Bid-Rigging Allegations: Why an Accomplice’s Confession Alone Is Not Enough
商品圖像
-
商品資訊
目錄
※ This article is adapted from Taiwan Taichung District Court Criminal Judgment No. 1748 of 2024 , which is publicly available court information.
This case was not handled by Chien Sheng International Law Firm. The firm provides this objective analysis of the court’s key legal findings solely for the purpose of promoting public understanding of Taiwan’s Government Procurement Act. Information identifying the parties and government entities involved has been anonymized.
In government procurement projects, it is common for a successful bidder to subcontract part of the work to another contractor. However, when disputes arise over construction delays or payments, an ordinary commercial disagreement may escalate into a criminal allegation.
In practice, a subcontractor who has fallen out with the successful bidder may report that the bidder arranged for other companies to submit sham bids simply to satisfy the minimum number of bidders. When such allegations come from a former business partner or other “insider,” the accused may face significant difficulty defending against them.
Through a recent acquittal issued by the Taiwan Taichung District Court, this article examines how courts apply strict evidentiary standards when prosecutors rely primarily on the confession or testimony of an alleged accomplice.
1. Case Background and Prosecutors’ Allegations
The case arose from a construction procurement project conducted by a state-owned enterprise, with a budget exceeding NT$14 million.
According to the prosecution, “Xiaoyan” intended to submit a bid through Company A. To ensure that the tender could proceed and increase Company A’s chances of winning, she allegedly asked “Mr. Chen,” a contractor she knew, for assistance.
Prosecutors alleged that Xiaoyan provided Mr. Chen with NT$1.42 million and instructed him to use Companies B and C to submit additional bids, thereby creating the false appearance that at least three qualified companies were genuinely competing for the contract. In return, Xiaoyan allegedly promised to subcontract the civil engineering work to Mr. Chen if Company A won the tender.
➙ Company A ultimately won the contract. However, after receiving a report, prosecutors and investigators launched an investigation.
During questioning, Mr. Chen admitted his involvement and accused Xiaoyan of being the person who financed and directed the bid-rigging scheme behind the scenes.
Based on his statements, prosecutors indicted Xiaoyan and Company A under Article 87, Paragraph 3 of the Government Procurement Act for allegedly using fraudulent means to cause an incorrect result in the opening of bids.
An Accomplice’s Confession Must Be Supported by Corroborating Evidence
In addressing Mr. Chen’s accusations, the court first reiterated a fundamental principle of Taiwan’s criminal procedure.
Under Article 156, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a confession made by a defendant or alleged accomplice cannot serve as the sole basis for a conviction. Other necessary evidence must be examined to determine whether the confession is consistent with the facts.
The purpose of this rule is to reduce the risk of false statements made by an accomplice who may be attempting to shift responsibility or retaliate against another person.
When examining Mr. Chen’s statements, the court identified significant inconsistencies and weaknesses.
At different stages of the investigation, Mr. Chen gave conflicting accounts regarding who provided the bid bonds for the other companies and who prepared the bidding documents.
More importantly, the persons responsible for Companies B and C both stated during the investigation that they had dealt only with Mr. Chen. They did not know Xiaoyan and had never heard of Company A.
The court considered this testimony significant because it weakened the alleged direct connection between Xiaoyan and the companies accused of submitting sham bids and did not establish that she had personally participated in arranging those bids.
Bank Transactions and Recordings Are Not Conclusive Proof of Bid Rigging
To corroborate Mr. Chen’s statements, prosecutors presented bank records showing that Xiaoyan had withdrawn NT$1.37 million in cash. They argued that the money was intended to cover the bid bonds for Companies B and C, which totaled NT$1.42 million.
However, Xiaoyan produced an IOU signed by Mr. Chen, stating that he had borrowed NT$1.37 million from Company A and had received the full amount in cash.
After reviewing the evidence, the court accepted the IOU as genuine and found that the transaction could be explained as an ordinary loan.
Furthermore, the NT$1.42 million in alleged bid bonds did not match the NT$1.37 million cash withdrawal. The bank record therefore could not establish that the withdrawn funds were used to finance the alleged bid-rigging scheme.
➙ Prosecutors also submitted a secretly recorded conversation made by Mr. Chen.
After carefully reviewing the transcript, however, the court found that the conversation concerned construction details and project costs. There was no discussion of arranging sham bids, adding bidders merely to satisfy bidding requirements, or other conduct directly indicating bid rigging.
The recording therefore could not establish Xiaoyan’s participation in the alleged offense.
Could the Allegation Have Been Motivated by Retaliation Over a Construction Dispute?
After finding that the prosecution’s objective evidence did not sufficiently corroborate Mr. Chen’s accusations, the court further examined whether he had a motive to make statements unfavorable to Xiaoyan.
The court requested information regarding contract performance from the state-owned enterprise that conducted the tender and heard testimony from relevant witnesses.
The evidence established an important fact: after Company A won the contract, Xiaoyan did in fact subcontract part of the construction work to Mr. Chen as agreed.
However, Mr. Chen later fell seriously behind schedule, which ultimately resulted in the project owner terminating its contract with Company A.
A serious dispute subsequently arose between the parties over advance payments and the settlement of construction fees, and their relationship deteriorated significantly during negotiations.
Based on these circumstances, the court found that Mr. Chen’s accusations, made after the business relationship had broken down, could have been influenced by a motive for retaliation. This substantially weakened the credibility of his statements and meant that they could not be accepted without sufficient corroborating evidence.
Strict Evidentiary Standards and the Principle of Reasonable Doubt
After considering all of the evidence, the court emphasized that criminal proceedings must adhere to strict evidentiary standards.
Under Article 154, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, criminal facts must be established by evidence, and no criminal fact may be found without sufficient evidence.
In addition, Article 301, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the court to render a judgment of acquittal when the alleged offense cannot be proven.
The prosecution must therefore present evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In this case, apart from Mr. Chen’s statements—which contained inconsistencies and were potentially affected by a retaliatory motive—the prosecution’s bank records and audio recording did not establish that Xiaoyan had objectively participated in the alleged bid-rigging arrangement.
Because reasonable doubt remained as to whether Xiaoyan had committed the alleged offense, the court applied the principle that doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused and ultimately acquitted both Xiaoyan and Company A.
2. Conclusion: Responding When a Business Dispute Becomes a Criminal Case
This judgment provides an important reminder for businesses participating in government procurement projects: a commercial dispute can sometimes develop into a serious criminal allegation.
When a former business partner or subcontractor makes accusations against a company, properly preserving objective evidence—including IOUs, contracts, payment records, meeting records, and other business documents—may become critical to the defense.
An experienced criminal defense lawyer can also help identify inconsistencies in the allegations, analyze whether an accomplice’s statements are supported by independent evidence, and challenge weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.
※ Once again, this article is an objective analysis of a publicly available court judgment and the case was not handled by Chien Sheng International Law Firm.
Chien Sheng International Law Firm has experience handling major economic crime and Government Procurement Act matters. If you or your company is facing a government procurement dispute or related criminal allegations, our legal team can assist in evaluating the evidence, developing an appropriate defense strategy, and protecting your rights throughout the criminal proceedings.
Chien Sheng International Law Firm
LINE Online Legal Consultation: @lawuicc001 (Click to consult)
Welcome to call to schedule a meeting: 03-3150-034
Multiple payment methods available: Cash, Credit Card, Bank Transfer
Facebook: Chien Sheng International Law Firm
Instagram: chien.sheng_
-
商品Q&A
