Taiwan’s Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau opened an official Threads account in early October, gained more than 10,000 followers, and then disappeared in less than a month. On the evening of Oct. 30, users noticed that the account could no longer be found. As of publication, neither the bureau nor Taiwan’s Ministry of Justice had issued a public explanation for what happened to the account, and it remained unclear whether it had been shut down voluntarily, temporarily disabled, or removed for another reason.
The account had drawn attention quickly, but several posts also triggered criticism. The controversy centered on three items: a post asking users how many years of punishment would be appropriate in a corruption case still under trial, a firearms training video featuring investigators, and a reply stating that the agency had been “anti-communist since 1928.”
A first post asking about sentencing drew legal criticism
The bureau’s Threads bio had said, “Following this account may increase your legal knowledge and sense of humor,” suggesting it wanted to present its work in a lighter tone.
Its first post discussed a case involving senior tax bureau officials suspected of directing companies to evade taxes. According to the report, those involved were accused of accepting bribes and gift vouchers worth several million New Taiwan dollars, as well as free travel to the United States. The Investigation Bureau said it had seized more than NT$10 million in cash and gold in the case, and 18 people, including an accountant and intermediaries, were indicted.
The report said the case was the first major corruption case in central Taiwan to be heard with citizen judges, meaning randomly selected members of the public would hear the case alongside professional judges. At the end of the post, the account asked users: “In this major case to be heard by citizen judges, how many years do you think would be a reasonable heavy sentence?”
That wording drew criticism from legal circles. Critics said the case had not yet reached a final judgment, sentencing should be decided by the court under the law, and a government agency should not use social media posts to steer public opinion. Some users commented that the account should stick to the facts and that sentencing was for judges to decide. The account replied: “Don’t forget this case also has citizen judges.”
Firearms training video prompted questions from police circles
The second controversy came from a video showing investigators in firearms training. The account stressed that investigators train hard and “it’s not that they don’t know how to use guns,” but users pointed out problems with finger placement and other aspects of the handling shown in the video.
The account also said investigators regularly take part in frontline assault operations. Some people in police circles disagreed, saying those frontline assault duties are mostly handled by police officers.
Later, the account used a temporary story to explain that “the senior colleagues who are truly very skilled with firearms cannot appear in the video because of investigative considerations,” and said the footage showed the training that trainees receive during a year of instruction. It asked the public to give the trainees more encouragement. According to the report, the post briefly became the highest-traffic post on the account, but the explanation did not calm the criticism.
“Anti-communist since 1928” became the third flashpoint
The third controversy came under a Threads post by National Geographic that asked, “What is one thing you have stuck with for 20 years?” The Investigation Bureau account replied: “Anti-communist, persisted in since 1928.”
The reply drew a large number of comments. Some users said the account had ignored the agency’s historical scars and that the wording forgot or overlooked the wounds tied to authoritarian rule and the White Terror period. One comment cited in the report asked: “How do you manage to make an institution that is actually quite upright look so sinister?”
The report also said the account appeared to block many users who had left comments, which only intensified the backlash.
The report included historical context behind the 1928 reference
The original report added historical background to explain why the “since 1928” wording was sensitive.
It said the Kuomintang formally split with the Chinese Communist Party after the April 12 Incident and the July 15 Incident in 1927. In 1928, after the Nationalist government completed the Northern Expedition under Chiang Kai-shek and nominally unified China, it entered the period of political tutelage under one-party leadership and continued harsh anti-communist purges across the country.
In February 1928, according to the report, the Kuomintang Central Organization Department established the “Party Affairs Investigation Section,” led by Chen Lifu. The report described that body as the earliest predecessor of today’s Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau in the Republic of China. One of its core early tasks was intelligence and espionage work against underground Communist Party networks.
No official explanation had been issued by publication time
From its launch in early October to its disappearance noticed on the evening of Oct. 30, the account operated for less than a month. The three disputed episodes touched on a case still under trial, descriptions of investigators’ operational duties, and the agency’s historical framing.
As of the morning of Oct. 31, the report said it had found no public explanation from either the Investigation Bureau or the Ministry of Justice.
