Why Was Tsai Pi-chung So Anxious to Extricate Chen Ming-wen from the Cash Case?

 Why Was Tsai Pi-chung So Anxious to Extricate Chen Ming-wen from the Cash Case?

United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan)

September 6, 2019

 Translation of an Excerpt

An unlocked, hand-carried case was recently found on a High Speed Rail train belonging to DPP legislator Chen Ming-wen, containing NT$3 million in cash; it was said that the money for his son to open a pearl milk tea shop in the Philippines. The matter elicited discussions of various colors in society; some were curious about people carrying and traveling with NT$3 million in cash; some considered it strange that a remittance was not used; some were concerned about the issue of the gift tax; and still some, on the other hand, questioned that it might involve money laundering. What is unfathomable is that Deputy Justice Minister Tsai Pi-chung immediately jumped out to help defend Chen Ming-wen, saying that the money was withdrawn in “smaller sums” by Chen’s wife, and the amount did not exceed NT$500,000 each, the ceiling for report to the authorities as required by law, hence, “there is no issue of money laundering."

The problem is, as the top executive supervising the operations of the “Office for Prevention and Control of Money Laundering under the Cabinet”, just in what capacity did Tsai Pi-chung come out to speak for Chen Ming-wen? Tsai Pi-chung said that the NT$3 million in cash was withdrawn by Chen Ming-wen's wife in smaller sums, none of which reached the threshold for report to the authorities; this shows that he and Chen Ming-wen had talked about it, and that he believed Chen’s version. Nevertheless, could Tsai Pi-chung, as Deputy Justice Minister, merely rely on the unilateral version of the principal and at once publicly proclaim that he was innocent? Moreover, a citizen had brought charges of “money laundering” to the Taipei District Prosecutor's Office and the prosecutors had not yet proceeded to investigate, but the Deputy Justice Minister was one step ahead in making a proclamation of “no problem exists.” Wasn’t this a repeat of the cigarette smuggling case by national security agents, meaning high-echelon government officials led the direction, guiding the handling of the case?

There are two major reasons why external circles show special concerns about the Chen Ming-wen cash case. One, Chen Ming-wen is a top lieutenant of Tsai Ing-wen; if Tsai Ing-wen is re-elected as president, Chen Ming-wen will possibly become a hot candidate for legislative speaker. Under such circumstances, his character, integrity, and even flow and use of his money, should of course be stringently scrutinized by the outside world. Second, Tsai Bi-chung and Chen Ming-wen have an extremely unusual relationship. Eleven years ago, when Chen Ming-wen was Chiayi County executive, he was indicted for leaking the base price in a public tender for a sewage project in Minhsiung, Chiayi County, and then attorney at law Tsai Pi-chung was retained as Chen’s defense counsel. After Tsai Ing-wen came to power, on Chen Ming-wen’s strong recommendation, Tsai Pi-chung was recruited into the Cabinet as the Deputy Justice Minister three years ago; in this period, Tsai Pi-chung did offer recommendations in the “blocking Kuan Chung-ming case”, making him a heavy-weight in the Green dynasty. Also because of this, in September last year, when the post of Hualien County executive was vacated, and the Cabinet in an extremely unusual fashion, designated him to act as county executive, “accomplishing” great achievements for the DPP government; later he returned to his post as Deputy Justice Minister. With this kind of relationship between the two, Tsai Pi-chung should have recused himself from talking about the case; who knew he was oblivious to the transcendent position of a political appointee, coming out to provide cover for Chen Ming-wen.

The transparency and clarity of the flow of funds is an important indicator of a country’s integrity of officialdom. However, Chen Ming-wen’s NT$3 million in cash has been questioned from various angles, such as money laundering prevention and control, political contributions, gifts, and declaration of assets. Now, add the deliberate provision of cover by a political appointee. 

Attachment : none