Lin Yi-shih probe
raises questions
By Kao Jung-chih °ªºa§Ó
The Special Investigation Division (SID) has completed its investigation into
alleged corruption by former Cabinet secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (ªL¯q¥@), and
Lin has now been formally indicted. This was not much of a surprise to anyone.
Others included in the indictment were restricted to members of Lin¡¦s family,
the legal articles referred to were restricted to receiving bribes and money
laundering and the division of the bribes into three smaller sums remained
unchanged. Nothing new had been discovered.
The SID seems to have anticipated that this result would be questioned because
it had prepared an unprecedented question-and-answer table to address any
questions. This seems to have been received as an admission of culpability and
the SID is now having problems addressing these concerns.
Let us first address the standards according to which the investigation has been
handled. Prosecutors are not judges. For a judge to issue a guilty verdict any
reasonable doubt must be dispelled. In other words, as long as there is any
reasonable doubt regarding a defendant¡¦s guilt the verdict should be ¡§not
guilty.¡¨ Prosecutors operate based on the opposite reasoning: As long as there
is a possibility of guilt or reasonable doubt, they must investigate, and the
bigger the case, the harder they must work to make sure that they do not leave
any stone unturned.
The reasonable doubt in this case consists of the question of why the SID
accepted everything the defendant said in his confession.
Lin insisted that the idea that he was ¡§sharing the money with a lot of other
people and had to deal with a lot of other people was an excuse for asking for
more money and it never happened.¡¨
Businesspeople are very careful in their calculations and if there were not at
least some truth to Lin¡¦s claims, why would they obediently pay up? In addition,
prosecutors are very wary of the subterfuges of an accused so why did they
accept them lock, stock and barrel this time? No wonder they tried to endorse
their findings by saying Lin had passed a lie detector test. However, lie
detectors are very unreliable and easy to manipulate, and proof thus obtained
has long been seen as unreliable.
The investigations into the total sum of the bribes involved, where the money
went and call records all seem to have been treated very lightly. The question
is whether it is reasonable to assume that Lin¡¦s mother, Shen Juo-lan (¨HYÄõ),
really did burn US dollar bills worth a total of US$950,000. Even if the sum
were all in US$100 bills it would still be 9,500 bills. How long would that take
and would she really be able to flush all the ashes down the toilet? From a
purely psychological perspective, faced with 9,500 US$100 bills, would she
really be able to burn them all and refrain from hiding them somewhere? Just
because they found some ashes and remainders of a few US dollar bills in the
oven, that is not proof that all of the money was burnt.
Moving on to the application of the law, determining if Lin¡¦s actions fell
within his remit will affect which laws to apply and the level of punishment
meted out. Ignoring the question of whether prosecutors have been applying
double standards, that Lin¡¦s actions did not fall within his formal duties means
that the question of what should fall within his practical sphere of influence
must be specified in detail. Not doing so would leave the possibility of his
evading responsibility later on.
One thing that it is difficult to understand is why, since it has already been
determined that Lin acted beyond his remit, the top management at China Steel
Corp who acted on Lin¡¦s instructions are not being named as principal offenders
or accomplices in the corruption case. This issue has been completely ignored by
prosecutors, and that is unreasonable.
Finally, the SID seems very pleased with itself because this is the first
instance of an indictment using the law banning non-disclosure of assets. This
article has always been bypassed by the requirement that it only applies
following an investigation by prosecutors.
However, in practice, someone who is investigated by prosecutors for this
offense is normally already involved in a major corruption case ¡X as is the case
with the Lin investigation ¡X and when a sentence is meted out, lighter offenses
are neglected in favor of more serious ones. As a result there is not much need
for this article. Due to the many concerns at the time the law was written it
has never been applied. There is indeed a risk that the SID will be laughed at
for trying to claim credit for pursuing a lighter offense but keeping its
blinders on over more serious ones.
It is difficult to investigate corruption cases. However, if the overall result
shows an inability to move beyond the evidence provided by the accused via
confession, then either the accused is very clever, or the investigators are
incapable of carrying out a competent investigation.
One certainly cannot criticize those who ridicule the SID by calling it the
Non-Investigation Division, instead of the Special Investigation Division.
Kao Jung-chih is a lawyer and director of the office of the Judicial Reform
Foundation.
Translated by Perry Svensson
|