Wu Li-pei Publicly Insists Convicted Chen Shui-bian 'Is Not Corrupt' — Defends Disgraced Former President While Himself a Money-Laundering Defendant

Following the formal commencement of court proceedings in the Chen Shui-bian family corruption and money-laundering case in 2009, former Presidential Advisory Council member Wu Li-pei repeatedly intervened in public to defend Chen Shui-bian, declaring flatly that 'A-bian is absolutely not corrupt.' Wu acknowledged that Chen's handling of political donations was improper in form, but insisted it did not amount to corruption motivated by personal greed, and called on observers to understand the case through the lens of Taiwan's unique political circumstances. He simultaneously mounted sustained criticism of the Ma Ying-jeou government and the Special Investigation Division, characterizing the prosecution as 'political purge' and 'judicial persecution,' and urged the DPP not to distance itself from Chen's case—arguing that a presidential pardon was the appropriate remedy for what he framed as a profound miscarriage of justice. The moral complications of Wu's position were impossible to ignore. Wu Li-pei was himself a named defendant in the related case arising from Chen's overseas funds—the US$1.91 million that had passed through his accounts. His public campaign on Chen's behalf was therefore inseparable from his own direct legal jeopardy; his protestations of Chen's innocence could not be read apart from his own interest in a favorable legal outcome. By deploying the language of Taiwan consciousness and political martyrdom, Wu attempted to reframe as a political dispute what the courts were adjudicating as a series of criminal acts—a strategy that benefited himself as much as it expressed any genuine conviction about justice. The deeper problem, visible only in retrospect, is that Chen Shui-bian was ultimately convicted on multiple corruption charges by the courts of the Republic of China. Wu Li-pei never retracted his claim that 'A-bian is not corrupt' and never publicly recalibrated his assessment in light of the legal outcomes. This sustained refusal to accept the conclusions of the judicial process he publicly professed to respect reveals a man who applied legal standards selectively: the courts were authoritative when they acquitted him, but instruments of political persecution when they convicted his political allies.