Prosecutors Group Slams Proposed Amendment to Eliminate Collusion as Grounds for Detention, Calling it a "Disaster for the Nation"

Legislators are pushing for an amendment to the "Code of Criminal Procedure" that would eliminate the risk of collusion as a reason for detention. The prosecutor's reform group, Chien Ching Chien Kai, stated today that the draft bill's content protects criminals and compresses the timeline for frontline investigators, making it a disaster for the nation and its people that will blacken Taiwan. To defend the bottom line of the rule of law, they are urging the entire public to collectively supervise the process.

Chien Ching Chien Kai pointed out that the Taiwan People's Party (TPP) proposed a bill last year to remove the grounds for "detention due to risk of colluding with accomplices or witnesses," which caused a public uproar and was temporarily shelved. The current proposal, they allege, has been reintroduced by different legislators but avoids direct deletion. Instead, it alters the wording to require "clear and concrete actions of colluding with accomplices or witnesses" before detention can be ordered. In substance, this guts the collusion provision.

If the amendment succeeds, criminals can avoid detention simply by arguing that "no direct evidence of actual collusion was found." The draft bill appears to protect human rights, but in reality, it guts this provision, completely abolishing it from judicial practice.

Chien Ching Chien Kai stated that during the criminal investigation phase, evidence collection is ongoing, and both evidence and the suspect's defense are in flux, which is different from a post-indictment situation. To uncover the truth during an investigation, it is necessary to maintain an objective space and environment for the truth to emerge. This is why the detention design to "prevent the risk of collusion" exists.

The purpose of detention for collusion is not only to prevent existing collusion but also to prevent the future risk of evidence tampering or collusion. The draft bill forcibly changes this into a "result-based offense," a legislative logic that is completely flawed and extremely foolish. If there is ironclad proof of a criminal's collusion, it means they have already finished colluding. Can they then argue there is no longer a need for detention?

Chien Ching Chien Kai noted that the amendment misleadingly elevates "maintaining order at a search scene" to the level of an "act of arrest," eviscerating the police's processing time without providing any supporting measures.

In police practice, searches of scenes can easily take four to five hours. Larger sites like fraud factories, drug-trafficking boats, or child sexual exploitation rings like 'Creative Private Room' require on-site forensic analysis of computers to prevent remote deletion. Such highly digitized evidence in sex-image crimes requires even longer search times than traditional crimes. From the completion of the search to the final inventory of seized items, it can easily exceed ten hours. If the amendment's time limits lead to hasty searches and loss of evidence, the ones who lose out are all law-abiding citizens.

Chien Ching Chien Kai stated that under current search practices, if a situation warrants an on-the-spot arrest, or if police physically restrain a suspect from leaving, it is already considered an arrest, and the 24-hour clock starts. There are no operational problems. Even if there are isolated cases where police restrain a suspect early and the arrest time is recorded too late, judicial practice would still adopt a calculation favorable to the defendant.

Chien Ching Chien Kai believes the TPP's version overreacts to shadows, directly elevating "maintaining order at a search scene" to "arrest restricting personal freedom." The most absurd part, they argue, is that the draft bill uses a "verbal notification by police" to determine that an "arrest has been made" and uniformly requires the 24-hour clock to start. Such an amendment not only violates legal principles and practice but also scorns the extreme resource constraints of police manpower and time, while offering no supporting measures. This draft, they claim, once again proves that the rights of criminals in Taiwan are unparalleled globally.

Chien Ching Chien Kai emphasized that under the current Code of Criminal Procedure, the human rights of defendants already far exceed those of victims. This proposal completely deviates from legal principles and will accelerate the blackening of Taiwan, bringing disaster to future generations. They criticized the proposal's reasoning as baseless, illogical, and data-free nonsense. They urge certain political parties and legislators not to become accomplices to criminal and fraud groups just to seek a solution for individual cases.