Keelung ex-prosecutor's low bail sparks outrage; legislator slams 'outdated' judicial discretion

A former prosecutor from the Keelung District Prosecutors Office, identified as Lin, is facing charges for allegedly running a usurious lending operation that generated tens of millions of New Taiwan dollars. Following his indictment, the court initially set his bail at NT$20,000. However, the prosecution appealed this decision, leading to a revised bail amount of NT$200,000, along with restrictions on leaving the country and electronic monitoring.

The bail amount has drawn sharp criticism from legislator Hung Chiu-ling, who highlighted that Lin allegedly profited over NT$43 million. Hung argued that the bail set was significantly lower than that in cases of theft or drunk driving, and even lower than the NT$70 million bail granted in a case involving former Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je. This disparity, she contends, disconnects the judiciary's decisions from public legal sentiment and raises questions about the judges' discretionary powers.

“

A person suspected of collecting illicit profits of over NT$43 million, yet the bail amount is even lower than for theft or drunk driving cases. What is the standard for setting bail at NT$20,000?

Hung further pointed to other cases, such as a high bail of tens of millions for a recall petition forgery case and a drug-driving offender being released without bail, to illustrate what she perceives as inconsistent judicial practices. She expressed concern that these decisions erode public trust in the judiciary, making it difficult for ordinary citizens to understand the basis for such rulings.

In response to the criticism, Secretary-General of the Judicial Yuan, Kao Chin-chih, stated that commenting on specific judicial decisions falls under the "core of adjudication" and cannot be evaluated. However, she clarified that the severity of a crime and the necessity of detention are distinct considerations. The Keelung District Prosecutors Office is investigating Lin for multiple charges, including usury.

“

This falls under the core of adjudication, so I cannot comment on it. However, the nature of the crime and whether detention is necessary are two different things.