Relevant Legal Provision

Article 336, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code：A person who, with respect to property held in the course of business, commits the offense set forth in Paragraph 1 of the preceding article shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than six months and not more than five years, and may additionally be fined up to NT$90,000.

Article 342, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code：A person who handles affairs for another and, with intent to obtain unlawful benefit for himself/herself or a third party, or to cause damage to the principal’s interests, commits an act in violation of his/her duties and thereby causes damage to the principal’s property or other interests, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years, short-term imprisonment, or a fine of up to NT$500,000, or both.

Facts and Reasons

The defendant (our client) was entrusted to sell certain items on behalf of the principal. After the principal passed away, the principal’s son visited the defendant and requested the return of the consigned items that had been placed for sale. The defendant agreed and returned the items as promised; however, some items were not collected by the requesting party. Subsequently, the requesting party filed a criminal complaint against the defendant, alleging business embezzlement and breach of trust.

Prosecutor's Disposition

With respect to the aforementioned embezzlement-related allegations against the defendant, the investigation has concluded, and a non-prosecution decision is warranted.

Upon review, it is established that the principal had indeed entrusted the defendant to sell the items, and the defendant had delivered the proceeds to the principal, as evidenced by signed receipts. Moreover, according to the testimony of the witness (the principal's son), he requested the return of certain items after the principal's death and did retrieve some items and collateral. It is further noted that the defendant signed a written undertaking in accordance with the content read aloud by the witness and provided five items as collateral. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant possessed the requisite subjective intent or conspiratorial intent to commit business embezzlement or breach of trust.
In summary, the defendant bears no criminal liability for business embezzlement; rather, the matter constitutes a civil dispute between the parties that should be resolved through civil proceedings. It is therefore inappropriate to impose criminal liability. Furthermore, upon further review, there is no other affirmative evidence sufficient to establish that the defendant committed any criminal offense. Accordingly, the suspicion of crime is insufficient, and a decision of non-prosecution is issued.

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