Legal Consultant

When a company discovers that its purchasing manager or employee is suspected of receiving kickbacks from suppliers, the most important first step is usually not to immediately confront the employee, nor to decide whether to sue for breach of trust or embezzlement, but rather to preserve evidence. The real questions to investigate in purchasing kickback cases are: What purchasing authority did this employee originally have? Why did the supplier pay him? Did the purchase price increase as a result? Did the company lose discounts or better terms it could have obtained? Were there any false quotes, false invoices, inflated prices, or related-party transactions? Did the kickback ultimately flow to the employee, their relatives, or other companies? Confronting too early might result in the deletion of LINE messages, emails, quotation materials, or supplier records; filing a lawsuit based solely on a single private transfer might also fail due to a lack of evidence…

If a company's head, director, or executive suddenly receives a notification from the investigation bureau, the first thing they should do is not rush to guess what crime they have committed, nor rely solely on memory to give a statement. Instead, they should first confirm their legal status, the transactions or events under investigation, whether other executives have been questioned, and whether contracts, ledgers, bank statements, emails, and company decision-making records corroborate each other. If the company has already been searched, they should immediately confirm the scope of the search, which mobile phones, computers, ledgers, and company documents were actually seized, and whether they might be directly transferred to the district prosecutor's office for further questioning. These types of corporate and white-collar criminal cases typically involve more than just reviewing a single document; they require cross-referencing decision-making processes, transaction purposes, accounting records, fund flows, and statements from relevant personnel. Therefore, the earlier original data is preserved and a timeline established…

The core of commercial accounting law cases is not "a crime is committed simply because the accounts are wrong," but rather determining whether accounting vouchers, ledgers, or financial statements do not match actual transactions, and whether relevant personnel knowingly created, recorded, used, or intentionally omitted false information. Whether company leaders, accountants, or those entrusted with accounting matters are criminally liable cannot be determined solely by their professional titles; it requires comparing actual transactions, the source of vouchers, accounting procedures, bank flows, decision-making processes, and the individual's subjective understanding. What does Article 71 of the Commercial Accounting Law primarily punish? The current Article 71 of the Commercial Accounting Law targets commercial leaders, principal and managing accountants, and those legally entrusted to handle accounting matters for others, regulating those who knowingly prepare accounting vouchers or record false information in ledgers, or intentionally cause financial statements to show discrepancies…