Why Society Has No Reason to Forgive the Chen Family

Why Society Has No Reason to Forgive the Chen Family
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 11, 2009

Wu Shu-chen presented her case in court yesterday. She probably thought she discovered a legal loophole. But her legal arguments were unconvincing, to say the least, and are unlikely to be corroborated by the main witnesses or by the material evidence. Wu Shu-chen says she wants to "save her husband and protect her son." She is unlikely to get her wish.

Wu Shu-chen has admitted she accepted money in the State Affairs Fund Case, the Lungtan case, and the Nankang case. The fact that she took money has already established the legal framework for these cases. Was the money bribes or political contributions? That is not for Wu Shu-chen to say. Was the money connected to Chen Shui-bian? That is not for Wu Shu-chen to say either. The judge's evaluation of the evidence will not be based on Wu Shu-chen's unilateral assertions.

Reading from her notes, Wu Shu-chen revealed how she intended to disassociate herself from these four cases. She pleaded guilty only in the Nankang Case. She admitted accepting 2.2 million USD. She also admitted laundering money using Wu Ching-mao's overseas bank account. Chen Shui-bian was not a defendant in the Nankang Case. That is why Wu Shu-chen was willing to plead guilty in that case. Wu Shu-chen's guilty plea in the Nankang Case is merely a legal ploy to help Chen Chih-chung in his plea bargain. The Nankang Case is Wu Shu-chen's legal loophole. Wu Shu-chen did not plead guilty in any of the other cases involving Chen Shui-bian, at least not completely.

In the State Affairs Fund Case Wu Shu-chen admitted forging documents, but refused to confess to embezzlement. Again the main reason was that if she were to confess to embezzlement, that would make Chen Shui-bian an accomplice. Wu Shu-chen testified that Ma Yung-cheng and others instructed her to use false receipts for reimbursement. She said she complied without understanding what she was doing. She said that after she received the money from Chen Cheng-hui, she transferred it to Chen Shui-bian. Chen referred to the money as funds for "secret diplomacy." One. Wu's defense is that Ma Yung-cheng told her what to do. But that doesn't help her, because Ma Yung-cheng's defense is that Chen Shui-bian told what to do. Two. If the funds were meant for "secret diplomacy," why didn't they deposit them directly into the Office of the President's operating expenses account? Why go through Ah-Chen? Three. Chen Cheng-hui carried millions of dollars in State Affairs Funds at the end of each year to the president's official residence and turned it over to Ah-Chen. Ah-Chen said the money had already been transferred to Ah-Bian. Was Ah-Bian truly unaware that these millions of dollars in cash were obtained by means of false invoices? Such statements defy common sense. Wu Shu-chen has confessed to pocketing State Affairs Fund money. Whether she is guilty of fraud or embezzlement will be decided by a judge, not by Wu Shu-chen.

In the Lungtan Case, Wu Shu-chen's reasoning is even more convoluted. According to her testimony, she had no idea why Leslie Koo gave her so much money. She said Tsai Ming-Jer told her CITIC was bullying Leslie Koo. And because Leslie Koo wanted to "remain on good terms" with the president, he made her a gift of money. If Ah-Chen's testimony is to be believed, then Li Jie-mu never visited the president's official residence to discuss a land deal with the First Couple, face to face. Then Wu Shu-chen never paid a visit to Lungtan to look at the site. And of course President Chen Shui-bian never summoned the Premier and other officials to his official residence to receive direct instructions. But Chen Shui-bian has already admitted to summoning the Premier and other officials, and to discussing a land deal, face to face. He has merely argued that he did not "issue orders," but merely "made suggestions." They were not part of his official responsibilities. Wu Shu-chen says "I have no idea why Leslie Koo gave me money." She expects the public to believe kickbacks from the land deal were campaign contributions having nothing to with Chen Shui-bian. To expect such arguments to convince anyone is wishful thinking.

Since the money-laundering case exploded on August 14 last year, the Chen family's legal strategy was to deny, deny, deny. Chen did not hesitate to tear society apart, to hijack the Democratic Progressive Party, to defame the justice system. Chen resorted to the most vicious and underhanded means at his disposal. But once the trial began, Chen Chih-chung and his wife asked for a plea bargain. Wu Shu-chen attempted to use the Nankang Case to save her husband and protect her son. She deigned to offer the public an apology. Superificially, they changed their both their attitude and their tactics. In short, their confessions are utterly hollow and insincere. They are engaging in legalistic sleight of hand, and taking the public for fools.

Wu Shu-chen's testimony yesterday was riddled with contradictions. The justice system and society have no reason to forgive the Chen family. If this is Wu Shu-chen's defense strategy, she will have a hard time convincing the judge. If she hopes to save her husband, this will hardly do the trick. If she wants to protect her son, she has offered nothing the Special Investigation Unit doesn't already know. What incentive does it have to negotiate with her? She has rolled the dice and come up snake eyes. This, perhaps, fortells the Chen family's fate.

從吳淑珍供詞漏洞 看扁家不可被原諒的理由
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.02.11 04:21 am

吳淑珍昨天在法庭提出的抗辯架構，或許在邏輯思維上自認找到了「巧門」，卻與經驗法則悖離太甚，更無可能獲得主要證人及證據的支持。若謂吳淑珍想要藉此「救夫保子」，恐怕難如所願。

吳淑珍承認，她在國務費案、龍潭案及南港案中，皆收了錢；這使得全案的「架構」已告底定。至於那些錢的性質，是賄賂或政治獻金，卻非吳淑珍一人所能定義；而那些錢與陳水扁是否有關，更非吳淑珍說了就算。畢竟，法官的心證不會只是建立在吳淑珍的片面之言上。

吳淑珍照著手持的紙條，仔細揭示她對四案的切割手法。她唯一較完整認罪的是南港案，承認收了二百二十萬美元，也承認洗錢至吳景茂的國外帳戶。因為陳水扁不是南港案被告，所以吳淑珍認罪不致牽連陳水扁；而吳淑珍對南港案認罪，只為作球給想要進行認罪協商的陳致中。南港案正是吳淑珍找到的「巧門」；至於其他牽涉陳水扁的案子，吳淑珍皆並未認罪或並非完全認罪。

關於國務費案，吳淑珍認了「偽造文書」，卻不承認貪汙。主要原因亦在，若珍承認貪汙，陳水扁即成共犯。吳淑珍的供詞是：馬永成等指使她要用假發票報銷，她未明就裡地照做；她收到陳鎮慧給她的錢以後，即轉交陳水扁（扁稱用於機密外交）。然而：一、珍的說法，形同咬死了馬永成等指示其犯罪，馬永成即沒有理由不堅持一切出於陳水扁指示的說法；二、若真用於機密外交，則何不把錢在總統府作業程序中即直接交給扁，卻要由珍轉手？三、陳鎮慧有時在年底抱著數百萬國務費現金到官邸交給珍，珍稱皆已轉交給扁，則扁豈有不知道那數百萬現金是用假發票詐取而來之理？這類供詞，顯然違反經驗法則。只要吳淑珍承認拿了國務費，至於是否詐取，是否貪汙，要看法官如何判斷，不是吳淑珍所能一手遮天。

至於龍潭案，吳淑珍的供詞更是捉襟見肘。照她的說法，她完全不知辜成允為什麼送她那麼多錢；而稱只因蔡銘哲告訴她，中信辜家欺負辜成允，辜成允為與總統「維持關係」，所以送錢。在她昨日供詞中，李界木赴官邸與扁珍夫婦面商購地案，及吳淑珍親赴龍潭看地等情節，似乎根本不存在；當然更未提及陳總統召閣揆等重臣入府面授機宜的場景。然而，連陳水扁也承認了召集閣揆等人，曾有當面主張購地的情節；只是辯稱，此非總統「職務」，即使有所「建議」，亦無責任可言。那麼，吳淑珍若想只憑一句「不知辜成允為何送錢」，那筆「土地佣金」就會變成「政治獻金」嗎？或就會與陳水扁無關嗎？此類供詞，恐怕太過一廂情願。

自去年八月十四日洗錢案爆發以來，觀察扁家的操作手法：在審判開始以前，完全不認罪，更不惜撕裂社會、挾持民進黨、攻擊司法，顯得極端激烈狠毒；但至審判開始後，自陳致中夫婦請求認罪協商，至吳淑珍欲藉南港案的「巧門」來救夫保子，又壓低姿態向社會道歉，則完全換了一副面孔，換了一套手法。總結一句話，可謂是：毫無認罪誠意，玩弄司法，欺愚社會！

從吳淑珍昨日所提抗辯架構的矛盾與漏洞中，可以看出扁家四口不能被司法及社會原諒的充分理由。倘若這就是吳淑珍的主要抗辯架構，顯然極難說服法官。想要救夫，恐難如願；若欲保子，則因根本沒有超越特偵組的偵查成果，特偵組又有何理由能夠與之協商？兩頭落空，也許是扁家即將面對的結果。