The situation has once again reversed: the foundation will not endorse Ma Ying-jeou! The three-member investigation team has spoken out, condemning Ma Ying-jeou’s actions as an infringement upon the board of directors’ authority, even though he attempted to justify his conduct by claiming it was under his directive.
On May 30, the three-member investigation team issued a statement saying that, according to a resolution made by the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation Board of Directors, after completing their investigation into the financial discipline matter, the team should submit their findings to the board for discussion, and only then would the board decide on appropriate measures. Furthermore, since the board had not set any deadline for completion, Ma Ying-jeou publicly demanded that the investigation team report its findings to the board by May 27.
However, before the results were formally submitted to the board for deliberation, certain individuals associated with the foundation resorted to holding a press conference to completely reject the investigation conclusions. This not only ignored the fact that the board is the highest governing body of the foundation but also violated a prior board resolution stating that no staff member may disclose or leak related business information or data without the consent of the investigation team. Even if Ma Ying-jeou claims this was done under his instruction, such action still constitutes an unauthorized act infringing upon the board’s authority, and thus must be condemned.
The investigation team has completed the tasks entrusted by the board. The case has now entered judicial proceedings. In the future, the team will cooperate with judicial investigations and submit its report to help clarify the truth. Clearly, this statement from the three-member investigation team explicitly tells Ma Ying-jeou and those behind him: the actions taken by relevant personnel bypassed the board; therefore, the foundation will absolutely not support any prosecution initiated in its name—indeed, it likely disagrees with bringing charges under the foundation’s name.
This time, the alleged crimes of breach of trust and embezzlement, legally speaking, target the foundation itself, not Ma Ying-jeou personally. It is clear as day: the funds involved are public donations made to the foundation, not personal assets of Ma Ying-jeou. He personally has no standing as a victim, so without authorization from the foundation, whether the case can even stand is a major issue. If Ma Ying-jeou insists on proceeding, he can only file a lawsuit individually—and not only must he bear all costs himself, but he must also provide all evidence. Conversely, materials controlled by the foundation could become evidence used to refute Ma Ying-jeou’s claims. Clearly, the foundation is now distancing itself from Ma Ying-jeou. Should Ma lose the case, he and those behind him would be guilty of false accusation, which inevitably carries legal consequences.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1866624950663177/
Statement: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.