【Legal Life】Ch. 11: A Settlement Has Been Reached, Yet You Still Coerce Civil Claims with Criminal Charges—How Naughty

Although Chün-ming and Chieh-yün already reached a mediation in Episode 8, Chieh-yün is still suffering mentally and with her injured foot. She still has not withdrawn the criminal complaint in accordance with the agreement, leaving Chün-ming distressed and constantly complaining to his lawyer. Chün-ming's lawyer is even more distressed, pondering in the office whether something was left undone...

What Is Coercing Civil Claims with Criminal Charges?

Article 487 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates: "A person who has suffered damage from a crime may, through criminal proceedings, incidentally institute a civil action to claim compensation for such damage from the defendant and persons liable under the Civil Code to make compensation. The scope of the claim referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code." This procedure not only allows the civil and criminal aspects to be adjudicated together (though the civil portion is usually still transferred to a civil division and adjudicated later), but the victim is also exempt from paying court fees for the civil portion, making it quite cost-effective. A victim may incidentally institute a civil action during private prosecution proceedings, or file a complaint or accusation with a prosecutor and then institute a criminal incidental civil action after the prosecutor indicts the offender.

We mentioned in the article «Got into a Traffic Accident: Are There Other Choices Besides Going to Court?» that when an accident occurs and one wishes to sue someone in court, there are generally two potential pathways: civil proceedings and criminal proceedings. Civil proceedings aim to compensate the victim for their losses, while criminal proceedings aim to maintain overall social order. In daily life, if an unfortunate accident occurs, victims naturally hope to seek compensation from the perpetrator. However, not everyone is well-intentioned. To safeguard their own rights and interests—and considering that ordinary people are generally more afraid of criminal liability than civil liability, especially when the other party owns little property—victims often choose to file a criminal complaint coupled with an incidental civil action to pressure the other party into showing genuine sincerity regarding their civil liability.

Consequently, some "litigation ruffians" have emerged in society—much like "Tiaotiao Brother" and "Feipu Sister," who are adept at staging fake traffic accidents—frequently initiating criminal proceedings against others to extort civil settlement money. When encountering such situations, be sure to consult a lawyer regarding the likelihood of the criminal case being established. Coercing civil claims with criminal charges must be premised on the possibility that a criminal offense is established; if the criminal charge is utterly groundless, there is no need to worry. Conversely, litigation ruffians who arbitrarily accuse others may themselves face prosecution for the offense of false accusation. Pay attention!

Why Complaints Are Still Not Withdrawn Even After a Settlement

Taiwanese people value human relations and avoid pushing people into a corner. Therefore, when people embark on the path of "coercing civil claims with criminal charges," they usually place greater importance on civil compensation rather than criminal punishment. Furthermore, for the parties involved, obtaining compensation is of paramount importance; barring a completely inhumane, heinous crime, sending the other party to prison does little to help the victim resolve their practical problems, aside from offering psychological relief. Thus, the purpose of "coercing civil claims with criminal charges" is mostly to pressure the other party into a settlement.

Once both parties reach a settlement, they usually agree "not to pursue the same incident any further." However, the general public may not know that the "right to file a complaint" in criminal proceedings cannot be waived. Therefore, even with a stipulation "not to file a complaint again," the victim can still insist on filing a complaint with the prosecutor or instituting a private prosecution in court. In addition, if the offense involved is a "non-complaint-based offense" (public prosecution offense), whether the prosecutor decides to indict the perpetrator is entirely independent of whether the victim files a complaint. Consequently, in the case of non-complaint-based offenses, achieving a civil settlement does not necessarily exempt one from criminal prosecution.

Because legal provisions are heavily unfavorable to perpetrators who are sincere about resolving problems, legal practice usually advises both parties to have the victim sign and seal a blank "motion to withdraw complaint" at the very moment the settlement is concluded, so as to prevent the other party from failing to withdraw the complaint later on. If the victim has not yet filed a complaint, out of an abundance of caution, one can simultaneously have the other party sign and seal both a "criminal complaint" and a "motion to withdraw complaint." By leveraging the rule that a complaint cannot be refiled once withdrawn, the complaint can be filed and immediately withdrawn thereafter.

Moreover, pursuant to Article 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, aside from the victim, the victim's statutory agent or spouse enjoys an independent right to file a complaint. Even if the victim has already reached a settlement with the perpetrator and withdrawn the complaint, the victim's statutory agent or spouse may still file a complaint unaffected. Therefore, during settlement negotiations, it is essential to have the victim's spouse, parents, or guardian participate in the negotiations and sign the "motion to withdraw complaint."

If a settlement has been reached along with an agreement "not to file a complaint again," but the other party nevertheless initiates criminal prosecution or persistently fails to withdraw the complaint, the other party is considered to be in breach of contract. Consequently, there is no further obligation to pay the compensation stipulated in the settlement, and claims for breach-of-contract damages may even be asserted.

It should be noted that a victim can only withdraw a complaint before the conclusion of debate in the first instance. Therefore, perpetrators seeking a settlement must act swiftly. On the other hand, victims should note that because a complaint cannot be refiled once withdrawn—even if the other party reneges and fails to pay the settlement compensation—it is safest for both parties to execute the withdrawal of the complaint and the payment of compensation simultaneously.

Relevant Legal Provisions

• Article 487 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: "A person who has suffered damage from a crime may, through criminal proceedings, incidentally institute a civil action to claim compensation for such damage from the defendant and persons liable under the Civil Code to make compensation. The scope of the claim referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code."
• Article 233, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: "The statutory agent or spouse of a victim may independently file a complaint."
• Article 238 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: "In offenses subject to complaint upon application, a complainant may withdraw their complaint before the conclusion of debate in the first instance. A person who has withdrawn a complaint may not refile a complaint."
• Article 736 of the Civil Code: "A settlement refers to a contract whereby the parties agree to make mutual concessions in order to terminate a dispute or prevent a dispute from arising."
• Article 254 of the Civil Code: "If one party to a contract is in delay with performance, the other party may set a reasonable time limit and give notice urging performance. If performance is not rendered within that time limit, the party may rescind the contract."
• Article 264 of the Civil Code: "A party who owes reciprocal debts under a contract may refuse its own performance until the other party renders counter-performance, unless the party itself is under an obligation to perform first. Where the other party has rendered partial performance, such party may not refuse its own performance if, under the circumstances, doing so would be contrary to the principle of good faith."