Prosecutors to appeal low bail for campaign chief in vote-buying probe

The Taichung District Prosecutors Office in Taiwan has recently stepped up its efforts to crack down on illegal activities in local public office elections, investigating a case involving violations of the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act. According to intelligence gathered by prosecutors, a man surnamed Wu, who serves as the head of a campaign support association for a Taichung City Councilor candidate, allegedly hosted banquets to treat voters and solicited support from attendees during the meals, suspected of influencing voters' intentions through improper benefits. After gathering relevant evidence, the Taichung District Prosecutors Office launched searches and summonses recently. Following interrogation, prosecutors deemed the suspect of high criminal suspicion and petitioned the Taiwan Taichung District Court for pre-trial detention and communication ban. Upon reviewing the case in a detention hearing, the court ruled today that the defendant surnamed Wu be released on bail of NT$800,000 pending trial. Regarding this judicial ruling, the handling prosecutor stated that an appeal would be studied and filed, demonstrating the resolute stance of prosecutorial and investigative agencies in cracking down on vote-buying.

Reviewing the development of the entire case, investigative units received intelligence indicating that the man surnamed Wu, acting as the head of a campaign support association for a specific city councilor candidate, allegedly invited voters within the jurisdiction to banquets under the guise of free or low-cost meals to boost the candidate's momentum during the campaign period. In Taiwan's electoral culture, such banquet activities often accompany politicians' canvassing itineraries. However, if the source of the meal expenses involves free hospitality from the candidate's camp or its supporters, and explicit remarks soliciting support are made during the banquet, it easily crosses the legal red line concerning the promise of vote-buying through bribery. Taking the tip seriously, investigative units conducted a period of evidence collection and filtered relevant financial flows and lists of attendees. Believing the timing was ripe, the prosecutor commanded judicial police to execute a search and brought the man surnamed Wu in for investigation.

Upon completing the preliminary interrogation, the prosecutors determined that the head of the support association was suspected of violating Paragraph 1, Article 99 of the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act, which prohibits offering, promising, or delivering improper benefits to voters with voting rights to exercise their voting rights in a specific manner. Considering that there were still relevant witnesses and accomplices whose roles needed to be clarified, and to prevent the risk of collusion or evidence destruction, the prosecutors petitioned the jurisdictional Taiwan Taichung District Court to detain and isolate the defendant surnamed Wu in accordance with relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, after the case was transferred to the court, the judge ruled after review that although there was strong suspicion against the defendant, considering his statements during the investigation, the progress of the case investigation, and the application of the principle of proportionality, there was no absolute necessity for detention. Therefore, the judge ruled that he be released on bail of NT$800,000. Regarding this ruling, the prosecutors will study the reasons in detail upon receiving the written ruling and legally file an appeal with the Taiwan High Court Taichung Branch Court.

Vote-buying has always been a core cancer undermining the impartiality and fair competition of democratic elections in Taiwan. Taiwan's Civil Servants Election and Recall Act has always maintained extremely strict definitions and penalties for vote-buying behaviors. Whether it is the direct distribution of cash, or through forms such as sponsored tours, banquets, or giving expensive gifts, as long as it substantially achieves the effect of inducing voters to support a specific candidate, it may constitute the act of bribery prohibited by law. As election dates approach, investigative agencies typically establish special task forces to comprehensively deploy and investigate various patterns that may involve vote-buying. This case involving the support association head being investigated for hosting banquets once again highlights the high level of attention paid by judicial and investigative departments to abnormal fund flows and hospitality activities during the election period, and also sounds the alarm for all campaign camps and campaign cadres.

In a modern society governed by the rule of law, support association heads are usually very important local key figures and mobilization cores for candidates, responsible for contacting voters, organizing rally activities, and assisting in securing votes. However, precisely because they are in the critical front-line position of contacting voters, the words, deeds, and mobilization methods of campaign cadres must strictly abide by legal norms. They must not harbor wishful thinking, believing that they can walk a legal tightrope through social gatherings to build rapport. The strong intervention and investigation by judicial units this time not only demonstrate the determination of the state apparatus to uphold the purity of elections, but also make the general public once again confront the potential illegal risks existing in grassroots elections. Following the prosecutor's appeal and further court proceedings, the attribution of legal liability and the truth of the facts in this case will await final determination by the judicial trial.

(Source of facts: Central News Agency)