4 February 2021
The Supreme Court rendered the 109-Tai-Shang-4070 Decision of September 10, 2020 (hereinafter, the “Decision”), holding that if an actor obtains the evidence of the facts relied on for his/her complaint, tip or report in advance through reasonable verification and objectively believes in the facts so verified when filing a complaint, tip or report, the actor should not be held liable for the offense of malicious accusation.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, A was the founder of Company B and the father of C, who is currently the Chairman of Company B. Appellant D is the son of E, C’s elder brother, and A’s grandchild. A borrowed D’s name when registering Company B’s shares (hereinafter, the “Shares at Issue”). Obviously aware that the transfer of the Shares at Issue and the matter concerning C were entrusted by A, and that it was not C that transferred the Shares at Issue under C’s name by forgery of documents without authorization, D attempted to subject C to criminal punishment and, out of the intent to make false accusations, retained a lawyer as D’s agent to file a complaint with the Tainan District Prosecutors Office, falsely accusing that C obtained the actual management right of Company B after A formally announced his retirement. To achieve that end, D falsely alleged that the sale of the Shares at Issue held by A to C was a false transaction conducted in an attempt to claim as C’s own the Shares at Issue held by D, and that C amended the registration of Company B with the competent authority by changing the sum of C’s original shareholding and the Shares at Issue to be 17,100 shares, which undermined D’s shareholder’s equity, in violation of Article 214 of the Criminal Code for the alleged offense of causing a civil servant to record false information (hereinafter, the “Criminal Complaint at issue”). The Tainan District Prosecutors Office subsequently rendered a final non-prosecutorial disposition. C subsequently brought private prosecution.
According to the Decision, the establishment of the offense of malicious accusation is preconditioned by an attempt to subject another person to criminal punishment or disciplinary action by deliberating fabricating non-existent facts and filing a false complaint, tip or report. If the actor has obtained evidence for the facts relied on for the complaint, tip or report after reasonable verification is conducted in advance and objectively believes in the verity of the facts so verified, when the actor files a complaint, tip or report for reasons such as rights protection, pursuit of the truth or realization of public interest, the actor should not be held liable for the offense of malicious accusation. Conversely, if the evidence obtained by an actor is sufficient to allow him/her to know that the suspected facts are not true but the actor still insists on pressing criminal charges, which run counter to the truth, in an attempt to subject another person to criminal punishment, such actor cannot be exempt from the liability for the offense of malicious accusation.
It was further indicated in this Decision that the original decision contained the following detailed arguments after evidence such as the testimony of Witness X and the conversation audio recorded by the Appellant was examined: when the Appellant accompanied A to Company B, the conversation between A and the Appellant did mention the transfer of the Shares at Issue, and A requested X to make a false statement in the event of a lawsuit in the future to falsely allege that the shares were transferred under the name of C at C’s request, and the Appellant was also present and learned about this on site. The above arguments in the original decision are also consistent with the court files. This is sufficient to show that the Shares at Issue were transferred by X at A’s instructions, not transferred and registered under C’s name without authorization by Private Prosecutor C. Since the Appellant, who had already known the truth, still insisted on pressing criminal charges, which run counter to the truth, in an attempt to subject Private Prosecutor C to criminal punishment, the Appellant certainly cannot be exempt from the liability for the offense of malicious accusation.
For further information, please contact:
Frank Sun, Lee Tsai & Partners
lawtec@leetsai.com
