Written in response to a news report. Facts and law may have changed since the publication date.
FTV reported on 1 October 2026, carrying a CTWANT story, that Taiwan’s Supreme Court Criminal Division 7 had dealt with a fraud defendant’s appellate brief that appeared to be written with generative AI. The division dismissed the appeal in September 2026, leaving the defendant’s sentence of one year and two months final, and used the judgment to state principles: AI drafting does not itself make the appeal improper, but the brief still fails if it does not specifically identify how the judgment violated the law.
The same day, PChome, carrying a CTWANT report, described an 18 September Judicial Yuan circular telling courts that AI systems may serve only as an aid to adjudication and may not be used to generate judgments, with possible consequences under the Judges Act. The circular concerns judges, not the parties who file briefs.
Form versus third-instance grounds
According to the reports, the court said an appeal brief may be written by the appellant personally, drafted by someone else, or produced in whole or in part with generative AI tools; what matters is that the appellant files it as the law requires and signs or seals it. AI use alone does not make the appeal unlawful.
The court also said that generative AI can produce text but will not necessarily produce a lawful third-instance ground of appeal, and that it can help with drafting but cannot take over the party’s responsibility for the filing. In practice, a brief can be long and formally phrased and still be dismissed if it never says where the judgment went wrong in law.
Criminal Procedure anchors
Code of Criminal Procedure Article 377 allows an appeal to the third instance only on the ground that the judgment violated the law. Article 382 requires the appeal brief to state its reasons; if it does not, the reasons may be filed with the original court within 20 days after the appeal is lodged. Article 395 directs the third-instance court to dismiss by judgment an appeal that is not in proper legal form, or one whose reasons were never filed before the court decides.
Foreign counsel who send an AI draft to Taiwan local counsel should still expect a human pass that ties each ground to the judgment and the record. Civil and administrative appeals are governed by their own codes, and this criminal ruling does not automatically carry over to them.
No court duty to repair hallucinations
FTV and CTWANT report that the court has no duty to correct AI hallucinations (fabricated or mis-cited facts, statutes, precedents, or record materials), to supply missing record materials, or to reconstruct appeal grounds. A case name the model invented remains the signing party’s problem; the court will not go looking for the authority that was meant.
Because the court will not repair a bad citation, it helps to keep the AI draft, the human final and a link to every cited article or precedent, so that each reference can be checked against the judgment and the record before the brief is signed.
How Hovering can help
Hovering International Law Firm can review whether a Taiwan third-instance draft states concrete violations of law and whether its citations match the record.
Email Attorney Wei Tseng (曾雋崴) at wei@hoveringlaw.com.tw. Send the judgment, deadline, and draft brief. Office: 7F-2, No. 35, Sec. 1, Chengde Rd., Datong Dist., Taipei City 103, Taiwan (103 臺北市大同區承德路一段35號7樓之2). General information only.
Sources
- FTV, 1 October 2026.
- CTWANT, 1 October 2026.
- PChome / CTWANT, 1 October 2026.
- Code of Criminal Procedure Arts. 377, 382 and 395.
Checked: October 2, 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
- Is AI use automatically illegal for a Taiwan criminal appeal?
- According to FTV and CTWANT’s 1 October 2026 reports of the Supreme Court Criminal Division 7 decision, using generative AI for all or part of an appellate brief is not, by itself, a reason to dismiss the appeal.
- What still gets an appeal dismissed?
- The same reports say the brief must specifically point out where the judgment violated the law. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, a third-instance appeal can rest only on a violation of law, and a brief that does not identify one is dismissed however it was drafted.
- Will the court fix AI hallucinations?
- According to FTV and CTWANT, the court said it has no duty to correct fabricated or erroneous citations of facts, law, precedents, or record materials produced with AI, to fill gaps in the record, or to rebuild appeal grounds for the party.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice on any individual matter.
