Eric Chen Should Have Prosecuted Chen Hsing-yu

Eric Chen Should Have Prosecuted Chen Hsing-yu
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 17, 2009

The Special Investigation Unit has charged Chen Hsing-yu with perjury, and forbidden her to leave the country. Eric Chen investigated the State Affairs Fund case and prosecuted Wu Shu-chen. At the time he refused to charge Chen Hsing-yu with perjury, and told reporters to "Spare them!" He maintained that his refusal to prosecute Chen Hsing-yu was not a matter of sabotaging the prosecution's case, but of "retaining a trump card." Such a trump card would allow him to either attack or protect himself by retreating. He said he believed that the Special Investigation Unit charging Chen Hsing-yu with perjury now was bad timing.

Eric Chen's explanation is full of holes. For any single prosecutor to have his own views on any single case is nothing unusual. If his argument is full of holes, so be it. But the Chen family corruption scandal is a high profile case. Eric Chen was the last prosecutor in charge of the case. He has chosen to comment on it now. This gives us the perfect opportunity to review his handling of the case, and to consider its lingering after-effects.

First of all, Eric Chen's explanation is verbal sleight of hand. It attempts to cover up the fact that he sabotaged the prosecution's case. Once Eric Chen indicted Wu Shu-chen, the Bill of Indictment was made public. The public got to see how everyone in the Chen family, including Chen Hsing-yu, applied for State Affairs Fund reimbursements using receipts for personal living expenses. These expense reimbursements alone warranted Eric Chen indicting Chen Shui-bian and Wu Shu-chen for corruption. How could Chen Hsing-yu, Chen Chih-chung, Chao Chien-min and others not be considered complicit? Yet when reporters holding copies of the Bill of Indictment questioned Eric Chen, he responded, "Spare them!"

Reporters spoke with Eric Chen. They were clearly demanding to know why suspects such as Chen Hsing-yu were not charged as "accomplices in corruption." Eric Chen responded, "Spare them!" But today he says he chose not to prosecute them for perjury in order to retain a trump card. These "minor discrepancies" in his public statements are in fact gaping holes.

When Eric Chen began his investigation he deliberately ignored objections from the Control Yuan Ministry of Audit. He willfully divided the State Affairs Fund fees into two categories. He created separate categories for "receipt reimbursements" and "invoice reimbursements." He chose not to investigate the invoice reimbursements portion. The Special Investigation Unit later investigated this portion, and increased the amounts considered actionable. Eric Chen clearly sabotaged the prosecution's case when it came to Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng's crimes. Chen Hsing-yu used personal expense receipts to obtain State Affairs Fund reimbursements. Chen Hsing-yu and others' lives were closely intertwined with Wu Shu-chen's. Her receipts can not be equated with receipts Wu Shu-chen obtained from other sources. The law is the law. Of course Chen Hsing-yu and others must be investigated to see if they conspired with Wu Shu-chen, and whether they were accomplices. Of course if Chen Hsing-yu lies as a defendant, she is not guilty of perjury, and will not be charged with perjury. Eric Chen now claims that his "Spare them!" remark meant sparing Chen Hsing-yu from charges of perjury. He refuses to say why he didn't charge her as "an accomplice in corruption." This clearly shows he was covering up her role as an accomplice.

Moreover, according to witness protection laws, a lead prosecutor enjoys a certain amount of discretion. An accomplice willing to assist an investigation may receive a lighter sentence. Otherwise, he or she must be dealt with in accordance with the law. It is not up to the prosecutor to "spare them." Whether or not to spare them is the prerogative of the judge, not the prosecutor. Besides, Eric Chen never obtained any information helpful to the prosecution of the case from the mouth of any Ah-Bian family member, including Chen Hsing-yu. So where did his "retention of a trump card" rationale come from? A prosecutor handling a case in accordance with due process is fully protected by the nation's laws. Eric Chen claimed that while prosecuting Chen Hsing-yu for perjury, he could "attack or retreat in order to protect himself." What exactly was he protecting himself from?

In fact, Eric Chen's refusal to prosecute Ah-Bian's family, including Chen Hsing-yu, Chen Chih-chung, Chao Chien-ming and other suspects, in accordance with the law, indirectly allowed Chen Chih-chung and others to brazenly step up their money-laundering activity. Eric Chen indicted Wu Shu-chen in November 2006. Former Bureau of Investigation Ye Sheng-mao leaked confidential case information to Chen Shui-bian, informing Chen that his family was under investigation for money-laundering. On December 15, Chen Chih-chung ignored the fact that Wu Shu-chen fainted in court. He went abroad to take care of his overseas accounts. The Swiss government sent a letter asking Ye Sheng-mao whether Chen Chih-chung and his wife had criminal records. Had these Chen family members been indicted, Yeh Sheng-mao would have had no reason to fear, no reason to sit on to the letter, and no reason not to notify prosecutors. Had prosecutors, based on these developments, investigated further, the Chen family money-laundering case would have been exposed, sooner rather than later. Would Chen Chih-chung and others still have had the guts or the opportunity to launder money so easily, making recovery nearly impossible today?

Eric Chen says that to charge Chen Hsing-yu and forbid her to leave the country now is bad timing. But the Chen family has yet to come clean and turn over the dirty money it has hidden overseas. Ensuring that one less Chen family member is able to transfer dirty money overseas is an act of responsibility. Eric Chen is now criticizing the Special Investigation Unit. One can't help thinking about the escape hatch Eric Chen provided the Chen Shui-bian family back then. Is the damage he inflicted still being felt, even today?

陳瑞仁當年若依法將陳幸妤等列為被告
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.06.18 05:19 am

特偵組將陳幸妤列為偽證罪被告，並予境管。偵辦國務機要費案並起訴吳淑珍的檢察官陳瑞仁稱，當年未列陳幸妤為偽證被告，而向記者說「饒了他們吧！」並不是放水，卻是「保留一張王牌」，進可攻，退可自保；他並認為，特偵組如今改列陳幸妤為偽證被告，時機不對。

陳瑞仁的說法漏洞百出。某位檢察官對某案件有何意見，本來並沒有什麼重要性，縱有漏洞，愛說就隨他去說；但因扁家弊案為眾所矚目，陳瑞仁又是案發後最原始的承辦檢察官，如今他出面評論，正可藉以檢視他當初的辦案手法，在今天產生了怎樣的後遺症。

首先，陳瑞仁的說法，形同移花接木，掩飾了當年放水的事實。當初陳瑞仁起訴吳淑珍的起訴書公布之後，社會大眾看到了扁家大大小小，包括陳幸妤在內，都以私人生活開支發票報銷國務機要費的事實；而這些開銷，陳瑞仁在起訴書中，均將之列為陳水扁和吳淑珍的貪汙所得。然則，陳幸妤、陳致中、趙建銘等人豈不也有共犯貪汙的嫌疑？但在記者持起訴書質問陳瑞仁時，他卻表示：「饒了他們吧！」

記者和陳瑞仁言談所指，明顯是討論陳幸妤等人為何不列「貪汙共犯」的問題；但如今陳瑞仁卻將「饒了他們」，轉接成「不列為偽證被告」及「保留一張王牌」云云；如此細緻的說詞差異，其實是大有出入的。

陳瑞仁在偵辦該案之初，即刻意忽視監察院審計部的反對意見，自行將國務機要費一分為二，製造所謂「單據報銷」、「領據報銷」兩塊，且不查領據報銷部分（後來特偵組則徹查這部分，並擴大起訴金額）。陳瑞仁顯是對扁珍的犯行局部放水。而單據部分，既查出陳幸妤等人以私人生活發票報銷，而陳幸妤等人與吳淑珍有密切生活關係，不可與吳淑珍其他來源的發票相提並論；就法論法，當然應該查明陳幸妤等人與吳淑珍有無犯意聯絡、是否共犯。如此，陳幸妤若以「被告」身分說謊，當然沒有「偽證」的問題，亦即無列不列「偽證被告」的問題。但陳瑞仁如今硬將「饒了」陳幸妤的部分，說成是饒了她的「偽證」問題，卻不說何以未將她列為「貪汙共犯」，這不啻是在掩飾他對共犯的放水。

再說，檢察官辦案，除了依證人保護法，在共犯願以協助查案交換從輕處理的情況下，有一定的裁量權；否則即應依法辦理，並無交易或「饒了他們」的餘地。饒不饒是法院的權責，而不在檢察官。何況，陳瑞仁既未從扁家成員包括陳幸妤口中，得到任何案情方面的協助，則其所謂「保留一張王牌」云云，誠不知從何說起？再者，檢察官依法辦案，自有國家法律給予的一切保障，陳瑞仁卻指未以「偽證罪」辦陳幸妤，竟是「進可攻，退可自保」的手段，這又是什麼意思？

其實，陳瑞仁當初未依法處理扁家成員包括陳幸妤、陳致中、趙建銘等人犯嫌部分，恐怕正是間接造成陳致中等肆無忌憚、加速洗錢的主要原因。因為，陳瑞仁起訴吳淑珍是九十五年十一月間，接著前調查局長葉盛茂向陳水扁洩露扁家洗錢情資，十二月十五日陳致中即不顧吳淑珍在法院昏倒，出國處理海外帳戶。從時間點來看，倘若當初扁家這些成員已經遭到起訴，則當瑞士來函詢問陳致中夫婦有無犯罪紀錄等資料時，葉盛茂即恐再無理由及膽量留中不發，不通報檢方；而若檢方據此展開進一步的追查，則扁家洗錢案即有可能提早爆發，而後來陳致中等是否還敢、還能如此方便行事，導致如今贓款難追回，恐怕其結果是大相逕庭。

陳瑞仁又說，此時列陳幸妤為被告，並予境管，時機不對；但扁家迄未誠實交出仍藏在海外的貪汙贓款，此際若能使扁家成員少一人自由進出，得以減低扁家再轉移贓款的便利，也算是一個交代。就此而言，陳瑞仁在批評特偵組之時，恐怕要先思考一下當年辦案所開的「巧門」，是否貽害至今？