Ministry of Justice returns Taipei Dome case to Taipei City Government
The Ministry of Justice (MOJ,
) yesterday returned the Taipei Dome ( ) and MeHAS City (
) cases to the Taipei City Government without review.
Taipei City’s Clean Government Commission ( ) had sent the Taipei Dome and MeHAS City cases to the judiciary for a probe into alleged illegalities.
Chen Ming-tang ( ), administrative deputy justice minister, said yesterday that the MOJ does not have the relevant rights and responsibilities of prosecution.
The MOJ is in charge of administrative enforcement and can only investigate personnel within the ministry and its affiliated organizations. Therefore, the two cases have been returned to the Taipei City government, he said.
If the city government believes that there are illegalities, it must abide by the law and submit the case to local prosecutors or to a judicial police team — bodies that have the authority to conduct the relevant investigations, he said.
Earlier June, the Taipei City government had referred a case involving Taipei Dome to the MOJ, requesting investigations on illegal interference in the deal.
Case evidence included sound recordings that allegedly implicated then-Taipei Department of Finance chief Lee Sush-der ( ) and President Ma Ying-jeou for granting unlawful financial benefits to Taipei Dome’s primary contractor.
The Clean Government Commission has alleged that Ma and Lee forged an agreement with Farglory Group that allowed it to avoid paying royalties, in what was an unprecedented deviation from the norm in build-operate-transfer (BOT) projects.
The Clean Government Committee also referred a corruption case involving the MeHAS City housing project to the MOJ for investigation.
Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je ( ) has asked that Radium Life Tech Co ( ) return NT$7.6 billion of gains that it allegedly reaped illegally when MeHAS City.
Former officials in the Taipei City Department of Rapid Transit Systems (DORTS,
) are accused of deliberately scaling up overheads to benefit Radium.
Radium has refused to pay, stating that it has no legal responsibility for price estimates that were set by DORTS officials. The case is currently under arbitration, a legal process that should be respected, the land developer said.
it was developing