含羞草社区

Taiwan’s anti-corruption framework is primarily established under the Criminal Code and the Anti-Corruption Act (ACA), the latter being a statute specifically designed to address corrupt practices within the public sector. Although commercial bribery is not explicitly criminalised, breach of trust under the Criminal Code and other specific legislative provisions serves as the principal enforcement mechanisms.

Neither the Criminal Code nor the ACA imposes corporate criminal liability for anti-corruption violations. The Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act (PIWPA), 2025 further demonstrates the government’s commitment to combatting corruption and protecting whistleblowers.

Public official bribery laws in Taiwan

Under Taiwanese laws, bribery encompasses the offering, giving, soliciting, demanding or receiving anything of value with the intent to influence the performance of public duties. In addition to bribery in the traditional sense, a notable anti-corruption provision under the Criminal Code and the ACA is the offence of illegally benefitting oneself or another, which does not require the relevant officials to have violated their official duties.

Scope of a public official. Taiwan adopts a broad interpretation of the term “public official” to prevent any loopholes that could allow individuals performing public functions to evade accountability.

Pursuant to the Criminal Code and the ACA, “public official” encompasses: (1) civil servants serving in government agencies; (2) persons authorised to exercise public authority on behalf of governmental entities; and (3) individuals entrusted with the management of public affairs.

This comprehensive framework ensures that all persons vested with public powers are subject to anti-corruption regulations and oversight.

Criminal liabilities for non-public officials acting with public officials. A non-public official who aids, abets or conspires with a public official in the commission of either active or passive bribery is equally liable and subject to punishment under the anti-bribery provisions of the Criminal Code and the ACA. This ensures that all relevant parties involved in acts of bribery, regardless of their official status, are held accountable under the law when working in concert.

Penalties. A public official who accepts unlawful benefits to “breach” an official duty may face a term from 10 years up to life imprisonment, along with substantial monetary fines. A public official who accepts unlawful benefits for acts performed “within their official functions” may face a minimum sentence of seven years and significant fines.

The briber is also subject to imprisonment and fines, calibrated to the severity of the offence. A public official who illegally benefits himself or another shall be punished by imprisonment for a term not less than five years, and may also be punished by a fine not to exceed NTD30 million (USD949,800). Pursuant to the Criminal Code, the illicit proceeds of bribery shall be confiscated or requisitioned.

Commercial bribery laws in Taiwan

A notable structural distinction in Taiwan’s anti-corruption framework is the absence of a standalone offence expressly labelled “commercial bribery”. The acts of corruption occurring between private parties do not automatically incur the same clear-cut criminal liabilities as those applicable to public-sector bribery under the Criminal Code and the ACA.

Criminal breach of trust. In the absence of a specific commercial bribery statute, private-sector corruption is generally prosecuted under existing property or fiduciary offences, most notably criminal breach of trust pursuant to article 342 of the Criminal Code, as well as other specialised statutes.

To establish a charge of breach of trust, the prosecution must satisfy a three-part test.

(1) Violation of a fiduciary duty. The perpetrator (i.e. the bribee, typically an employee) must have breached a fiduciary duty owed to their principal (such as the employer or company).

(2) Intentional breach for illegal benefit. The breach of fiduciary duty must be committed intentionally, to confer an unlawful benefit on the perpetrator or a third party.

(3) Cognisable loss and causation. The principal must have suffered a cognisable property loss, including the loss of expected profit, which is causally linked to the misconduct.

Sectoral prohibitions and penalties. In addition to the Criminal Code, Taiwan’s regulatory framework imposes stricter, sector-specific rules in areas of heightened risk, particularly within the financial sector.

The Banking Act (BA), the Securities and Exchange Act (SEA), and the Financial Holding Company Act (FHCA) all contain specific provisions that criminalise certain corrupt practices by personnel, imposing significantly heavier sanctions than those prescribed under the Criminal Code.

(1) Aggravated breach of trust. Breach of trust under these laws, while interpreted similarly to the Criminal Code, carries significantly harsher penalties. For example, article 125-2 of the BA, article 171 of the SEA, and article 57 of the FHCA prescribe imprisonment terms ranging from three to 10 years, along with substantial fines. If the illicit proceeds exceed NTD100 million, the penalties are further increased.

(2) Facilitation payments prohibitions. Sectoral statutes explicitly prohibit facilitation payments to private individuals. For example, article 35 of the BA prohibits bank personnel from accepting commissions, rebates or other improper benefits in connection with lending, credit or other transactions. Furthermore, pursuant to article 127 of the BA, such prohibited conduct is subject to criminal liability under the aggravated provisions.

Challenges with breach of trust. In certain circumstances, such as cases involving facilitation payments, establishing the requisite cognisable property loss in a breach of trust case can be challenging. In such cases, courts’ attitudes appear ambiguous and inconsistent; some may acquit the defendant, while others may instead convict the defendant of attempted breach of trust.

Corporate criminal liability under Taiwan anti-corruption laws

Neither the ACA nor the Criminal Code imposes criminal liability on corporations. Criminal sanctions under the two statutes apply only to natural persons such as public officials, employees or agents who engage in bribery on behalf of a company.

That said, a company may still be exposed to the risk of dawn raids by law enforcement if its employees or agents are involved in corruption activities under criminal investigation.

Corporate criminal liability under sectoral statutes. Corporate accountability is enforced through a combination of administrative and criminal sanctions, primarily set out in sector-specific regulations within the financial sector.

For example, article 127-4 of the BA prescribes criminal fines against a bank when its employees breach prohibitions on facilitation payments and other corrupt practices. Similarly, article 65 of the FHCA imposes comparable criminal fines for violations of bribery-related provisions committed by employees of financial holding companies.

Government procurement context. Although corporations cannot be criminally prosecuted for bribery of public officials under the Criminal Code or the ACA, they remain subject to administrative penalties, primarily through public procurement mechanisms under the Government Procurement Act (GPA).

When a bribe is paid to secure a government contract, a range of administrative sanctions may be imposed including, but not limited to, debarment, contract rescission and reputational penalties.

Whistleblowing protections under Taiwan’s PIWPA law

The Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act (PIWPA) was enacted and came into effect in 2025. The scope of the act is limited to the public sector, including government-owned and controlled enterprises. To strengthen law enforcement against major crimes such as corruption, the PIWPA not only provides comprehensive protections to whistleblowers – including anti-retaliation measures and confidentiality – but also offers rewards of up to 10% of the fines imposed or assets confiscated to individuals whose reports lead to successful enforcement actions.

Conclusion

Taiwan’s anti-corruption framework is based primarily on the Criminal Code and the ACA. Commercial bribery is punished as “breach of trust” under the Criminal Code and other sector-specific laws, such as the SEA and the FHCA.

Regarding corporate criminal liability, certain laws including the BA and GPA impose criminal liability on corporations for anti-corruption violations committed by their agents or employees. To further strengthen law enforcement efforts against corruption, the PIWPA was enacted and came into effect in 2025.