The Taiwan High Court rendered the 103-Jin-Shang-Su-44 Criminal Decision of November 20, 2014 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that supplement to criminal prosecution pursues litigation economy.Whether cases are mutually connected should be observed based on the format of prosecution rather than the outcome of legal examination. If a portion of criminal facts relied on as the basis of prosecution cannot be substantiated, they shall not serve as a basis for rejecting supplemental prosecution.
The original trial court determined in its decision that 6 defendants, namely Ling-chuan Su, Han-wen Chao, Yueh-erh Chen, Po-wei Su, Po-chen Wu and Yung-yuan Shen, allegedly engaged in unauthorized operation of futures consulting business and futures management business under Article 112, Paragraph 5 of the Futures Trading Law in violation of Article 82, Paragraph 1 of the same law. The offenses as prosecuted were committed "during January 2010 through June 2012." However, since the case was exposed by the Taipei City Field Office of the Bureau of Investigation under the Ministry of Justice, the subjective criminal intent and objective criminal acts of the six individuals discontinued when this case was exposed. The defendants Chien-hui Hsu, Yueh-ling Chen and Pei-shan Hsu, who were prosecuted on a supplemental basis in this case, committed their offenses during January through August 2013. As such, the previous case and supplemental offenses were committed at different times as a result of multiple decisions. They were not collective offenders and the several individuals did not commit the same offenses. Therefore, the offenses are not connected to the previous case. Since the prosecution procedure as such violates relevant requirements, a decision was rendered, without oral arguments, not to accept the prosecution.
According to the Decision, however, supplemental prosecution pursues litigation economy. Whether cases are connected should be observed based on the format of prosecution rather than the outcome of legal examination. If a portion of the criminal facts relied on for prosecution cannot substantiate the offenses, they should not used as a basis for rejecting supplemental prosecution. In addition, the mutually connected cases under the subparagraphs of Article 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not limited to those which are directly connected. Even in the absence of direct connections between and among several cases, if they are separately related to other cases when separate trial may result in repetitive investigation or contradictory decisions, such cases should be deemed connected cases and may be combined and tried by one court so as to fulfill the legislative objective of consolidated jurisdiction over related cases.
Therefore, it was held in the Decision that Chien-hui Hsu, Yueh-ling Chen, and Pei-shan Hsu, three defendants in this matter, engaged in criminal offenses jointly with Ling-chuan Su, Yueh-erh Chen and Po-wei Su, the defendants in the previous case, through communication of criminal intent, when they illegally operated futures consulting business and futures management business "during January through August 2013." Therefore, they fulfill the requirement that several offenders committed one or several offenses or several offenders separately committed offenses at the same time and premises under Article 7, Subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the reasons of the prosecution's appeal, which criticized the original decision for being improper, are well-grounded, and the original decision was reversed and remanded.