Judicial Reform Foundation– Nine questions on investigation revealed: Urging relevant authorities to promptly release investigation report to the public! The Civil Reform Foundation's statement on the violation of the principle of confidentiality in the investigation process in the case of Ko Wen-je

The Judicial Reform Foundation (JRF) is a non-profit, non-governmental organization committed to the protection of human rights and the rule of law by reforming the judicial system in Taiwan.

https://www.jrf.org.tw/articles/2862 (chatgpt translation)
Yesterday (December 26th), Ko Wen-je, the chairman of the Taiwan People's Party, along with 11 others, were indicted for accepting bribes in violation of the Anti-Corruption Act and other related crimes. Since August, when Ko Wen-je became involved in the Jinghua City case, media outlets have extensively revealed investigative information regarding the alleged corruption case, with content indicating a clear violation of the principle of confidentiality during the investigation. Although the Supreme Prosecutors Office had transferred media reports and related documents to the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office's "Confidential Investigation Review Committee" on October 25th to legally ascertain the truth, the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office has not yet released an investigation report, leaving civil society unable to review the findings. In response, our organization raises nine major questions, requesting prompt answers from the Taipei District Prosecutors Office, the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office, and the Ministry of Justice to restore judicial credibility:

  1. Regarding the aspects of media reports that match the facts of the indictment, please explain why the media could obtain information during the investigation stage that only internal case handlers would have access to (e.g., witness statements, evidence content)?
  2. Why were the investigative secrets leaked exclusively to Mirror Media?
  3. Over the four months from August to the present, why has there been continuous public disclosure of the investigative content by the Taipei District Prosecutors Office and related units? What measures have been reviewed? Why was the media still able to accurately grasp the situation of the indictment at the last moment before the prosecution?
  4. According to the statement by Mirror Media on June 8, 2023, "judicial reporters from all media can freely enter and exit the Taipei District Prosecutors Office for interviews according to regulations." During the investigation of Ko Wen-je's case, could reporters still use their access cards to enter and interview at the Taipei District Prosecutors Office? What is the extent of their free access?
  5. Following up, does the Taipei District Prosecutors Office have complete records of reporters accessing relevant areas with access cards? Were there any media entries before and after the reports were disclosed? Is there any record of communication between the reporters involved and the investigators of this case?
  6. Does the Taipei District Prosecutors Office acknowledge that there was a leak in this case? If so, is the Taipei District Prosecutors Office responsible? What are the legal and administrative responsibilities of the involved personnel? How does the chief prosecutor of the Taipei District Prosecutors Office take responsibility? If not, who is the leaker and which agency should be responsible?
  7. What is the legal basis for reporters' free entry into the Taipei District Prosecutors Office with access cards? Is it under review? Apart from the Taipei District Prosecutors Office, do other prosecutorial offices have similar situations?
  8. According to the Ministry of Justice's invitations for reporters to visit on June 14, 2023, and August 29, 2024, nearly all were unrelated sightseeing trips. In response to this, the Ministry of Justice has not provided a reasonable response or review to the queries from legislator Huang Kuo-chang. Does the Ministry of Justice have further explanations? Has it proactively disclosed the execution of the same budget item and the results report over the past ten years? Has the Audit Office commented on the execution of this budget?
  9. Has the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office investigated the violation of the principle of confidentiality in the investigative process of Ko Wen-je's case? If so, what is the current progress? Can the results of the investigation be publicly disclosed to the public within one month?