Telephone
02-77093611
Line
@fdlaw
address
17th Floor, No. 180, Section 2, Dunhua South Road, Da'an District, Taipei City
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!
# 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
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus in securing a not-guilty verdict in corruption cases?
Common key points include whether the defendant has a civil servant status or job affiliation, whether there is a quid pro quo relationship, whether the defendant was aware of the illegality, whether the defendant had the intention to profit, and whether the prosecution's evidence can prove the elements of a crime.
Are the defense strategies for charges of profiteering, accepting bribes, and offering bribes the same?
They are different. The crime of seeking personal gain often focuses on the legal basis, discretionary scope, and illegal benefits; the crime of accepting bribes often focuses on official acts and the quid pro quo relationship; and the crime of offering bribes requires analysis of the purpose of the payment, the recipient, and the chain of evidence.
Do you need to hire a lawyer during the investigation stage of a corruption case?
It is advisable to do this as early as possible. Records taken during the investigation phase, materials seized during searches and seizures, detention hearings, and witness testimonies often influence the direction of subsequent prosecutions and trials; therefore, early strategy is crucial.
Related topic groups and service portals
If you encounter legal issues similar to those described in this article, you typically need to consider contracts, financial transactions, records, company documents, and litigation risks simultaneously, rather than just looking at a single legal provision. Below is a summary of related topics and services offered by Fidelity Law Firm that can be further explored after reading this article.
Extended Theme Group
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the most important thing before being questioned in a corruption case?
First, the scope of duties, administrative procedures, cash flow, contact records, and the consideration that may be identified by the prosecution should be confirmed.
What is the difference between the crime of profiteering and administrative negligence?
The crime of profiteering usually requires examining whether there was knowledge of violating the law and whether a specific person gained an illegal benefit; a crime cannot be presumed simply because of a poor outcome of an administrative decision.
Can private manufacturers also be involved in corruption cases?
Possibly. If interactions with public officials involve money, improper benefits, or procurement interests, they may be examined to determine whether they constitute bribery or complicity.
Further Reading on the Risks of Corruption and Civil Servant Investigations
If you are dealing with company, responsible persons, contracts, financial transactions, investigative, or litigation risks, it is recommended that you first organize the facts, documents, and potential legal proceedings together, rather than relying on a single keyword. The following content can help you explore related topics further and quickly determine your next steps.
Embezzlement, bribery, accepting bribes, seeking personal gain and the risks of investigation by public officials
Major criminal and corporate executive risks
What civil servants need to do when facing corruption investigations
The "Reservoir Theory" of Corruption Cases
What should you be aware of when being interviewed by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) or the Investigation Bureau regarding a corruption case?
The identity of the person notifying you, the suspected crime, their job authority, the decision-making process, the flow of funds and related documents should be clarified first. It is not appropriate to answer the question based on impressions alone, such as the reason for the official act or the receipt of funds.
How to distinguish between the crime of profiteering and administrative negligence?
The crime of profiteering typically examines whether there was knowledge of illegality, whether a specific person obtained an unlawful benefit, whether the discretion of office deviated from the purpose of the law, and whether there was consideration or an improper relationship.
Why should you seek legal counsel as early as possible in a corruption case?
Corruption cases involve severe penalties and intensive investigations. Early statements and seized documents often influence the direction of subsequent defense. Organizing work procedures and evidence in advance can reduce the risk of misjudgment.
If you need legal assistance to determine the next step, you can first organize the above documents and timeline, and then contact Fidelity Law Firm for assistance in assessing the direction of the process. Contact Fidelity Law Firm