謙聖國際法律事務所

1. Can Two Companies Use the Same Printer for Government Bids in Taiwan?

1.1 Why Shared Office Equipment Can Raise Bid Rigging Concerns

Businesses participating in Taiwan's government procurement system sometimes share printers, computers, office space, or administrative personnel. These arrangements may be common among small companies, particularly where business owners know one another or maintain long-standing commercial relationships.

However, when competing bidders submit documents prepared using the same equipment, procurement authorities may question whether the companies are genuinely independent. Shared document preparation can indicate a possible connection between bidders, especially when combined with identical pricing, coordinated submissions, or other suspicious circumstances.

➠Nevertheless, using the same printer does not automatically prove that companies agreed to manipulate a tender. The legal assessment depends on the relevant procurement regulations, the evidence of actual coordination, and whether the conduct satisfies the elements of a criminal offense.

---

1.2 The Ciaotou District Court Government Procurement Case

The case arose from three engineering procurement projects conducted by a state-owned enterprise in Taiwan.

Two participating businesses, Company A and Company B, submitted tender documents that had been printed using the same office printer. The employee responsible for printing worked for Company B but also occasionally assisted Company A with administrative tasks. Because the two businesses participated in the same procurement projects, investigators suspected that their bidding activities were coordinated.

Prosecutors subsequently charged the relevant business representatives and employee with violating Article 87, Paragraph 3 of the Government Procurement Act. The Taiwan Ciaotou District Court ultimately acquitted all defendants after examining whether the available evidence established a fraudulent bidding arrangement.

 

2. What Did Prosecutors Allege in the Bid Rigging Case?

2.1 Shared Printers and Tender Document Downloads

Investigators discovered that the same employee had printed tender documents for both companies using a printer located in Company B's office. The employee had also used Company B's account to download blank tender documents for both bidders. These circumstances suggested an unusual administrative connection between companies that were expected to compete independently.

Prosecutors considered the shared printer, common employee, and tender document downloads relevant to determining whether the bids were genuinely independent.

⚠️However, the existence of shared administrative resources did not, by itself, establish how the companies determined their bidding prices or whether their representatives had agreed to coordinate the outcome.

---

2.2 Allegations of Artificial Competition

The prosecution alleged that Company A's actual manager had coordinated with Company B's representative and the employee to create the appearance of multiple independent bidders.

According to the prosecution's theory, the arrangement was intended to satisfy the minimum number of bidders required for the procurement procedure and increase Company A's chances of winning. If established, such conduct could amount to using fraudulent methods to cause an incorrect result in the bid-opening process.

➠The central issue was therefore whether the defendants had merely shared administrative assistance or had deliberately created artificial competition. This distinction became decisive when the court evaluated the prosecution's evidence.

 

3. Administrative Irregularities vs. Criminal Bid Rigging

3.1 Unusual Connections Under Taiwan's Government Procurement Act

Taiwan's Government Procurement Act and related procurement regulations address unusual connections between bidders that may undermine fair competition.

Examples may include tender documents prepared by the same person, identical or unusually similar documents, shared submission arrangements, or other circumstances suggesting coordinated bidding. Such connections can trigger procurement reviews and, where the statutory conditions are met, consequences under provisions such as Article 50 concerning bid eligibility or award decisions. Bid bonds may also be subject to forfeiture or recovery where the separate legal requirements of Article 31 are satisfied. These consequences are not automatic. The procuring agency must identify the applicable legal grounds and follow the relevant procedures.

⚠️Importantly, an administrative finding of unusual bidding connections does not necessarily mean that the individuals involved have committed a criminal offense. Administrative procurement decisions and criminal convictions involve different legal questions and evidentiary requirements.

---

3.2 Criminal Liability Under Article 87, Paragraph 3

Article 87, Paragraph 3 of Taiwan's Government Procurement Act addresses the use of fraudulent or other unlawful methods to prevent bidding or cause an incorrect bid-opening result. The offense carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment and a possible additional fine of up to NT$1 million.

In an alleged sham-bidding arrangement, prosecutors must establish the relevant unlawful conduct and the defendant's criminal intent. Where multiple individuals are accused of acting together, evidence must also support their alleged joint participation or agreement. Sharing a printer or tender document account may be relevant circumstantial evidence, but it does not automatically establish an agreement to manipulate competition. The court must determine whether the complete evidence proves the charged offense beyond reasonable doubt.

 

4. Why Did the Court Find Insufficient Evidence of Bid Rigging?

4.1 Independent Bidding Decisions and Employee Assistance

During the proceedings, the employee explained that Company A did not have a printer and that the two offices were located close to each other. For that reason, the employee occasionally helped Company A print documents using Company B's equipment. The employee stated that the printed documents were handed directly to Company A's representative without reviewing the bidding prices. The employee also maintained that Company B's manager had not been informed about this assistance.

Company B's representative explained that the company independently evaluated the procurement projects and determined its own bidding prices. The representative further stated that they did not know Company A was participating in the same tenders.

➠These explanations raised a reasonable possibility that the shared equipment reflected administrative convenience rather than coordinated bidding.

---

4.2 No Evidence of Collusion or Improper Financial Benefits

The court also examined whether the prosecution had presented additional evidence of an unlawful agreement. Beyond the shared printer and tender document downloads, the prosecution did not establish communications or financial arrangements demonstrating that the defendants had agreed to create artificial competition.

There were no proven improper financial transfers or benefit-sharing arrangements connecting the defendants to the alleged bidding scheme. The absence of such evidence does not mean that every bid rigging case must involve payments or written agreements.

However, in this case, the remaining evidence was insufficient to establish the prosecution's allegation that the companies had coordinated their bids. The court could not conclude that Company B's representative knowingly participated in a fraudulent bidding arrangement merely because an employee had helped another company print documents.

🧑🏻‍⚖️Accordingly, the court found that the criminal allegations had not been proven and acquitted the defendants.

 

5. The Burden of Proof in Taiwan Government Procurement Criminal Cases

5.1 Criminal Procedure Articles 154 and 301

Taiwan's Code of Criminal Procedure establishes fundamental rules governing the proof of criminal offenses.

Article 154, Paragraph 2 provides that criminal facts must be established by evidence and cannot be presumed without proof. Article 301, Paragraph 1 requires an acquittal where the defendant's guilt cannot be established. These provisions reflect the presumption of innocence and the requirement that criminal liability be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

In government procurement cases, prosecutors must do more than identify circumstances that appear unusual. They must present sufficient evidence connecting the defendants to the conduct and criminal intent required by the charged offense.

---

5.2 Why Suspicious Circumstances Are Not Enough for Conviction

The Ciaotou District Court case demonstrates why administrative irregularities and criminal offenses must be distinguished. Shared equipment and common administrative assistance may justify closer scrutiny by procurement authorities.

However, those facts do not necessarily prove that bidders exchanged pricing information, coordinated their bidding decisions, or agreed to manipulate the tender. Where the evidence also supports a reasonable explanation consistent with lawful conduct, the court cannot disregard that possibility without adequate proof. The principle of resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the defendant prevents criminal convictions based solely on suspicion.

🚨For businesses facing bid rigging allegations, the distinction between suspicious circumstances and proven criminal conduct may determine the outcome of the case.

 

6. How Businesses Can Prevent Government Procurement Disputes

6.1 Keep Tender Preparation and Pricing Independent

Companies participating in the same government procurement tender should maintain clear and independent bidding procedures. Each bidder should independently evaluate the project, determine its bidding price, and authorize the submission of tender documents.

Sharing printers, computers, or employees may create avoidable questions about whether competing bids were prepared independently. Businesses should therefore minimize overlapping tender preparation activities and maintain clear records identifying who prepared, reviewed, and approved each submission. Where administrative assistance is necessary, the arrangement should be documented, and confidential pricing information should remain protected.

➠These precautions can help demonstrate genuine competition and reduce the risk of procurement disputes.

---

6.2 Preserve Records and Respond to Investigations

If procurement authorities identify unusual connections between bidders, businesses should preserve relevant records immediately. Important evidence may include internal communications, pricing calculations, tender preparation records, employee responsibilities, document access histories, and submission information.

➠These materials may help clarify whether the companies made independent bidding decisions.

Businesses should also distinguish between an administrative procurement review and a criminal investigation. A finding that documents have unusual connections does not automatically establish criminal guilt, but it may still lead to significant procurement consequences. Early legal review can help identify the relevant statutory provisions and prepare an appropriate response.

 

7. Frequently Asked Questions About Shared Bid Documents and Bid Rigging

Not automatically. Shared equipment may create an unusual connection between bidders and trigger administrative review, but criminal liability requires proof of the relevant offense under Taiwan law.

Using the same account may raise questions about bidding independence and compliance with procurement procedures. However, the legal consequences depend on the applicable regulations and evidence of any coordinated conduct.

No. An employee assisting two companies does not automatically establish a fraudulent bidding agreement. The prosecution must prove the required criminal conduct and intent.

The offense carries a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment and a possible additional fine of up to NT$1 million, where the statutory requirements are established.

Yes. Where the relevant legal conditions are satisfied, a procuring agency may take measures under the Government Procurement Act, including excluding a bid or declining to award a contract.

The court found insufficient evidence that the defendants had agreed to create artificial competition. The shared printer and tender document downloads did not establish criminal collusion beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes. Administrative procurement measures and criminal penalties have different legal requirements. An acquittal does not automatically invalidate every administrative decision arising from the same tender.

Preserve tender documents, pricing records, communications, and evidence of independent bidding decisions. Consult a lawyer familiar with Taiwan government procurement law to assess both administrative and criminal risks.

 

8. Conclusion: Administrative Irregularities Do Not Automatically Establish Criminal Fraud

The Taiwan Ciaotou District Court's 2025 acquittal illustrates an important distinction in government procurement law: unusual connections between bidders do not automatically establish criminal bid rigging.

Although the companies used the same printer and an employee downloaded tender documents through the same account, the prosecution failed to prove that the defendants had agreed to manipulate the bidding process. The court emphasized the need for sufficient evidence of criminal conduct and intent rather than relying exclusively on suspicious administrative circumstances.

For companies participating in Taiwan government procurement projects, the case highlights two important lessons.

• First, businesses should maintain independent bidding procedures and avoid unnecessary sharing of tender preparation resources.
• Second, when allegations arise, the legal response should distinguish administrative procurement violations from criminal offenses under Article 87.

 

🧑🏻‍⚖️Chien Sheng International Law Firm provides legal assistance to businesses and individuals facing government procurement investigations, bid rigging allegations, and related criminal proceedings.If your company is accused of collusion because of shared equipment, overlapping employees, or unusual tender documents, a careful review of the evidence and applicable law may be essential to protecting your rights and business reputation.

 

 

Case Disclaimer: This article independently analyzes Taiwan Ciaotou District Court Criminal Judgment No. 135 (2025). Chien Sheng International Law Firm did not represent the parties or handle the case.

 

 

【CHIEN SHENG LAW FIRM】

• LINE Online Legal Consultation:：@lawuicc001（Click to Consult）
• Appointment by Phone:：(03)⠀3150-034
• Payment Methods: Cash｜Credit Card｜Bank Transfer

 

【Learn More】

• Facebook： 謙聖國際法律事務所
• Instagram：chien.sheng_