The Supreme Court rendered the 104-Tai-Shang-76 Criminal Decision of January 8, 2015 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that an act engaged out of one's job responsibilities would meet the preconditions for the "official act" for an offense of bribery as long as such responsibilities are general responsibilities of such civil servant under laws and regulations, and this is not limited to the affairs actually and specifically handled by such civil servant. As long as illegal remuneration and the act engaged by a civil servant are sufficient to conclude, according to general social concepts, that the giver and taker both subjectively reach a tacit agreement with both expecting something as the consideration, a relationship of consideration should still be deemed to exist, even if the delivery is made under pretexts such as social gifts or political contribution.
According to the facts underlying the Decision, it was held that some Appellants of this case, i.e., Chih-hsiang Liao, a civil servant who received six bribes totaling NT$2.7 million from Hsien-chin Tang, and Chung-hsiao Hsieh, another civil servant who received two bribes totaling NT$40,000 I from Jui-yi Lin, both committed an offense of bribery for an official act. However, both appealed on the ground that there was no relationship of consideration.
According to the Decision, for an official act engaged of a civil servant's responsibilities, the civil servant would commit an offense of bribery if such responsibilities are assumed by the civil servant based on the specific authority associated with such responsibilities. In the absence of such specific authority (sharing of certain affairs) associated with such responsibilities when only general responsibilities of such civil servant are involved, the "job responsibilities" required for the offense of bribery would still be constituted if they are part of the general responsibilities under laws and regulations, and this is not limited to the specific affairs actually handled by such civil servant. This also applies even if such responsibilities are auxiliary responsibilities assumed at the instruction and under the supervision of a superior civil servant, or if they are just acting on behalf of others or if they are future responsibilities. It was further pointed out in the Decision that whether a certain relationship of consideration exists between bribery and job responsibilities should be determined by the court based on specific facts of a case. If it is sufficient to conclude, according to general social concepts, that the giver and taker subjectively have entered into a tacit agreement with both expecting something as the consideration, even if deliveries are made under pretexts such as social gifts or political contribution. It would be difficult to contend that since the job responsibilities are not involved, there is no relationship of consideration.
It was further concluded in the Decision that the reasons why Hsien-chin Tang's argument that the delivery of NT$2.7 million to Chih-hsiang Liao was just part of a courtesy call during the Chinese New Year or other festivals and was also part of general social exchanges and Chung-hsiao Hsieh's acceptance of NT$40,000 from Jui-yi Lin was merely a contribution to a Chinese New Year banquet are not acceptable have been explained in detail. Since the original decision is not illegal, the appeal of the above-mentioned individuals was rejected.