Sentenced to 5 years for alleged favoritism? How did Fidelity's legal team help a public official secure a "non-prosecution" sanction? (Real case analysis)

Last updated: November 5, 2025｜Author:Lawyer Li Yusheng(Fidelity Law's host lawyer/guest legal commentator on political commentary programs)

Foreword: That summons almost ruined his 20-year public service career.

"Lawyer, I really didn't take any money. I just want to finish the project as soon as possible..." These were the first words that Section Chief Zhang (pseudonym) said to us, trembling, when he first came to Fuda Law Firm.

Section Chief Zhang, a senior civil servant with over 20 years of experience in public works, was worried that delays in the project during the typhoon season would cause flooding. Without completing the necessary design change procedures, he verbally agreed to allow the contractor to alter the construction methods. Although the project was completed on schedule, the contractor saved some costs. Section Chief Zhang was subsequently summoned by the investigative authorities for questioning on suspicion of violating Article 6 of the Anti-Corruption Act, "profiteering."

This is a typical tragedy:He was selfless and devoted to public service, but inadvertently crossed the line into the law. Faced with a prison sentence of more than five years and the possibility of losing his pension, Section Chief Zhang's life plummeted to rock bottom.

This article will share the key strategies by which Fidelity Law Firm assisted Section Chief Zhang in successfully securing a "non-prosecution" decision during the investigation stage.

I. The prosecution's charges: Why does this constitute "profiteering"?

In the early stages of the case, the prosecutor adopted a very tough stance. The prosecution's logic seemed flawless:

1. Violation of the law: The Government Procurement Law stipulates that design changes must go through legal procedures. Section Chief Zhang was "knowing" of the regulations but failed to comply, which constitutes intentional violation of the law.
2. Gain benefits: The manufacturer saved approximately 500,000 yuan in construction costs by changing the construction method; this is considered "illegal profit."
3. causation: Because Section Chief Zhang's illegal permits led to profits for the manufacturers, he was guilty of the crime of profiteering.

According to the Corruption and Bribery Ordinance, the crime of profiting from corruption is...5 years or more imprisonmentIf prosecuted, even if granted probation, his civil service career will be over.

II. The lawyer's reversal strategy: shifting the charge from "criminal intent" to "administrative negligence"

Upon taking the case, Fidelity's legal team immediately reviewed the entire case file and drafted three main defense strategies. Our goal was clear:Before filing a lawsuit, you need to convince the prosecutor that it was just an "administrative oversight".

Strategy 1: Dismantle the intent of "knowingly violating the law"

The core of the crime of profiting from others' interests lies in "knowingly". We delved into all the meeting minutes and official correspondence at the time and found that although Section Chief Zhang had procedural flaws, he had submitted a report in an internal meeting stating that "in response to disaster prevention needs, the construction method needs to be adjusted urgently", and received instructions from his superiors to "handle it as soon as possible". The lawyer argued: Section Chief Zhang's subjective intention was for "public interest (disaster prevention)" and "administrative efficiency," not for profiting the manufacturers. His omission of the procurement procedure was based on a misjudgment of the emergency situation, which constitutes "negligence," and the crime of profiting does not punish negligence.

Strategy 2: Recalculate "illegal profits"

The prosecution's finding that "the manufacturer profited 500,000 NTD" is incorrect. We collaborated with professional engineers to recalculate the costs, proving that although the manufacturer saved on material costs, the rush to complete the project increased labor costs for nighttime construction. After careful calculation, we determined that the manufacturer did not actually obtain excess profits. The lawyer argued: If the manufacturer does not obtain any substantial "illegal profit", then all the elements constituting the crime of profiteering are missing, and the crime is not established.

Strategy 3: Citing favorable Supreme Court rulings

We cited several Supreme Court acquittals to emphasize that "the line between serving the people and seeking personal gain is very thin." If a public official has not accepted bribes and their actions were motivated by official duties, the judiciary should grant them greater leniency and should not harshly punish administrative negligence.

III. Final Outcome: No prosecution, innocence restored.

After months of back-and-forth in the investigative court, the prosecutor ultimately accepted the defense arguments presented by Fidelity's legal team.

The prosecutor stated in the decision not to prosecute:

"Although the defendant made a procedural error, his motive was to expedite the project to avoid disaster, and it is difficult to conclude that he had the intent to gain illegal profits... Therefore, the decision not to prosecute is made."

The moment Section Chief Zhang received the letter of non-prosecution, he was moved to tears in his office. He kept his job and his innocence.

IV. Three Pieces of Advice from Lawyers to Civil Servants

Section Chief Zhang's case is not an isolated incident. To avoid repeating the same mistake, we suggest:

1. The procedure is more important than the result: In the civil service, procedural justice often takes precedence over substantive results. Even when rushing to meet deadlines, legal procedures (such as design changes and price negotiations) should never be omitted.
2. Leave written evidence: All decisions must be documented in writing or signed; never act solely based on verbal instructions. This is the strongest shield to prove your lack of criminal intent in the future.
3. Contact a lawyer immediately: If unfortunately summoned for questioningThe investigation stage (before prosecution) is the golden period for rescue.Once indicted and the case goes to court, the variables increase significantly. It is crucial to seek assistance from a lawyer specializing in corruption cases before being questioned.

V. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: What if I am acquitted of the crime of profiteering, but I have already been suspended from my job? A: If you are ultimately found not guilty, you can apply for reinstatement and request back pay for the period of suspension. This is why we emphasize that "fighting for a no-prosecution" is the most important thing, as it can avoid the torment of a lengthy suspension and litigation.

Q2: If I have already confessed and pleaded guilty, is there any hope for me? A: Although the Anti-Corruption Ordinance provides for reduced sentences upon confession, if your actions do not constitute a crime at all (e.g., merely administrative negligence), we will assess whether to recant your confession or seek acquittal. This requires a high degree of legal expertise, so please consult a lawyer.

Q3: Is there a difference between hiring a regular lawyer and hiring a "corruption specialist" lawyer? A: The difference is huge. Corruption cases involve complex administrative regulations and procurement practices. If a lawyer cannot understand official document procedures or grasp the blind spots in procurement law, it is difficult to persuade the prosecutor in the investigative court.

Conclusion: Don't let fear devour your rights.

When faced with an investigation by the state apparatus, an individual's power is insignificant. But the law protects those who understand it.Fuda Law Firm With extensive experience in defending those convicted of corruption, we not only understand the law, but also the ecosystem of the civil service system.

If you are facing a similar predicament, believe that things can still turn around.

[Click here – Schedule an emergency consultation with Fidelity's legal team regarding your corruption case.]

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