On May 27, 2026, the Supreme Court of the Republic of China delivered its final ruling in the insider trading case against Advanced Semiconductor Engineering (ASE) Chief Operating Officer Wu Tien-yu and three others. The court dismissed the prosecutors' appeal, making their acquittal final. However, the ultimate resolution of this high-profile financial case did not hinge on a substantive review of the charges, but rather on a major procedural blunder: the prosecutor at the Kaohsiung District Prosecutors Office missed the statutory 20-day appeal deadline, leading to a dismissal of the appeal due to delay.
The prosecution had charged Wu Tien-yu with utilizing material non-public information during ASE's acquisition of Siliconware Precision Industries (SPIL) between 2015 and 2016. Wu allegedly directed his secretary, her husband, and a close friend to purchase SPIL shares, netting an illegal profit of over NT$9 million. The Kaohsiung District Court acquitted all four defendants in the first instance on February 5, 2020. The original written judgment was served to the prosecutor on February 26, 2020, but without the judgment's appendix. The court subsequently served a complete copy with the appendix on March 4. The prosecutor did not file an appeal until March 20, sparking a multi-year legal battle over the calculation of the appeal period.
The case saw several dramatic shifts. The High Court initially ruled that the appeal period began upon the first legal service on February 26 (ending on March 17) and dismissed the appeal as untimely. After the Supreme Court sent the case back, the High Court’s first trial on the merits reversed the verdict, sentencing Wu to one year and ten months in prison. However, the subsequent second trial on remand once again determined that the appeal was overdue, stating that the omission of the appendix did not hinder the prosecutor's understanding of the judgment or their ability to appeal, as the appendix matched the existing case files. The Supreme Court upheld this view on May 27, 2026, finalizing the acquittal. This high-profile insider trading case ending in a procedural dismissal due to a late appeal deals a severe blow to the public’s confidence in the judicial and financial regulatory enforcement of the Republic of China.
Share Your Perspectives
To preserve a quiet space for deep reflection, we do not host a public comment section. If you have insights on this article, click below to share it to your own social space and start a meaningful conversation with your network.