Former Criminal Investigation Bureau Captain Acquitted of Bribery and Leak Charges Due to Insufficient Evidence
A former captain of the Criminal Investigation Bureau's 8th Investigation Brigade, surnamed Hsu, was acquitted on June 4, 2025, by the Shilin District Prosecutors Office on charges of accepting bribes from a transnational gambling group and leaking investigation secrets. The prosecution found insufficient evidence, citing a lack of chat records and personal data inquiry logs, applying the principle of 'in dubio pro reo'.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: June 4, 2026 at 15:06
- 🔍 Collected: June 4, 2026 at 15:24 (18 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: June 6, 2026 at 15:59 (48h 34m after Collected)
(Central News Agency, reporter Xie Junlin, Taipei, June 4) Hsu, a former captain of the 8th Investigation Brigade of the Criminal Investigation Bureau under the National Police Agency, Ministry of the Interior, was accused of accepting bribes from a transnational gambling group and leaking investigation secrets. After investigation, the Shilin District Prosecutors Office found insufficient evidence and today issued a non-prosecution decision for Hsu, a businessman surnamed Lu, and co-defendants surnamed Pan and Liu.
According to the non-prosecution document from the Shilin District Prosecutors Office, Hsu was introduced by his friend Lu to Pan, a woman who operated a transnational gambling group, and a man surnamed Zhuang. The defendant Liu was an employee of the gambling group.
Hsu was accused of leaking secrets not related to national defense and accepting bribes in violation of his duties. The document stated that Pan contacted Lu to ask Hsu for information about the prosecutor's office's investigation into gambling cases. In July 2018, Hsu allegedly told Pan through Lu, "There are three investigation locations... they won't come to our side."
Later, when the employee Liu went to the police station to give a statement regarding a gambling case, Liu and others sought information on law enforcement operations. Lu invited Hsu to a banquet at the gambling company, and Pan arranged for hostesses to attend. After drinking, they invited Hsu to a hotel, which was considered compensation for Hsu's breach of duty.
Additionally, in February 2019, Pan was asked by a friend surnamed Xiao to check the personal data of a person surnamed Wu. Pan asked Hsu to look it up. After Hsu replied by phone, Pan covered the accommodation and transportation costs for Hsu's family's trip to Japan from February 23 to 28 of the same year, providing Hsu with illegal benefits as compensation for his breach of duty.
During interrogation, all four defendants denied the charges. Hsu argued that he was a good friend of Pan, and the meals, drinks, and hospitality were based on friendship. He claimed Lu never asked him to probe into the judicial investigation of the gambling company, and he could not have revealed the raid locations.
Hsu stated that when he visited the gambling company in July 2018, there were women present, but he was told they were live-streaming company employees. He said he didn't know where they went afterward or who paid. He also admitted that Pan sent him Wu's personal data but claimed he did not reply.
The prosecutor reviewed the LINE chat records of Pan, Hsu, and Lu but found no evidence that Lu asked Hsu for information or that Hsu replied with investigation locations. Without other positive evidence, the prosecutor applied the principle of "in dubio pro reo" (when in doubt, for the defendant) and found it difficult to establish Hsu's guilt on the leak charges.
The prosecutor noted that Hsu's attendance at a banquet with hostesses in July 2018 was seriously inappropriate, but there was no evidence he leaked investigation information. Furthermore, an inquiry to the Department of Household Registration of the Ministry of the Interior for records of inquiries into Wu's household registration data from February 14, 2019, to the end of the year found no records of Hsu making such inquiries.
Regarding Hsu's admission of accepting the Japan trip from Pan, the prosecutor found no evidence of a violation of the Personal Data Protection Act or any breach of duty, and therefore it could not be considered compensation for Hsu's breach of duty.
The prosecutor concluded the case today, issuing a non-prosecution decision for Hsu and the other three due to insufficient evidence. The portion related to the Anti-Corruption Act will be forwarded ex officio to the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office for further review, while the other charges are final and cannot be appealed. (Editor: Zhang Mingkun) 1150604
According to the non-prosecution document from the Shilin District Prosecutors Office, Hsu was introduced by his friend Lu to Pan, a woman who operated a transnational gambling group, and a man surnamed Zhuang. The defendant Liu was an employee of the gambling group.
Hsu was accused of leaking secrets not related to national defense and accepting bribes in violation of his duties. The document stated that Pan contacted Lu to ask Hsu for information about the prosecutor's office's investigation into gambling cases. In July 2018, Hsu allegedly told Pan through Lu, "There are three investigation locations... they won't come to our side."
Later, when the employee Liu went to the police station to give a statement regarding a gambling case, Liu and others sought information on law enforcement operations. Lu invited Hsu to a banquet at the gambling company, and Pan arranged for hostesses to attend. After drinking, they invited Hsu to a hotel, which was considered compensation for Hsu's breach of duty.
Additionally, in February 2019, Pan was asked by a friend surnamed Xiao to check the personal data of a person surnamed Wu. Pan asked Hsu to look it up. After Hsu replied by phone, Pan covered the accommodation and transportation costs for Hsu's family's trip to Japan from February 23 to 28 of the same year, providing Hsu with illegal benefits as compensation for his breach of duty.
During interrogation, all four defendants denied the charges. Hsu argued that he was a good friend of Pan, and the meals, drinks, and hospitality were based on friendship. He claimed Lu never asked him to probe into the judicial investigation of the gambling company, and he could not have revealed the raid locations.
Hsu stated that when he visited the gambling company in July 2018, there were women present, but he was told they were live-streaming company employees. He said he didn't know where they went afterward or who paid. He also admitted that Pan sent him Wu's personal data but claimed he did not reply.
The prosecutor reviewed the LINE chat records of Pan, Hsu, and Lu but found no evidence that Lu asked Hsu for information or that Hsu replied with investigation locations. Without other positive evidence, the prosecutor applied the principle of "in dubio pro reo" (when in doubt, for the defendant) and found it difficult to establish Hsu's guilt on the leak charges.
The prosecutor noted that Hsu's attendance at a banquet with hostesses in July 2018 was seriously inappropriate, but there was no evidence he leaked investigation information. Furthermore, an inquiry to the Department of Household Registration of the Ministry of the Interior for records of inquiries into Wu's household registration data from February 14, 2019, to the end of the year found no records of Hsu making such inquiries.
Regarding Hsu's admission of accepting the Japan trip from Pan, the prosecutor found no evidence of a violation of the Personal Data Protection Act or any breach of duty, and therefore it could not be considered compensation for Hsu's breach of duty.
The prosecutor concluded the case today, issuing a non-prosecution decision for Hsu and the other three due to insufficient evidence. The portion related to the Anti-Corruption Act will be forwarded ex officio to the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office for further review, while the other charges are final and cannot be appealed. (Editor: Zhang Mingkun) 1150604
FAQ
What is a non-prosecution decision?
A decision by the prosecutor not to file a public indictment because the evidence is insufficient to prove the suspect's guilt.
What is 'ex officio review' (再議)?
A mechanism for appealing a non-prosecution decision, where a higher prosecutorial authority reviews the decision's validity.
What is the principle of 'in dubio pro reo'?
A fundamental principle in criminal law stating that any doubt in the evidence should be resolved in favor of the defendant.