A Payment Order Injustice That Even Sherlock Holmes, Conan, CSI, and Dr. Henry Lee Cannot Vindicate

One day, as usual, Hsiao-Feng took his debit card to a nearby ATM to withdraw cash. To his surprise, however, after he skillfully entered his PIN, the ATM screen displayed the message "Withdrawal Denied." Upon contacting the bank's customer service, Hsiao-Feng was shocked to learn that two unfamiliar creditors, A-Ch'un and Hung-Tzai, had used a finalized payment order to petition the court for the attachment of his savings.

Hsiao-Feng not only did not know A-Ch'un and Hung-Tzai, but he also had no knowledge of why these two individuals had applied for a payment order against him, nor had he ever engaged in any financial transactions with them. To solve the mystery in his heart, Hsiao-Feng applied to the court to review the case file. Upon reviewing the file, he discovered that A-Ch'un and Hung-Tzai had each used five promissory notes—formally listing Hsiao-Feng as the issuer—to apply to the court for payment orders against him. In reality, however, Hsiao-Feng had never issued these 10 promissory notes, meaning that the 10 promissory notes provided to the court by A-Ch'un and Hung-Tzai were likely forged by them. Hsiao-Feng immediately went to the District Prosecutors Office to file a criminal complaint, bringing criminal charges of document forgery against A-Ch'un and Hung-Tzai.

In accordance with the spirit of "making bold hypotheses and exercising careful verification," the handling prosecutor sent the originals of these 10 promissory notes to the Criminal Investigation Bureau of the National Police Agency, Ministry of the Interior, requesting forensic experts to conduct handwriting and fingerprint examinations. Following the examination by the Criminal Investigation Bureau, exactly as Hsiao-Feng had stated, none of the signatures on the 10 promissory notes were in Hsiao-Feng's handwriting, and furthermore, Hsiao-Feng's fingerprints could not be detected on any of them. Therefore, it could be definitively concluded that "these 10 promissory notes were not issued by Hsiao-Feng." However, to Hsiao-Feng's surprise, the Criminal Investigation Bureau's examination report also stated, "Although the handwriting on these 10 promissory notes is not that of Hsiao-Feng, neither is it in the handwriting of A-Ch'un and Hung-Tzai, nor can A-Ch'un's and Hung-Tzai's fingerprints be detected on the promissory notes"!? Because these 10 promissory notes were not forged by A-Ch'un and Hung-Tzai, the prosecutor naturally could not indict the two for document forgery and had no choice but to issue a non-prosecution disposition in accordance with the law.

Yet, for Hsiao-Feng, since our nation's criminal forensic unit had already determined that these 10 promissory notes were not signed by him, he naturally did not have to repay the money to A-Ch'un and Hung-Tzai under the law. Moreover, since there was no handwriting or fingerprints of Hsiao-Feng on the promissory notes, it meant that these 10 promissory notes had been forged by some unknown individual. Hsiao-Feng should therefore be able to invoke Article 496, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that "the promissory notes provided by A-Ch'un and Hung-Tzai when applying for the payment order were forged," and initiate a retrial lawsuit, petitioning the court to revoke the payment orders obtained by A-Ch'un and Hung-Tzai. Although Hsiao-Feng firmly believed in his heart that the law would grant him justice, regrettably, the judge dismissed Hsiao-Feng's motion for a retrial. The reasoning was that, pursuant to Article 496, Paragraph 2 of our Code of Civil Procedure, Hsiao-Feng "cannot merely prove that the 10 promissory notes were forged"; he must also track down "who" forged those 10 promissory notes, and after getting that forger convicted of the crime of forging securities by a final court judgment, can he then file a motion for a retrial of the payment order in accordance with Article 496, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Deeply aggrieved, Hsiao-Feng appealed (interposed an interlocutory appeal) to the second-instance court, but the result was still the dismissal of his appeal (interlocutory appeal) by the second-instance court based on the same reasoning.

In other words, even if Hsiao-Feng were able to hire the world's most brilliant forensic expert, Dr. Henry Lee, to help him produce a comprehensive examination report proving that the 10 promissory notes were not in his handwriting and were not signed by him, Hsiao-Feng would still be legally barred from seeking a retrial and asking the court to revoke the payment orders of A-Ch'un and Hung-Tzai, and he would still have to repay the money to A-Ch'un and Hung-Tzai. Unless Hsiao-Feng finds the culprit who forged the 10 promissory notes at the time and gets them convicted through a final third-instance judgment, he cannot turn around and file a motion for a retrial. If Hsiao-Feng cannot find the culprit, he is destined to carry the wrongful burden and debt resulting from this payment order injustice caused by 10 fake promissory notes, and to evade A-Ch'un and Hung-Tzai for the rest of his life. The question is, in a vast sea of people, where is Hsiao-Feng supposed to find the culprit who forged these 10 promissory notes? How wonderful would it be if our laws could be amended such that, "as long as Hsiao-Feng is able to prove that these 10 promissory notes were not issued by him, he can ask the court to revoke the payment orders of A-Ch'un and Hung-Tzai"?

---

The above story is excerpted and adapted from the contents of Ruling No. 102-Xiong-Chian-Zi-3 of the Taiwan Kaohsiung District Court and Ruling No. 102-Zai-Chian-Kang-1. Furthermore, it is hereby explicitly stated that the content of the above story does not reflect the actual circumstances of the parties involved in that case.