An employee who holds company property as part of their work and treats it as their own may commit business embezzlement under Criminal Code Article 336. Someone who handles company affairs, breaches their duty and causes loss without holding that property may instead face breach-of-trust liability under Article 342. Neither offense generally requires a victim's complaint, though specific family relationships can change that. A company may also seek civil damages, and an accused employee retains procedural rights in questioning.
Is it embezzlement or breach of trust?
The relationship to the property matters. If an employee possesses company property through their work and converts it to their own use, such as cash entrusted to them, Article 336 may apply. If an employee does not hold the property but abuses decision-making authority in handling another's affairs and causes loss, Article 342 may apply. False expense claims or a manager favoring a supplier in exchange for a kickback require close assessment of the actual acts and intent.
Embezzlement requires intent to appropriate property unlawfully for oneself or a third person. Breach of trust requires intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or a third person, or to harm the person whose affairs are handled. More than one offense may be relevant on particular facts.
What is business embezzlement and its penalty?
Under Article 336(2), embezzling property held through one's business or work is punishable by six months to five years' imprisonment and a possible fine of up to NT$90,000. Article 336(1) covers property held in an official or public-interest capacity, with one to seven years and a possible fine of up to NT$150,000. Attempts are punishable under Article 336(3).
Whether appropriation has been completed depends on outward conduct showing an intention to treat entrusted property as one's own; an actual shortfall in the company's accounts is not necessarily required. The factual circumstances must be examined.
對於公務上或因公益所持有之物，犯前條第一項之罪者，處一年以上七年以下有期徒刑，得併科十五萬元以下罰金。對於業務上所持有之物，犯前條第一項之罪者，處六月以上五年以下有期徒刑，得併科九萬元以下罰金。前二項之未遂犯罰之。（刑法第336條）
Unofficial English summary (not an official translation): Criminal Code Article 336 sets one to seven years for official or public-interest embezzlement and six months to five years for business embezzlement, with possible additional fines and punishable attempts.
What is breach of trust?
Article 342 applies when a person handling another's affairs breaches that duty with the intent to obtain an unlawful benefit for themselves or someone else, or to harm the principal, and thereby damages the principal's property or other interests. The penalty is up to five years' imprisonment or short-term detention, and/or a fine of up to NT$500,000. Attempts are punishable.
Unlike business embezzlement, breach of trust does not require possession of a specific asset. A manager's misuse of approval authority may matter even without physically taking company property.
Must the company file a complaint before prosecution?
Generally no. Prosecutors can investigate business embezzlement and breach of trust without a complaint from the company; a company complaint is not a condition for prosecution.
Criminal Code Articles 338 and 343 apply Article 324's family rules to these offenses. For offenses between direct-line blood relatives, spouses, or relatives living together and sharing finances, the court may exempt punishment under Article 324(1). An offense between those relatives, or between other blood relatives within the fifth degree or relatives by marriage within the third degree, is complaint-only under Article 324(2). These are separate rules, and an ordinary company–employee case does not acquire a family exception merely because the employee has relatives.
於直系血親、配偶或同財共居親屬之間，犯本章之罪者，得免除其刑。前項親屬或其他五親等內血親或三親等內姻親之間，犯本章之罪者，須告訴乃論。（刑法第324條，依第338條、第343條準用於侵占罪章及詐欺背信罪章）
Unofficial English summary (not an official translation): Articles 338 and 343 extend Article 324's possible exemption from punishment for the first group of relatives and its complaint requirement for both specified groups to embezzlement and breach of trust.
What should an employer do after discovering suspected misuse?
The company may report or complain to police or a district prosecutors' office. Preserve approval records, accounting documents, statements and transaction records promptly so the money trail can be reconstructed.
Assess the applicable civil and criminal time limits and whether a provisional attachment or other preservation measure is appropriate before assets are disposed of, since later recovery may otherwise become harder.
What rights does an accused employee have?
Before questioning, the employee must be informed of the suspected offense and charges, the right to remain silent, the right to choose counsel, and the right to request investigation of favorable evidence (Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 95).
Embezzlement requires intent to appropriate property unlawfully. Breach of trust requires intent to obtain an unlawful benefit for oneself or another, or to harm the principal's interests. Where a dispute arises from business judgment or a misunderstanding of authority, examine whether there was an intentional breach of duty; company loss alone does not establish a crime. See also how to prepare for police questioning.
Can a company seek civil damages as well?
Yes. A civil claim and a criminal investigation are distinct. A company can assess a damages claim without waiting for the criminal case to conclude. Civil Code Article 184(1) provides for damages for intentional or negligent unlawful infringement of another's rights.
Article 184(2) also addresses harm caused by violating a law intended to protect others, unless the actor proves an absence of negligence. The company should assess the claim, evidence and applicable time limit separately from the criminal process.
因故意或過失，不法侵害他人之權利者，負損害賠償責任。故意以背於善良風俗之方法，加損害於他人者亦同。違反保護他人之法律，致生損害於他人者，負賠償責任。但能證明其行為無過失者，不在此限。（民法第184條）
Unofficial English summary (not an official translation): Civil Code Article 184 imposes damages for intentional or negligent unlawful infringement and for harm from breach of a law protecting others unless lack of negligence is proved.
When should either side seek advice?
Employers considering a report, evidence preservation or recovery, and employees facing an internal investigation or police or prosecutor's notice may benefit from advice before making statements or decisions. This guide is general information, not advice for an individual case.