Email Consultation
A suitcase and a folded document envelope in front of an airport departure inspection counter
← Back to InsightsTaiwan Criminal Litigation ColumnsLegal Information

One Defendant, Two Answers: How Taiwan Courts Decide Whether a Foreigner Under a Criminal Exit Ban May Travel Home

5 min read

Fictional scene

A short trip home, and an NT$100,000 deposit. That is what the New Taipei District Court gave a Vietnamese defendant on March 2, 2026: permission to leave Taiwan from March 15 to April 3. About three months earlier, the same court had said no. It was the same case. Other things had changed.

The first answer: no

On trial for forgery and related charges, the defendant had a poor record with the court: repeated absences without good reason, a place on the wanted list, and an arrest in July 2025 on entering Taiwan from Vietnam. The first request cited a death in the family and young children at home. On November 26, 2025 the court refused. The defendant had come to Taiwan to study, it reasoned, so childcare must already have been arranged, and a messaging app could handle the rest (ruling of November 26, 2025).

The second answer: yes, on terms

The second request told a fuller story. According to the application, the defendant had settled with the complainant through mediation and paid the compensation. It again mentioned a young child in Vietnam and the defendant's father's death, and a copy of a booked ticket was attached. By then the case had moved to the summary-judgment track. The court weighed the ticket, the progress of the case and the defendant's testimony at trial. It set the deposit at NT$100,000, payable in the defendant's own name. The refund was conditional on a return by April 3 and on the court verifying a passport or other supporting documents; a late return would mean forfeiture (ruling of March 2, 2026).

When the answer stayed no

A funeral alone did not carry a request in Pingtung. In July 2024 the district court there refused a Vietnamese defendant in a negligent-homicide case who asked for 14 days at home after the death of the defendant's father. A steady job did not change the court's view of the flight risk: the stay in Taiwan rested on a work visa for a limited period, and home was staff housing. An expert medical review was still pending, and the defendants' denials meant cross-examination might follow. The court also noted that the father had been buried the day after he died (ruling of July 1, 2024).

The seriousness of the charge counts too. In November 2021 the Taipei District Court refused a Mongolian student accused of transporting drugs, an offense carrying a minimum of ten years. During the investigation the student had said that if the course could be finished online at home and the degree still awarded, there would be no return to Taiwan. An offer of NT$50,000 did not move the court, which held that a deposit could not stand in for the ban (ruling of November 29, 2021).

A trip that went to plan

Taoyuan offers the cleanest grant. A Filipino defendant charged with assault and related offenses had once failed to appear and been placed on the wanted list, and was found by police on returning from abroad in April 2025. The defendant later admitted the offenses at a preparatory hearing. On August 6, 2025 the court lifted the ban from August 10 to August 31 on an NT$80,000 deposit and reinstated it from midnight on September 1. Its test came down to two questions. Would the trial or the taking of evidence suffer? Would a substitute such as a deposit stop the defendant from staying abroad (ruling of August 6, 2025)? The defendant left on August 17 and came back on August 30. A third-party surety had paid the deposit. In September the court found that its purpose, securing a return on time, had been served, released that part of the bail obligation, and authorized the return of the deposit and the interest actually earned (ruling of September 30, 2025).

None of these rulings decides guilt. Every defendant mentioned is presumed innocent until a final judgment, and each ruling could be appealed.

The mechanics

Taiwan added a chapter on exit and sea-departure bans (限制出境、出海) to its Code of Criminal Procedure in 2019. A prosecutor or judge may impose one directly where it is necessary and the suspicion against the defendant is strong. One more condition must be met: no fixed residence, or reasonable grounds to believe there is a risk that the defendant will flee, tamper with evidence, or collude with co-defendants or witnesses (Article 93-2). That direct route is closed when the heaviest penalty for the offense is short detention (拘役) or a fine alone. A ban can also accompany bail or restricted residence (Article 93-6).

Time limits sit in Article 93-3: eight months for a prosecutor's ban, extendable by the court twice (four months, then two). At trial, each order runs up to eight months, with a cumulative ceiling of five years where the offense carries a maximum of ten years' imprisonment or less, and ten years for everything else. Time spent on the wanted list after absconding does not count toward any of these limits (Article 93-3(3)). At the airport, the National Immigration Agency carries out the ban and must hand you a written notice with the reason (Immigration Act Article 21). Our column on exit bans at the airport covers the other agencies that can stop a foreigner from leaving.

Who can ask for a change? The defendant and defense counsel, applying to the prosecutor or the court under Article 93-5.

Who pays if you stay away? Whoever posted the bail. Under Article 118, when a defendant on bail absconds, the court orders the surety to pay the set amount and forfeits it, or simply forfeits a deposit already paid, interest included (Article 119-1). The New Taipei grant also wrote forfeiture for a late return into its own terms.

If the answer is no, a court ruling can be appealed within ten days of service (Articles 404(1)(2) and 406). A prosecutor's decision is taken to the court under Article 416, also within ten days. The ban stays in force meanwhile (Article 409). A non-prosecution or deferred-prosecution decision, an acquittal, a suspended sentence or certain other outcomes end the ban automatically, though it can be kept during the appeal period or an appeal if needed (Article 93-4).

New Taipei's later ruling records the defendant's claim of settlement and payment, a booked flight, and the move to the summary-judgment track.

For the first 24 hours after an arrest, see Taken to a Taiwan Police Station: The First 24 Hours Are Not a Release Promise. Hovering International Law Firm can be reached at wei@hoveringlaw.com.tw; its Taichung office is at 6F-1, No. 19, Guanqian Rd., North Dist., Taichung City 40453 (40453 臺中市北區館前路19號6樓之1).

Official sources

Checked October 21, 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions

I am under a criminal exit ban in Taiwan. Can I ask to go home for a family funeral?
Yes, you or your defense lawyer can apply to the prosecutor or the court to revoke or change the ban under Article 93-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Courts have granted such requests by lifting the ban for set dates. On March 2, 2026 the New Taipei District Court let a Vietnamese defendant leave from March 15 to April 3 on an NT$100,000 deposit; it had refused the same defendant about three months earlier.
Do I get the deposit back if I return on time?
Not automatically. A deposit posted to secure the trip comes back, with the interest it earned, once you have met the ruling's terms and the court releases the bail obligation or lets the bail be withdrawn (Articles 119(3) and 119-1(1)). In September 2025 the Taoyuan District Court found that an NT$80,000 deposit had served its purpose, securing a Filipino defendant's return by the end of August, and authorized its return with the interest actually earned. If a defendant on bail absconds, the deposit and its interest are forfeited (Articles 118 and 119-1(2)).
What if the court says no?
A court ruling on an exit ban can be appealed by 抗告 within ten days of service (Article 404(1)(2) and Article 406). A decision by a prosecutor or presiding judge is challenged by asking the court to set it aside or change it within ten days of the decision, or of service if it was served (Article 416). Filing an appeal does not suspend the ban (Article 409).

This article provides general information and is not legal advice on any individual matter.

Related reading