The Supreme Court rendered the 103-Tai-Shang-4083 Criminal Decision of November 20, 2014 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), in which the criteria for establishing the offense of receiving kickbacks for handling public infrastructure projects under Article 4, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of the Anti-corruption Statute were expounded. Whether the so-called "kickbacks" are agreed before or after the other party is awarded a project contract, directly withheld or deducted from construction material costs or project payment or paid through any separately raised fund does not affect the establishment of this offense.

According to the facts underlying the Decision, Appellants Mao-shun Chen and Chin-tsan Yu were the Mayor and Chief Secretary of Shuilin Township, respectively. When organizing the 20-item post-disaster recovery public infrastructure project at issue for the township government, they used Appellant Yu-min Hsu, cousin of Mao-shun Chen, to be the "white gloves" to ask Chun-ming Cheng, the representative of a supplier, before bid opening for the project to estimate the possible bid-winning amount first before withholding and delivering a certain amount from the project payment. Such amount should be deemed a "kickback" within the meaning of the Anti-corruption Statute and constitutes the offense of receiving kickbacks for handling public infrastructure projects under Article 4, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of the Anti-corruption Statute. Dissatisfied with the original decision, the Appellants filed this appeal.

According to the Decision, the offense of receiving kickbacks for handling public infrastructure projects under Article 4, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of the Anti-corruption Statute specifically prohibits civil servants from receiving kickbacks from the public infrastructure projects they handle to prevent any supplier from doing shoddy work or using inferior materials to reduce project quality. The so-called "kickbacks" refer to amounts collected by withholding a certain percentage or deducting a certain portion of the payable construction material cost or project payment for the public infrastructure. Whether the kickbacks are agreed before or after the other party is awarded with a project contract, directly withheld or deducted from the payable construction material cost or project payment or paid through a fund raised by the other party makes no difference and does not affect the establishment of this offense. In addition, it is held in the Decision that since the original decision contains very detailed descriptions of relevant facts and evidence without any legal violation, the Appellants' appeal was rejected.