Subject：

Inquiry of your Department regarding actual reviews of cases where public servants obliged to declare property and their spouses are involved in litigation as adversaries. Please take note of the explanations provided below.

Description：

1.     Reply to Official Letter No. 10312004660 issued by Department of Government Ethics of Ministry of Finance on March 12, 2014.

2.     Paragraph 1 and 2, Article 5, Paragraph 1 and 2, Article 11 of the Act on Property-Declaration by Public Servants (hereinafter referred to as this “Act”) clearly stipulate the following types of property to be declared by public servants: 1. Immovable properties, vessels, cars and aircrafts; 2. Cash, deposits, securities, jewelry, antique articles, calligraphy and paintings, and other valuable properties above certain values; 3. Rightful claims of creditor, debts and investments to various ventures above certain values. Abovementioned properties, as prescribed in the preceding paragraph, in the ownership of public servant’s spouse and minor children shall be jointly declared. “All agencies (institutions) accepting property declarations shall conduct inspections on the case by case and proportionate bases for untruthful property declarations or unusual increments and decrements of properties.” “In order to conduct inspections for untruthful property declarations, incompliance of property trust procedures, and unusual increments and decrements of properties, the agencies (institutions) accepting property declarations may interview the involving agencies (institutions), organizations, or individuals.” Furthermore, pursuant to Article 2 of this Act, public servants who are required to declare their property shall have the legal obligation to declare the property of their spouses. Where the declarant and his/her spouse are separated, the declarant shall still truthfully declare all property held by himself/herself and his/her spouse provided that a divorce has not been filed and a legally valid marital relationship still exists. Where agencies (institutions) processing property declarations conduct reviews pursuant to the aforementioned regulations, they shall be authorized to inquire about the property of spouses of declarants pursuant to relevant laws. Verdict No. 348 of the Taipei High Administrative Court in 2009 and Administrative Rule No.032621 issued by this Ministry on December 18, 2000 may be cited as reference.

3.     Paragraph 1, Article 8 of the Regulations Governing Examination and Browsing of Materials of Property-Declaration by Public Servants (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations Governing Examination and Browsing”) further stipulate that “where agencies (institutions) in charge of processing of declarations conduct audits pursuant to this Act, they shall be authorized to interview the involved agencies (institutions), organizations, or individuals and give the declarant an opportunity to state his/her opinions.” Where said agencies (institutions) notify declarants to state their opinions during audits, declarants may also apply to the processing agency (institution) for examining, transcribing, copying or taking photographs of relevant materials or records pursuant to the regulations set forth in Paragraph 1, Article 46 of the Administrative Procedure Law to claim or safeguard his/her legal interest. Where processing agencies (institutions) determine upon audits that declarants have made false declarations without intent, the reference table with the corrected financial information determined upon audits shall be attached to the original declaration form and the declarant shall be notified pursuant to the provisions set forth in Article 10 of Regulations Governing Examination and Browsing. Where false declarations are made with intent, the declarant shall be penalized pursuant to the regulations set forth in Paragraph 3, Article 12 of this Act. The processing agency (institution) shall then notify the declarant to provide the correct information within a specified time limit. Where declarants fail to provide the correct information without proper reason, they shall be punished with imprisonment of no more than one year, detention, or in lieu thereof, a fine of no less than NT$ 100,000 but no more than NT$ 500,000 as stipulated in Paragraph 4, Article 12 of this Act. The legislative intent of all aforementioned laws and regulations is to ensure the accuracy and public scrutiny of property declaration data of public servants through post audits of agencies (institutions) in charge of processing of property declarations and prescribed obligation of the declarant to correct false data provided on declaration forms. Furthermore, where the processing agency (institution) notifies the declarant to state his/her opinions, the declarant shall be authorized to apply for examining, transcribing, or copying of relevant information. Upon completion of audits, the declarant shall be provided with the correct financial information to enable him/her to make corrections based on this information.

4.     Based on the information provided in your letter, The declarant is still in a legally valid marital relationship and is therefore required to declare the property held by himself/herself and his/her spouse despite the fact that the public servant and his/her spouse are currently involved in a civil lawsuit regarding alimony. Due to the fact that the Civil Service Ethics Office of your Ministry is the agency in charge of processing of property declarations as defined in Article 4 of this Act, it is authorized in accordance with the aforementioned explanations and laws and regulations to inquire about the property held by the declarant himself/herself, his/her spouse, and minor children. Upon audits, the declarant shall be notified of the corrected financial information or requested to make corrections in conformity to the legislative intent of this Act. Objections raised by the declarant himself/herself, his/her spouse, or other involved parties shall not affect the execution of the statutory duties of this office. This ensures that the declarant cannot evade the audit mechanism prescribed in this Act and the legislative purpose of public monitoring of property disclosure by the declarant is achieved.