Statement: Prosecutor Fined Merely of Salary Despite Seven Counts of Information Leaking; Disciplinary Court and Taoyuan District Prosecutors Office Pass the Buck—JRF Press Release on Disciplinary Court 2026 Disciplinary Appeal No. 3 Prosecutor Information Leaking Case

The Disciplinary Court rendered its judgment in 2026 Disciplinary Appeal No. 3 on May 28, 2026, dismissing the appeals filed by the Control Yuan and the Ministry of Justice and upholding the first-instance judgment sentencing Prosecutor Wu Ya-zhi to a salary fine equivalent to 10 months' salary.

Following the first-instance judgment by the Disciplinary Court last year, the Foundation held a press conference to publicly criticize the court for merely imposing a salary fine on Wu Ya-zhi for clear violations of the principle of non-disclosure of investigation and leaks of personal data, urging the referring agency to actively appeal and avoid setting a lenient ethical standard for prosecutors. Regarding the second-instance judgment upholding the first instance with hollow reasoning, the Foundation expresses deep regret and issues this statement as follows:

I. Did "Private Concern" Become an Excuse for Condone? The Disciplinary Court Displays Excessively Lenient Standards of Duty for Prosecutors

As the Foundation pointed out in our previous statement, regarding Prosecutor Wu Ya-zhi "monitoring Cheng's case assignment information in real-time for Chu in the contested group chat, actively encouraging Chu to break into the scam syndicate's circle, and suggesting Chu discuss cooperation models with Cheng," the Disciplinary Court's first-instance judgment reasoned that the "private dialogues were fragmentarily intercepted, and the context showed concern and support for Zhu Yi-pin's business venture," that the "dialogue took place about half a year prior to Zhu Yi-pin's involvement in the offense," and that "Zhu Yi-pin contacted Zheng Hong-wei to take on cases on his own initiative without informing Wu Ya-zhi of the specific details, making it impossible to establish an obligation of active investigation or dissuasion." This conclusion is not free from doubt.

In the second-instance judgment, the Disciplinary Court upheld the reasoning of the first-instance court while similarly failing to provide any substantive discourse on "the degree of vigilance a prosecutor ought to maintain," nor did it offer any explanation as to whether Prosecutor Wu's transmission of messages in a private group chat such as "a great opportunity to break into the scam circle" indicated awareness that an individual with a close and trusting relationship was participating in a scam syndicate.

Article 25 of the Code of Ethics for Prosecutors requires prosecutors to "avoid social activities incompatible with the impartial image of prosecutors." We must reiterate once again that regardless of Wu Yazhi's motivation or scope of knowledge regarding "concern and support," as a public official charged with prosecuting crimes, even if Wu did not actively dissuade or obstruct on the spot, she should have exercised vigilance and avoided the atmosphere and topics of the group chat. The Disciplinary Court's leniency and indulgence toward the notion that "Wu Yazhi was primarily expressing concern and support for Zhu's business decisions" is baffling.

Furthermore, as seen from the Control Yuan's referral facts, Wu Ya-zhi messaged Zhu Yi-pin: "I think this is a good opportunity to break into the scam circle," "It's not just this one case," "Is Fresh Meat (i.e., Zheng Hong-wei) giving you the court-substitute fee or the whole case?", "GOGO, group chat, Fresh Meat, check the group chat, did you receive it?" and was also aware that Zhu Yi-pin forwarded the gist of the scam syndicate runner's interrogation protocol to Zheng Hong-wei, and that Zhu's attorney fees were not paid by the client (the scam syndicate runner) but by the scam syndicate's tactician Zheng Hong-wei. Moreover, in July 2023, Wu Ya-zhi learned from LINE conversations that other lawyers had also provided investigative contents, to which Zhu Yi-pin explicitly stated, "It seems investigative contents are still being provided," and Wu Ya-zhi raised no objections whatsoever.

The extent to which Wu Ya-zhi grasped Zhu Yi-pin's involvement in the scam syndicate substantially ties to whether Wu's information leaks were mere private vents or connected to the syndicate's affairs. However, neither the first nor the second-instance Disciplinary Court conducted an in-depth analysis of this nexus, dismissing the matter solely on the ground that it "remains insufficient to establish that Wu Ya-zhi knowingly knew Zhu Yi-pin was involved in criminal offenses." The Foundation deeply regrets this.

Time	Core Dialogue Content	Wu Ya-zhi's Explanation	Court Determination
December 2, 2022	"I just think this is a good opportunity to break into their scam circle"; inquiring whether Zheng Hong-wei provided a court-appearance fee or the full mandate	Expressed concern over Zhu Yi-pin's business development; choice of words in private romantic conversations was unconsidered	Occurred half a year prior to Zhu Yi-pin's involvement in the offense (May 11, 2023); difficult to establish knowledge of criminal involvement; does not constitute a disciplinary breach
May 3, 2023 (during office hours)	Wu Ya-zhi proactively messaged: "GOGO, group chat, Fresh Meat, check the group chat, did you receive it?"	Belonged to a lawyer pre-service training group chat, reminding her boyfriend to take on cases	Belongs to ordinary social interactions; does not constitute a disciplinary breach
July 14–15, 2023	Wu Ya-zhi informed Zhu Yi-pin that another lawyer, Tsai ○○, had also begun taking on interrogation-accompaniment cases referred by Zheng Hong-wei (the scam syndicate's tactician); Zhu Yi-pin requested Wu Ya-zhi to sound out Tsai ○○ on whether interview-record summaries were forwarded to Zheng Hong-wei, subsequently confirming that "It seems (Tsai ○○) is still providing investigative information" (i.e., forwarding it to Zheng Hong-wei)	(None)	Insufficient to establish knowledge of Zhu Yi-pin's involvement in crimes; does not constitute a disciplinary breach

II. Seven Leaks of Information Punished Only by Salary Fine: How Can the Disciplinary Court Set a Standard for Other Judicial Practitioners Who Scrupulously Guard Their Confidentiality Obligations?

The second-instance judgment upheld the first-instance ruling, imposing a salary fine of only 10 months for Wu Ya-zhi's 7 information leaks, reasoning that she "lacked seniority as a candidate prosecutor when the breaches occurred," "had favorable performance evaluations over the years," "mostly transmitted excerpted data that was not further disseminated," and "indictments will be publicly disclosed by law afterward, resulting in limited substantive prejudice to the parties concerned," thereby determining that the original sentencing did not exceed legal bounds nor lacked adequate evaluation.

Wu Yazhi transmitted information and documents obtained in an official capacity to Zhu Yi-pin 7 times—including instances where she proactively searched and provided complete electronic indictment files upon her boyfriend's request, and where she proactively messaged Zhu, asking, "I can search the intranet now, is there any data you need help looking up?" Although the Disciplinary Court concluded that Wu's breaches constituted serious negligence, it failed to comprehensively evaluate what this repeatedly recurring pattern of behavior reflects: Wu continually capitalized on her official information privilege over a period of a year and a half to serve her lawyer boyfriend.

In addition, as the Foundation pointed out in our previous statement, arguing that prejudice to parties is limited because indictments will eventually be made public is sheer nonsense. The principle of "non-disclosure of investigation" is the core safeguard ensuring that every citizen receives fair treatment prior to conviction. When case details spread rampantly across media and social networks while still under investigation, this is not merely a flaw in procedural justice; it subjects individuals to the harsh reality of being pre-judged by public opinion before trial. Especially in recent years, the improper leakage of investigative information has grown increasingly frequent, and under the amplification effect of the internet, it impacts not only the rights of individual parties but the very foundation of public trust in the judicial process.

We pose this question once again: Can any documents that will eventually become public information be leaked at will during the non-disclosure stage of an investigation? Is the severity of information leaks judged not by the personal data content involved (such as details of amounts or testimonies potentially contained in an indictment), but by whether they will be made public in the future? Should the principle of non-disclosure of investigation under Paragraph 5, Article 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the elements of the crime of official information disclosure under Paragraph 1, Article 132 of the Criminal Code be amended to accommodate the Disciplinary Court's interpretation?

In 2022, the Disciplinary Court integrally evaluated Shih Mu-chin's inappropriate banquets and stock dealings spanning nearly 20 years, changing his penalty to removal from office—a judgment that demonstrated to society the courage of our judicial system to acknowledge and correct its faults. In the present case, Wu Ya-zhi repeatedly leaked search privileges and investigative documents obtained in her official capacity to her lawyer boyfriend, who was subsequently indicted for involvement in a scam syndicate. At a time when multiple lawyers are being prosecuted for information leakage due to involvement in criminal scam syndicates, drawing intense public attention, we must ask: What message does the Disciplinary Court intend to convey to other judicial practitioners bound by high confidentiality obligations by choosing to uphold a salary fine without conducting an overall evaluation? What standard does it seek to set for identical situations in the future?

Contested Conduct	Item No.	Date	Control Yuan Referral Facts	Disciplinary Court Determination
Contested Conduct 1 (four instances of searching the document system for non-official purposes and transmitting the results)	No. 1	July 8, 2022	Logged in with an official account, searched the document system, transmitted the criminal-facts portion of a prosecutor's non-prosecution disposition to Zhu Yi-pin, and asked, "Would it suffice to write the criminal facts more concisely?"	Constitutes a breach, violating Article 4 of the Ministry of Justice Guidelines for Data Queries and Article 16 of the Personal Data Protection Act
	No. 4	October 5, 2022	Logged in with an official account, searched the document system, transmitted the criminal facts of an indictment, and commented on the qualifications of a law firm's legal chief	Same as above
	No. 6	November 14, 2023	Logged in with an official account, searched the document system, and transmitted the criminal facts and evidence list of an indictment to discuss with Zhu Yi-pin	Same as above
	No. 7	December 5, 2023	Upon request by Zhu Yi-pin (retained defense counsel in the case), logged in with an official account, searched the document system, and transmitted the complete electronic indictment file to Zhu Yi-pin	Same as above
Contested Conduct 2 (three instances of transmitting official data without redacting personal data)	No. 2	August 23, 2022	Transmitted the victim schedule format and indictment without redacting the personal data of defendants and others	Constitutes a breach; transmitted investigative data obtained in an official capacity for non-official purposes without redacting personal data, violating Article 16 of the Personal Data Protection Act and Article 18 of the Code of Ethics for Prosecutors. However, the data was not further disseminated by Zhu Yi-pin, and substantive prejudice caused to parties was minor.
	No. 3	August 24, 2022	Transmitted a photo of the cover page of a criminal statement of opinion without redacting personal data of defendants and others (referred to by the Control Yuan as an "envelope photo," but neither the first nor second-instance Disciplinary Court explained the discrepancy)	Same as above
	No. 5	October 30, 2023	To vent personal emotions, transmitted a criminal preparatory brief for a case she was handling (bearing case numbers, defendants, defense counsel, and other personal data) to Zhu Yi-pin, stating that "this case pissed me off"	Constitutes a breach, but the court completely failed to discuss separately the violation of non-disclosure of investigation; it dismissed the Control Yuan's supplementary assertion regarding Paragraph 1, Article 132 of the Criminal Code with the statement that "criminal liability falls outside the scope of disciplinary proceedings," providing no supplementary explanation regarding the peculiarities of this case.

III. Taiwan Taoyuan District Prosecutors Office Should Reopen Investigation to Clarify Whether Wu Ya-zhi Committed Criminal Offenses; The Foundation Will Also Prudently Evaluate the Necessity of Filing an Accusation

As can be seen from the Control Yuan's referral facts, it is not without question whether Wu Ya-zhi's multiple leaks violated Articles 41 and 44 of the Personal Data Protection Act and Paragraph 1, Article 132 of the Criminal Code. While the Disciplinary Court's holding in its judgment that "whether to hold her criminally or administratively accountable is a separate matter from this disciplinary action" and thus falls outside the scope of the Disciplinary Court's review may be acceptable, the Taiwan Taoyuan District Prosecutors Office merely stated in a press release issued on November 28, 2025, that investigation of this case was completed and administratively filed on May 31, 2024.

In our country's criminal litigation practice, there is a massive gap in the determination of the severity of criminal suspicion between "administrative filing" and a "non-prosecution disposition." The former implies that the prosecution deems even the barest minimum of criminal suspicion nonexistent and thus sees no need for substantive investigation and indictment; the latter requires that after substantive investigation, if it is determined that indictment is unwarranted under the law, a formal disposition document must still be drawn up and publicly announced to submit to public scrutiny. We ask the Taiwan Taoyuan District Prosecutors Office: Are the 7 timings and contents of Wu Ya-zhi's leaks, clearly and in detail listed by the Control Yuan in its referral facts, "completely devoid of criminal suspicion"? Does the Taiwan Taoyuan District Prosecutors Office genuinely believe there is a 100% absence of crime in this case, or is it simply too cowardly to face the public and provide a concrete public explanation?

Scam crimes constitute one of the most severe public safety issues in our society today, causing hundreds of billions of dollars in property losses each year and shattering countless families. The public expects prosecutors to stand on the front lines combating fraud, yet Wu Ya-zhi failed to maintain proper boundaries and committed serious breaches. The Disciplinary Court's judgment, on one hand, acknowledges that Wu seriously damaged the reputation of prosecutors and that the circumstances are grave, yet on the other hand concludes that she has not reached the level of an unfit prosecutor and warrants only a salary fine, which can hardly restore public trust in the judiciary. The Foundation solemnly urges the Taiwan Taoyuan District Prosecutors Office to re-confront the fact that Wu Ya-zhi is suspected of criminal offenses and resume criminal prosecution. The Foundation will continue to monitor the follow-up of this case and prudently evaluate whether there is a necessity to file an accusation against Wu Ya-zhi.

Our previous statement: Press Conference: Disciplinary Court Must Not Set Lenient Ethical Standards for Prosecutors—JRF Press Release on Disciplinary Court 2025 Disciplinary Cases Nos. 1 and 4 Concerning Prosecutor Information Leaking

Disciplinary Court Second-Instance Judgment

Control Yuan Impeachment Written Statement

Press Contact

Chang Hua-che, Director of the Case Action Department, Judicial Reform Foundation

02-2523-1178#22 ven@jrf.org.tw