Relevant Legal Provisions

Article 336, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code：Whoever commits the crime under Paragraph 1 of the preceding article with respect to property held in the course of business shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than six months but not more than five years, and may also be fined up to ninety thousand New Taiwan Dollars.

Facts and Reasons

Several years ago, the complainant, serving as the chairman of a labor union, faced unstable income of the union, which made it impossible to pay members' labor and health insurance premiums. The complainant then borrowed money from the defendant. Because of their established personal relationship and mutual trust, the defendant lent several hundred thousand dollars to the union. Later, the also repaid part of the loan. Unexpectedly, years later, due to the deterioration of the relationship between the complainant and the defendant, and the appearance of discrepancies in the union's accounts, the complainant accused the defendant of embezzling funds, denied ever having borrowed money from the defendant, and instead alleged that the defendant had used the union's seal without authorization. Feeling deeply wronged, the defendant sought assistance from our firm.

Prosecutor's Disposition

With respect to the above-mentioned embezzlement case, after the investigation was concluded, the Prosecutor's Office determined that a non-prosecution disposition was appropriate.

According to the testimony of the accountant, the union's official seal and passbook were kept by the accountant, while the smaller seal was kept by the chairman (i.e., the complainant). The chairman would not have handed the smaller seal to the defendant for use. The accountant further confirmed that there was indeed a loan transaction at the time. In addition, the transfer vouchers bore the stamps and approvals of the then-chairman (the complainant), the standing supervisor, and the accountant. Under common sense, how could the complainant have been completely unaware of the matter? Whether the complainant's allegations were true was clearly doubtful. At that time, the complainant was the chairman; if the defendant could have freely used the union's funds without the chairman's knowledge, it would be implausible to the general public. Therefore, it was impossible to convict the defendant solely based on the complainant's unsubstantiated claims.


(Some details of the case have been adjusted or omitted to protect the parties' rights.)

 
Attorneys: Vincent Huang、Ian Yan、Ian Lee