing large quantities of confidential investigative information and details obtained during an ongoing investigation? Is such disclosure intended merely to give particular individuals greater media exposure for the sake of career advancement? Or is it simply intended to attract public attention and increase media traffic?

Serious and repeated violations of the principle of non-disclosure of investigations have severely damaged public confidence in prosecutors, police, and investigators and infringed upon the legitimate rights of defendants. The JRF therefore calls upon the Taiwan Ciaotou District Prosecutors Office, the Supreme Prosecutors Office, and the Ministry of Justice to promptly and publicly address the suspected violations of the principle of non-disclosure of investigations in this case and provide the public with a clear explanation.

Press Contact

Elvin Lu, Attorney-at-Law
Director, Legal Policy Department, Judicial Reform Foundation

Phone: 02-2523-1178#37

Email: elvin@jrf.org.tw