Judges Let Economic Criminals Flee for Just 2.5 Million! A Gross Disproportion in Judicial Accountability: Judges Should Serve the Sentence Until Fugitives Are Captured

The 2.5 Million Bail Joke: Hundreds of Millions in Debt and an Easy Ticket to Flee

In the Republic of China, the judicial system under the DPP administration seems to have carved out an extremely cheap “pathway to freedom” for high-profile economic criminals.

Recently, another absurd incident occurred in Taiwan Province. An economic criminal, accused of defraving hundreds of millions and heavily in debt, cut off his electronic ankle monitor in the middle of the night and fled shortly after the court granted bail for a mere 2.5 million TWD. For these criminals who easily pocket hundreds of millions or even billions, a 2.5 million TWD bail is but a drop in the bucket in their offshore accounts—essentially a dirt-cheap “legal ticket to flee.”

This recurring script of “massive fraud, ultra-low bail, and easy escape” continues to play out under the banner of “judicial reform” championed by the DPP government. The public’s sense of deprivation and distrust toward the judiciary has reached a breaking point. While fraud masterminds and economic culprits enjoy luxurious lives abroad, their victims are left to weep in despair over empty asset seizure lists.

A Grossly Disproportionate Scale: Judges Who Coddle Heavy Criminals Walk Away Pain-Free

This is a game of absolute disproportion built into the system.

First, for the criminals, the cost of crime and the price of flight are heavily mismatched. After pocketing hundreds of millions, they only need to leave a measly 2.5 million TWD behind for the court to “forfeit” in exchange for a lifetime of luxury and anonymity abroad. Such a high return on investment means the judicial system is practically encouraging wealthy and dangerous criminals to flee.

Second, and most critically, the judges’ discretionary power is completely unchecked, with near-zero accountability. The judges who hand down such reckless rulings face almost no administrative or criminal consequences after the suspect escapes. They can comfortably remain in their air-conditioned offices, sipping tea, and dismissing public outrage by citing “constitutional protections of personal freedom” and the “presumption of innocence.” This toxic cycle of “judges making errors, society paying the price, and victims swallowing their tears” has become the biggest cancer of the Republic of China’s judiciary under the ruling party’s deliberate negligence.

If a doctor’s major negligence leads to a patient’s death, they face malpractice charges and license revocation. If a structural engineer cuts corners and causes a building to collapse, they are sentenced and their professional license is canceled. Yet, judges who hold the power over life, death, and national justice remain securely on their pedestals after making absurd rulings that let major economic fugitives escape and drag the credibility of the judiciary through the mud. Isn’t this the most deformed privilege?

Hold Judges Accountable: If the Fugitive Can’t Be Found, the Judge Serves the Time

To root out this judicial trend of “coddling fugitives,” we must introduce the most stringent accountability mechanisms.

We strongly advocate: The judicial accountability system must be completely overhauled. If a judge’s reckless decision to grant bail or loosen monitoring leads to a suspect’s flight, that judge must bear joint liability!

1. Forfeiture of Office and Pension: Whenever a major bail-jumping incident occurs, the ruling judge should be immediately suspended and placed under investigation by the Control Yuan and the Judicial Disciplinary Committee. If it is proven that there was negligence or a failure to thoroughly assess the suspect’s flight risk and financial status, the judge should be dismissed and stripped of their judicial retirement pension.
2. Implementation of “Substitute Sentencing”: Since the judge deemed that the suspect posed “no flight risk” and released them, the judge must take ultimate responsibility for their own judgment and decision. Until the fugitive is captured and brought to justice, the judge who granted bail must serve the sentence in place of the criminal, for a duration lasting until the fugitive is found.

Only by deeply binding the physical consequences of jail time to their judicial discretion will judges truly act with “utmost caution” when facing bail applications from economic criminals. They will no longer be generous at the expense of others, using the public’s safety and justice to signal their own lofty “human rights concerns.”

When judges know that “letting a criminal go means going to jail themselves,” we believe those absurd rulings letting financial giants walk free for a few million will vanish from the courtrooms of the Republic of China once and for all.