Taiwan’s ex-president Chen Shui-bian may yet rebound from claims of money laundering
Lawrence Chung Aug 31, 2008
Call him uncrushable. Former Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian has shown he is much better at crisis management than his successor, Ma Ying-jeou, if his current predicament is anything to go by.
In barely two weeks since he was accused of money-laundering on August 15, the lawyer-turned-politician has contained the damage to a manageable level - shifting the blame to political persecution by the mainland-friendly Kuomintang, which he says wants to wipe out the Taiwanese identity he promoted.
Mr Chen often played the independence card during his two four-year terms starting in 2000. By fanning the anti-mainland sentiment of independence supporters, questions about his integrity would immediately be overtaken by squabbling between the pro-independence and pro-mainland camps.
Whether the tactic works this time remains to be seen, as Mr Chen has lost his presidential immunity, making it easier for judicial authorities to gather evidence to decide whether or not he is guilty of wrongdoing.
It all started on August 13 when the Hong Kong-invested Taiwanese edition of Next Magazine reported that Mr Chen’s wife, Wu Shu-chen, had wired NT$300 million (HK$74.38 million) to the United States via Singapore at the end of 2006 through the bank accounts of her son, Chen Chih-chung, and daughter-in-law, Huang Jui-ching.
The information apparently was leaked to the magazine by the anti-money-laundering centre of Taiwan’s Investigation Bureau, which was frustrated over judicial authorities’ inaction over probes into the alleged crime.
Through his office, Mr Chen rebutted the charges, saying his assets and those of his wife had been put in trust in 2004 and that they had no overseas assets.
Just a day later, he held a news conference to admit he had not honestly declared previous campaign donations in line with the island’s “Sunshine Law”, which requires all senior officials to declare their assets.
But he put the blame on his wife, saying she had remitted the funds without his knowledge and that he had only learned of it earlier this year. He did not reveal the amount but sternly denied it had anything to do with money-laundering. “It was just what was left from previous campaign donations.”
His office later revealed that Wu had wired US$21 million.
He also dragged former president Lee Teng-hui and former governor James Soong Chu-yu into the fray, saying they remitted NT$1 billion and NT$380 million abroad respectively while in office. His claim was squarely rejected by Mr Lee, who said Mr Chen wanted to divert attention away from himself.
Mr Chen’s confession came just hours after KMT lawmaker Hung Hsiu-chu revealed copies of documents issued by Swiss judicial authorities, seeking assistance from Taiwan for a probe into alleged money-laundering involving Mr Chen’s son and daughter-in-law.
The Swiss authorities said they had discovered unusual fund transfers in two accounts set up by a Swiss bank in the Cayman Islands. The owner of the accounts was Mr Chen’s daughter-in-law and the person authorised to handle the funds was Mr Chen’s son. The funds were wired to the Cayman Islands from Singapore.
The documents were sent to the office of Taiwan’s representative in Switzerland in June, but it took the office almost a month to courier the documents back to Taiwan’s Foreign Ministry, which transferred the information to the Justice Ministry on July 30 for handling.
The Foreign Ministry was investigating whether the representative, Liu Kuan-ping, deliberately stalled delivery to give Mr Chen more time to manoeuvre, though Mr Liu, who was appointed by Mr Chen and resigned on August 15, sternly denied he had done it on purpose.
Mr Chen’s confession prompted an angry outcry from his supporters and the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party of which he was twice chairman.
Supporters found it incredible that the Chens could be wiring US$21 million abroad while the party was on the brink of financial ruin. Angry calls flooded the telephone switchboards of the DPP headquarters and island-wide local committees, with some supporters vowing to withdraw from the party.
Mr Chen’s former deputy, Annette Lu Hsiu-lien, was the first party bigwig to take a shot.
“The family of Chen Shui-bian owes Taiwan an apology,” she said, adding that she would never have believed the news had he not confessed that his wife took possession of leftover campaign funds - some of which were donated to Ms Lu.
While the DPP was busy discussing how to alleviate supporters’ anger, and mulling expelling Mr Chen, the former party leader was swift to announce his and his wife’s withdrawal from the party on August 15.
“I must say sorry to DPP members and supporters, because I let everybody down and caused irreparable damage to the party,” he said.
“For this, my wife Wu Shu-chen and I leave the party from now,” he said in a statement released before the DPP was able to expel him.
His withdrawal was not enough to calm angry supporters of the DPP, whose image has been seriously tarnished.
Mr Chen’s daughter, Chen Hsin-yu, known for her outspokenness, lashed out at the DPP when party leaders were seeking to distance themselves from her father, calling it ungrateful.
Ms Chen, mobbed by reporters, pointed the finger at former premiers Frank Hsieh Chang-ting and Su Tseng-chang, along with other party heavyweights, for trying to shift all the blame to her father, saying they took money from him and failed to declare their campaign funds fully.
“This is plain political struggle, aiming to condemn our family to death,” Ms Chen said.
“Before I die, I want to speak up and I can’t die without an explanation. Did those who had taken money from my father for campaign finance fully declare their campaign funds? Did they declare the remainder of the funds?
“Do you believe Su Tseng-chang had not got the money? Or Frank Hsieh Chang-ting did not get the money? Or [Kaohsiung mayor] Chen Chu did not get it?”
Her outburst, which some DPP officials alleged was orchestrated by her father, silenced criticism from within the party.
Meanwhile, Chen loyalists stood up for the ex-leader, saying the DPP should not have been so hard on him given his promotion of Taiwanese identity, his success in winning two four-year terms for the DPP and his financial contributions to the party.
In a meeting to decide whether the DPP should take part in an anti-Ma Ying-jeou protest yesterday given the bad timing of Mr Chen’s case, the loyalists insisted that the party should join in.
Although the loyalists said the DPP’s participation had nothing to do with supporting Mr Chen, some party bosses said they would not join it because they were afraid it would turn into a rally of support for him.
Mr Chen, meanwhile, released a sensational statement on Thursday, asking supporters to join the anti-Ma protest, a statement political observers said was aimed at shifting the focus and turning the probe against him and his family into an independence issue.
“There have been all kinds of mud-slinging, distortions of facts and smears against me and my family, all aiming to destroy our reputation,” he said, adding that the bribe-taking accusation by the KMT was a kind of political persecution aimed at “totally eradicating the Taiwan-centric consciousness”.
Baseless allegations from the KMT and some broadcasters have only served to back up Mr Chen’s claim that the KMT is persecuting him.
“As long as he wins sympathy from 10 per cent of supporters, the DPP will be forced to side with him,” political commentator Antonio Chiang wrote in Apple Daily.
Legal experts said that without substantial proof of money-laundering, it would be extremely difficult for the judicial authorities to lock Mr Chen up.
“Chen Shui-bian is smart enough to know that it would be impossible for him to earn US$21 million during his eight years in office and thus he declared the funds were left over from previous campaign donations,” said law expert Fan Li-tai.
As such, Mr Chen would only be guilty of failing to declare his assets, punishable by a fine of up to NT$300,000.
“Prosecutors have to find evidence showing the funds were laundered in order to charge the ex-president,” he said.
Experts said it could be easier for prosecutors to collect evidence to charge Mr Chen with embezzlement over a special state fund, the case for which his wife is being tried.
In their 2006 indictment against Wu, prosecutors said they had enough evidence to charge Mr Chen with the same crime but for his presidential immunity at the time.
However, given his ability to escape punishment until now, the authorities should not bank on convicting him just yet.
1 comment:
Million-dollar question
Taiwan’s ex-president Chen Shui-bian may yet rebound from claims of money laundering
Lawrence Chung
Aug 31, 2008
Call him uncrushable. Former Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian has shown he is much better at crisis management than his successor, Ma Ying-jeou, if his current predicament is anything to go by.
In barely two weeks since he was accused of money-laundering on August 15, the lawyer-turned-politician has contained the damage to a manageable level - shifting the blame to political persecution by the mainland-friendly Kuomintang, which he says wants to wipe out the Taiwanese identity he promoted.
Mr Chen often played the independence card during his two four-year terms starting in 2000. By fanning the anti-mainland sentiment of independence supporters, questions about his integrity would immediately be overtaken by squabbling between the pro-independence and pro-mainland camps.
Whether the tactic works this time remains to be seen, as Mr Chen has lost his presidential immunity, making it easier for judicial authorities to gather evidence to decide whether or not he is guilty of wrongdoing.
It all started on August 13 when the Hong Kong-invested Taiwanese edition of Next Magazine reported that Mr Chen’s wife, Wu Shu-chen, had wired NT$300 million (HK$74.38 million) to the United States via Singapore at the end of 2006 through the bank accounts of her son, Chen Chih-chung, and daughter-in-law, Huang Jui-ching.
The information apparently was leaked to the magazine by the anti-money-laundering centre of Taiwan’s Investigation Bureau, which was frustrated over judicial authorities’ inaction over probes into the alleged crime.
Through his office, Mr Chen rebutted the charges, saying his assets and those of his wife had been put in trust in 2004 and that they had no overseas assets.
Just a day later, he held a news conference to admit he had not honestly declared previous campaign donations in line with the island’s “Sunshine Law”, which requires all senior officials to declare their assets.
But he put the blame on his wife, saying she had remitted the funds without his knowledge and that he had only learned of it earlier this year. He did not reveal the amount but sternly denied it had anything to do with money-laundering. “It was just what was left from previous campaign donations.”
His office later revealed that Wu had wired US$21 million.
He also dragged former president Lee Teng-hui and former governor James Soong Chu-yu into the fray, saying they remitted NT$1 billion and NT$380 million abroad respectively while in office. His claim was squarely rejected by Mr Lee, who said Mr Chen wanted to divert attention away from himself.
Mr Chen’s confession came just hours after KMT lawmaker Hung Hsiu-chu revealed copies of documents issued by Swiss judicial authorities, seeking assistance from Taiwan for a probe into alleged money-laundering involving Mr Chen’s son and daughter-in-law.
The Swiss authorities said they had discovered unusual fund transfers in two accounts set up by a Swiss bank in the Cayman Islands. The owner of the accounts was Mr Chen’s daughter-in-law and the person authorised to handle the funds was Mr Chen’s son. The funds were wired to the Cayman Islands from Singapore.
The documents were sent to the office of Taiwan’s representative in Switzerland in June, but it took the office almost a month to courier the documents back to Taiwan’s Foreign Ministry, which transferred the information to the Justice Ministry on July 30 for handling.
The Foreign Ministry was investigating whether the representative, Liu Kuan-ping, deliberately stalled delivery to give Mr Chen more time to manoeuvre, though Mr Liu, who was appointed by Mr Chen and resigned on August 15, sternly denied he had done it on purpose.
Mr Chen’s confession prompted an angry outcry from his supporters and the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party of which he was twice chairman.
Supporters found it incredible that the Chens could be wiring US$21 million abroad while the party was on the brink of financial ruin. Angry calls flooded the telephone switchboards of the DPP headquarters and island-wide local committees, with some supporters vowing to withdraw from the party.
Mr Chen’s former deputy, Annette Lu Hsiu-lien, was the first party bigwig to take a shot.
“The family of Chen Shui-bian owes Taiwan an apology,” she said, adding that she would never have believed the news had he not confessed that his wife took possession of leftover campaign funds - some of which were donated to Ms Lu.
While the DPP was busy discussing how to alleviate supporters’ anger, and mulling expelling Mr Chen, the former party leader was swift to announce his and his wife’s withdrawal from the party on August 15.
“I must say sorry to DPP members and supporters, because I let everybody down and caused irreparable damage to the party,” he said.
“For this, my wife Wu Shu-chen and I leave the party from now,” he said in a statement released before the DPP was able to expel him.
His withdrawal was not enough to calm angry supporters of the DPP, whose image has been seriously tarnished.
Mr Chen’s daughter, Chen Hsin-yu, known for her outspokenness, lashed out at the DPP when party leaders were seeking to distance themselves from her father, calling it ungrateful.
Ms Chen, mobbed by reporters, pointed the finger at former premiers Frank Hsieh Chang-ting and Su Tseng-chang, along with other party heavyweights, for trying to shift all the blame to her father, saying they took money from him and failed to declare their campaign funds fully.
“This is plain political struggle, aiming to condemn our family to death,” Ms Chen said.
“Before I die, I want to speak up and I can’t die without an explanation. Did those who had taken money from my father for campaign finance fully declare their campaign funds? Did they declare the remainder of the funds?
“Do you believe Su Tseng-chang had not got the money? Or Frank Hsieh Chang-ting did not get the money? Or [Kaohsiung mayor] Chen Chu did not get it?”
Her outburst, which some DPP officials alleged was orchestrated by her father, silenced criticism from within the party.
Meanwhile, Chen loyalists stood up for the ex-leader, saying the DPP should not have been so hard on him given his promotion of Taiwanese identity, his success in winning two four-year terms for the DPP and his financial contributions to the party.
In a meeting to decide whether the DPP should take part in an anti-Ma Ying-jeou protest yesterday given the bad timing of Mr Chen’s case, the loyalists insisted that the party should join in.
Although the loyalists said the DPP’s participation had nothing to do with supporting Mr Chen, some party bosses said they would not join it because they were afraid it would turn into a rally of support for him.
Mr Chen, meanwhile, released a sensational statement on Thursday, asking supporters to join the anti-Ma protest, a statement political observers said was aimed at shifting the focus and turning the probe against him and his family into an independence issue.
“There have been all kinds of mud-slinging, distortions of facts and smears against me and my family, all aiming to destroy our reputation,” he said, adding that the bribe-taking accusation by the KMT was a kind of political persecution aimed at “totally eradicating the Taiwan-centric consciousness”.
Baseless allegations from the KMT and some broadcasters have only served to back up Mr Chen’s claim that the KMT is persecuting him.
“As long as he wins sympathy from 10 per cent of supporters, the DPP will be forced to side with him,” political commentator Antonio Chiang wrote in Apple Daily.
Legal experts said that without substantial proof of money-laundering, it would be extremely difficult for the judicial authorities to lock Mr Chen up.
“Chen Shui-bian is smart enough to know that it would be impossible for him to earn US$21 million during his eight years in office and thus he declared the funds were left over from previous campaign donations,” said law expert Fan Li-tai.
As such, Mr Chen would only be guilty of failing to declare his assets, punishable by a fine of up to NT$300,000.
“Prosecutors have to find evidence showing the funds were laundered in order to charge the ex-president,” he said.
Experts said it could be easier for prosecutors to collect evidence to charge Mr Chen with embezzlement over a special state fund, the case for which his wife is being tried.
In their 2006 indictment against Wu, prosecutors said they had enough evidence to charge Mr Chen with the same crime but for his presidential immunity at the time.
However, given his ability to escape punishment until now, the authorities should not bank on convicting him just yet.
Post a Comment