Relevant Legal Provisions

Facts and Reasons

The defendant (our client) served as the chief commissioner of a residential building community. To handle community affairs, they convened a meeting of subdivided owners on a specific day (hereafter referred to as "the Meeting") and, following the meeting, prepared minutes to submit to the supervising authority as required by law. Subsequently, a dispute arose during the implementation of a resolution prohibiting advertisements on exterior walls above the second floor, leading to accusations against the defendant for document forgery and breach of trust.

Arguments by Our Firm's Lawyers

Argument Upon investigation, it was found that the resolutions from the Meeting were based on a vote by the owners, with the required subdivided ownership ratio in compliance with the community's bylaws.

Moreover, the allegations were based on the complainant’s single claim without any objective evidence proving the defendant committed document forgery or breach of trust during the Meeting. Furthermore, all attendees at the Meeting were either the property owners themselves or their representatives with legally authorized proxies. The sign-ins and votes were conducted by the respective owners or their proxies, with no indication that the defendant impersonated others or signed on their behalf.

After the meeting, minutes were duly recorded and submitted to the supervising authority. The defendant did not breach any statutory duties as the chief commissioner of the community, nor was there any basis for the breach of trust accusation. In summary, as the chief commissioner and chairman of the Meeting, the defendant adhered to all procedures legally, with objective records showing no irregularities. The complainant, despite being aware of the legitimacy of the proceedings, filed a complaint with the prosecutor’s office, although there was no basis for alleging forgery or breach of trust.

Prosecutor’s Disposition

The prosecutor, having concluded the investigation, deemed that a non-prosecution disposition was appropriate in the case of the forgery charges.

Based on witness testimony, it was clear that the defendant had attended the Meeting and recorded the minutes per the paper voting results. As the convener, the defendant had the right to prepare the meeting minutes, thereby not meeting the criteria for document forgery. The prosecution determined it was not feasible to prosecute the defendant solely based on the complainant’s single accusation. Regarding the issue of whether advertisements could be placed on walls above the second floor, the vote outcome was largely against it.

Therefore, it was difficult to view the defendant’s record in the minutes as indicating any intent to breach trust. Additionally, the witness confirmed no property loss had occurred. Thus, there was no possibility of the defendant committing a breach of trust.

Defense Attorneys:Ian Ya

>Consult Now