Why does our law firm often obtain acquittals in corruption cases? Analysis of key strategies

Last updated: September 28, 2025｜Author:Lawyer Li Yusheng(Fidelity Law's host lawyer/guest legal commentator on political commentary programs)

The key to a successful acquittal in corruption cases

In Taiwan, corruption cases are strictly regulated by the Anti-Corruption Act. Once accused of accepting or offering bribes, the penalty is extremely severe, potentially leading to a sentence of more than five years or even life imprisonment. However, many cases suffer from issues such as insufficient evidence, incorrect application of the law, or disputes over the identification of civil servants. Our law firm has repeatedly achieved acquittals in such cases because we have a precise grasp of the legal issues and litigation strategies. The following are our keys to success:

1. "Identification of civil servants" is the primary point of contention

According to the Anti-Corruption Ordinance, the perpetrator must be a "civil servant" to constitute a corruption offence. Our team is adept at challenging the prosecution's "civil servant determination". Common successful cases include:

Persons who do not hold formal public authority (e.g., personnel from private institutions who are entrusted to perform duties, whether they meet the definition of “authorized public servants” in Article 10, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code).
Whether temporary or contractual positions fall under the category of “persons engaged in public affairs in accordance with the law”.
If it can be proved that the defendant is not a "civil servant" who qualifies for the crime of corruption, the case may be changed to ordinary breach of trust or he may be not guilty at all.

2. The threshold for proving a “consideration relationship” is high

In bribery and bribery cases, prosecutors must prove the existence of a "consideration relationship," meaning a clear connection between the provision of money or benefits and specific official conduct. Our defense strategies include:

Advocate for "personal favors": If the money is a holiday gift, a present or a social etiquette, rather than an exchange of official duties, it does not constitute a crime.
No specific request: If the prosecutor cannot prove a "specific request for official behavior" between the briber and the public servant, it will be difficult to establish a quid pro quo relationship.
In recent years, courts have increasingly scrutinized evidence of “consideration relationships.” Our team excels at overturning weak prosecution arguments through cross-examination of witnesses and analysis of documentary evidence.

3. Exclusion of evidence due to insufficient evidence or illegal acquisition

The high acquittal rate in corruption cases is often due to illegal evidence collection procedures or incorrect fact finding by the prosecutors and investigators. Our key rebuttal directions are:

Confession lacks corroborative evidence: According to Article 156 of the Criminal Procedure Law, a conviction cannot be based solely on confession and must be supported by other evidence.
Illegal wiretapping or search: If the prosecutor violates the Communications Security and Surveillance Act or obtains evidence without a legal search warrant, the prosecutor may request that the court exclude the evidence.
Unclear flow of funds in accounting accounts: If the prosecution cannot prove that the money actually flowed to the defendant, or that the funds had other legitimate sources (such as investment income), it will be difficult to convict.

4. Distinguishing between "official conduct" and "non-official conduct"

Prosecutors often broadly interpret "official conduct," but we will argue based on the specific scope of authority:

Requests outside the scope of duties: If the actions of a civil servant are unrelated to his or her statutory duties, it does not constitute corruption.
Exercise of administrative discretion: If the decision complies with legal procedures and is not made with illegal intent, it does not constitute a crime.
For example: If an official approves an enterprise's application, and the decision complies with the law and there is no evidence that it was made as a result of accepting benefits, then the crime of accepting bribes will not be established.

5. Challenges in Applying Criminal Presumptions

Article 5, Paragraph 1, Clause 3 of the Anti-Corruption Act (accepting bribes while at fault) sometimes applies a "criminal presumption," meaning that as long as a public servant accepts money or property, he or she is presumed to have committed corruption. Our countermeasures:

Submit counter-evidence to prove that the payment has nothing to do with the official duties.
Arguing that the defendant had no "illegal intent" (for example, the money was a loan or repayment).
Many cases were ultimately acquitted because we successfully overturned the "presumption rule".

Conclusion: Precise defense strategy is the key to success

Corruption cases involve complex legal elements, including issues such as public servant status, consideration, official conduct, and the rigor of the evidence. Our team of lawyers, drawing on their extensive litigation experience, accurately identifies loopholes in the prosecutor's arguments and has successfully secured acquittals for numerous clients.

If you or your relatives or friends are involved in corruption, bribery or bribery cases, please contact a professional lawyer immediately to develop the best defense strategy and strive for innocence or the lightest punishment.

About the author | Fidelity Legal Attorney Li Yusheng

📌 Current position:Host attorney at Fidelity Law Firm / Guest legal commentator on political commentary programs

📌 Areas of expertise:Defense of civil servants in corruption cases, political donation cases, and acquittal of crimes related to profiteering

📌 Practice philosophy:"While prosecutors scrutinize every financial transaction under a microscope, we use our expertise to show the court the full picture."

Final reminder: Corruption cases have1-year golden defense periodThe average time from interview to prosecution is only 10 months. Call Fidelity Legal's 24-hour hotline now. 02-77093611, make an appointment for consultation on [Survival Strategies for Corruption Cases].

⚖️ Fidelity Law Firm | 20 Years of Expertise in Corruption, Profiteering, Bribery, and Bribery Defense | Free Preliminary Case Analysis
📞 24-hour Line: @fdlaw
📍 17th Floor, No. 180, Section 2, Dunhua South Road, Da'an District, Taipei City

Click now 👉 Make an appointment for a lawyer consultation 👈 Let professional lawyers help you protect your life!

Further reading:The Anti-Corruption Ordinance imposes a maximum sentence of life imprisonment! A professional corruption lawyer teaches you how to successfully defend yourself against "civil servant crimes" | Fidelity Law Firm

# Corruption # Anti-Corruption Ordinance # Public servant crime # Lawyers specializing in corruption cases # Crime of seeking profit # Crime of accepting bribes # Crime of offering bribes

Fuda Law Firm
Line：https://line.me/ti/p/@fdlaw
Tel:0277093611
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/fudalawyer
website:https://fdlaw.com.tw/
e-mail:info@fdlaw.com.tw