Case Summaries｜Discussions on Amendments to the Stalking and Harassment Prevention Act

The following three cases illustrate how victims are often left without recourse when persistent harassment is deliberately designed to avoid the elements of criminal offenses and civil causes of action, or when the harassment is unrelated to sex or gender. Together, the cases highlight the regulatory gap created by the “sex or gender” requirement in the current Stalking and Harassment Prevention Act.

CASE 01｜Fatal Conflict Between a Startup CEO and CTO

References: Joenung Citizen Judge Trial Court Observation, The News Lens

A dispute arose between the CEO and CTO of the startup CuboAi. According to an account relayed by Tseng Zhixin, the CTO subsequently used online tools to engage in a sustained campaign of harassment against the CEO through ambiguous and misleading statements. The posts insinuated that the CEO bullied employees, would die without descendants, and was incapable of having children. Using multiple anonymous accounts, including “hateboAi,” the CTO repeatedly disseminated the contents of internal company meetings and audio recordings on Threads. Whenever the company discovered an anonymous account, it would make internal inquiries and suggest that it might retain attorneys to take legal action. The account would then immediately disappear, only for a new account to emerge several days later. This cycle repeated several times. Unable to endure the harassment, the company traced the IP addresses and found that most originated from the same location.

The CEO had retained a legal team and asked a notary public to preserve screenshots of the relevant posts as evidence. However, the legal team advised that little could be done under existing law because the harassing conduct had been deliberately designed to avoid the elements of liability under the Criminal Code of the Republic of China and the Civil Code, making criminal prosecution and civil damages difficult to pursue. As the person responsible for the company's operations, the CEO feared that unfavorable rumors or investors' refusal to provide additional capital could cause the business to collapse. He therefore retained a public relations firm at a cost of up to NT$1.5 million. The firm likewise advised him not to engage with the posts, because responding or issuing clarifications would only amplify the anonymous allegations.

Facing multiple dilemmas—the absence of legal protection, limited public relations options, and repeated questions from investors about the company's operations and expectations of his personal role—the CEO endured prolonged psychological pressure with no apparent solution. His mental condition ultimately deteriorated, and he left a suicide note. On the day of the incident, he brought a knife into a company conference room and demanded that the CTO delete a lengthy resignation post. The CTO's response left him feeling hopeless, and he feared that the anonymous posts would never stop. He then killed the CTO, knelt down, and attempted suicide by stabbing himself in the mouth. After trial by a citizen judge panel, he was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. In his final statement during the criminal proceedings, he said: “I truly did not bully my employees.”

Regulatory Gap

The case demonstrates that the current legal system lacks effective rules addressing persistent online harassment deliberately structured to avoid the elements of criminal and civil liability. The victim exhausted legal, public relations, and other self-help measures, yet still had no effective recourse, ultimately resulting in tragedy.

CASE 02｜Long-Term Online Harassment by a Former Employee

References: Joenung Cases

After leaving their job, a former employee repeatedly posted insinuations and attacks directed at a former supervisor on social media. The poster deliberately avoided language likely to satisfy the elements of defamation or public insult, using expressions such as: “I am so vulnerable that I can respond to injustice only with tears”; “I recently remembered something my supervisor said and went to see a psychologist again. The doctor said that my trauma came from workplace bullying, which is why I suffer from insomnia and cannot find a job”; and “My workplace is a realm of ghosts, and my supervisors are a group of ghosts.” The posts did not identify anyone by name or use overtly derogatory language. Nevertheless, their persistent and targeted nature enabled readers within the same professional community to identify the person concerned and form negative impressions, substantially harming the supervisor's social reputation and peace of mind.

The supervisor repeatedly asked whether a legal remedy was available. Under existing law, however, the offenses of defamation and public insult under the Criminal Code of the Republic of China are assessed by whether the words used at the time of the conduct satisfy the statutory elements. If the poster deliberately avoids derogatory terminology, establishing either offense is difficult. Similarly, a claim for infringement of reputation under the Civil Code requires proof that the statements specifically diminished the victim's social standing, creating difficulties in both proof and legal characterization.

The attorney handling the matter also examined the Stalking and Harassment Prevention Act. The Act defines stalking and harassment as conduct connected to sex or gender: the perpetrator must act on an intention or emotion related to a particular person's sex or gender. When asked whether the parties had been involved in a romantic relationship, pursuit, or gender-related conflict of interest, the supervisor answered no. The dispute arose solely from a former employment relationship and involved no sex- or gender-related circumstances. The supervisor therefore could not rely on the Act to seek a protection order or have criminal liability imposed.

Regulatory Gap

This case highlights the current legal system's failure to address persistent online harassment unrelated to gender. So long as the perpetrator avoids language satisfying the elements of defamation or public insult and there is no connection to sex or gender, a victim may have no recourse despite prolonged psychological distress and damage to their social standing. This is one of the principal cases supporting deletion of the “sex or gender” requirement from the Stalking and Harassment Prevention Act.

CASE 03｜Technology-Assisted Tracking of an Online Game Player

References: Joenung Cases

Following a dispute during an online game, another player used technological tools—including IP-address searches, comparisons of social media accounts, and aggregation of publicly available information from gaming platforms—to track the individual's publicly visible online activities and digital footprint. The information included login times, gaming servers used, and social media updates. The player would also occasionally make oblique comments to ensure that the individual knew they were being watched.

Because all of the information collected and used had been voluntarily made public or could otherwise be lawfully obtained, the conduct did not satisfy the elements of unlawful collection, processing, or use of personal data under the Personal Data Protection Act. Nor did it satisfy the elements of unjustified intrusion, surreptitious observation or recording, or related offenses involving the use of equipment under the chapter on offenses against privacy in the Criminal Code of the Republic of China. Consequently, neither statute provided a basis for holding the player legally accountable.

Although the victim was not physically followed, watched in person, or directly contacted, knowing that another person was continually tracking their activities—without knowing what that person might do next—caused prolonged fear and insecurity associated with “being watched at all times.” Yet no legal mechanism was available to stop the conduct or obtain protection. The case is consistent with the reasoning of recent Japanese judgments: even without physical stalking, using technological tools to convey “I know where you are,” or otherwise making the fact of surveillance known, can itself constitute harassment when it causes physical or psychological fear. Whether the conduct separately infringes privacy rights or violates personal data protection legislation should not be the sole criterion.

Regulatory Gap

The case demonstrates that the current legal system lacks a general rule addressing persistent surveillance that causes psychological fear. The gender-related requirement should be removed and replaced with a standard covering continuous surveillance conducted “without justifiable cause” that causes another person to fear for their safety.