Taipei, April 25: The government of Taiwan asks Beijing for help to return their fraud money. Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Chiu Chui-cheng on Thursday said that they asked Beijing to provide information on Chinese fraud victims so that it can return more than NT$200 million (US$6.58 million) seized in Taiwan.
According to Chiu, the Chinese authorities have not responded yet and even gave information that the Ministry of Justice would continue its efforts to establish contact. She further added saying that the Taiwan High prosecutors office asked local prosecutors offices to list all cases involving the defrauding of Chinese and asked the money seized from suspects amounted to more than NT$200 million. In accordance with the Cross-Strait Joint Crime-Fighting and Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement, the Ministry of Taiwan later asked for judicial assistance.
Tsai Chiu-ming leading Department of International and Cross-Strait Legal Affairs, Taiwan called for the two sides to hold talks to devise a method to return the illicit money as Taiwan’s legal methods for returning money are different from China’s. Tsai said that Taiwan cannot remit money directly to an individual’s bank account and has to send it to an account provided by the Chinese Ministry of Public Security which transfers the funds to fraud victims.
According to Tsai since April 2014, when Taiwan first returned money defrauded from Chinese victims, it has returned a total of NT$18.17 million. The failure of Beijing to respond is another sign of the chill in cross-strait relations. Cross-strait ties have stalled since President Tsai Ing-wen took office in May last year, replacing her Beijing-friendly predecessor, Ma Ying-jeou. Tsai has also refused to heed Beijing’s calls to acknowledge the so-called ‘1992 consensus’.
Su Chi admitted that the 1992 consensus is a term former Mainland Affairs Council chairman making up in 2000 which refers to a tacit understanding between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Beijing that both sides acknowledge there is one China with each side having its own interpretation of what China means.