After reviewing all the judgment documents from the prediction market, it turns out that this is how Taiwan investigates Polymarket election events

As the cryptocurrency prediction market platform Polymarket rapidly gains popularity worldwide, Taiwan has also seen a series of betting cases focused on the presidential and local election results. Initially, it was thought that as long as the platform was set up overseas and the bets were made using stablecoins such as USDC, combined with the anonymity of on-chain wallets, it would be difficult for Taiwanese judicial authorities to effectively investigate.
However, after reading multiple local court judgments, the prosecutors' requests for summary judgments, and related forfeiture rulings, it becomes clear that Taiwanese prosecutors and police handle these cases in a manner far more mature and efficient than most people imagine. More importantly, many Polymarket election betting cases do not actually reach the court judgment stage, as they are already resolved at the prosecutor level.
As long as the election results are used as the winning or losing target, it violates the election and recall law.
According to currently known information, in the betting cases related to the 2023 to 2024 presidential election, the Yunlin District Prosecutor's Office has previously made a deferred prosecution decision for 17 gamblers; the Shilin District Prosecutor's Office also previously granted a deferred prosecution of 1 year and a payment of 30,000 NTD for a defendant with the surname Chen; by the time of the 2026 nine-in-one local election betting, the Yunlin District Prosecutor's Office similarly closed the case with deferred prosecution for defendants with the surnames Lu and Tong. These types of cases are directly handled by prosecutors and do not enter the court trial process.
(Two Taiwanese Polymarket bettors arrested! Prosecutors break the first case of a virtual currency nine-in-one election prediction market.)
As for the cases that truly enter the court and leave judgment records, they are enough to outline Taiwan's judicial authorities' current clear legal stance on Polymarket. The court has taken the same view in multiple judgments, which is that prediction markets in the context of elections will not be regarded as a new type of financial instrument but will directly be classified as gambling.
From Hsinchu, Miaoli, Taoyuan, Taichung to Yunlin, the existing judgments in Taiwan repeatedly appear with the same core determination: as long as the election results are used as the winning or losing target, placing bets via the Internet, regardless of whether the platform is nominally a prediction market, an overseas website, or settled in cryptocurrency, it will be recognized as constituting the gambling crime regulated by Article 88-1 of the (presidential and vice-presidential election recall law).
Taiwan has accumulated nearly ten judgments related to prediction markets.
For example, in the Hsinchu District Court case No. 113 Bamboo Simplified Code 170, the defendant placed a bet on the Polymarket market 'Taiwan Presidential Election: Who will win?' betting 49.99 USDC on Ko Wen-je's victory, and was ultimately sentenced to 20 days of detention under the presidential and vice-presidential election recall law, with a 2-year probation declared.
In the Miaoli District Court case No. 113 of the Miaoli Annual Code 340, the defendant placed bets twice, betting on the victory of Ko Wen-je and Hou You-ih. The court similarly determined that it constituted gambling crimes targeting the presidential election results via the Internet, resulting in 30 days of detention.
Another case from the Hsinchu District Court, No. 113 Bamboo Simplified Code 139, shows that the defendant bet 200 USDC on Lai Ching-te's defeat and was ultimately sentenced to 55 days of detention. In the Taoyuan District Court case No. 113 Taoyuan Simplified Code 3070, the defendant placed bets of 1.30738 and 1005.935096 USDC on whether Ko Wen-je would be elected and was also sentenced to 30 days of detention.
The Taichung District Court case No. 113 Central Simplified Code 417 involves two defendants who bet on Lai Ching-te's victory and Ko Wen-je's defeat, one of whom was also declared to have their criminal proceeds confiscated for admitting to a profit of about 20,000 NTD. The Yunlin District Court ruling No. 114 Single Sound Code 100 further demonstrates that even if the case itself ends with deferred prosecution, the prosecution can still separately request the confiscation of the 72.1875 USDC seized.
How Taiwan's prosecution traces user identities from anonymous blockchain.
The most notable aspect of these cases is how the prosecution tracks seemingly anonymous on-chain betting behavior back to named Taiwanese users. From the content of the judgments and indictments, it can be seen that Taiwanese law enforcement has now established a relatively clear investigative path.
First, the investigative agencies will focus on specific bets related to Taiwan's elections on Polymarket, then obtain betting account information, betting times, wallet addresses, and betting records. Next, the real breakthrough does not lie within Polymarket itself but rather in the centralized exchanges where funds flow in and out. Multiple documents clearly present evidence such as 'basic user information from centralized exchanges' and 'photos of the defendant holding national ID, passport, and driver's license,' indicating that the prosecution traced on-chain addresses back to real identities by reviewing exchange KYC documents.
Illustration of Taiwan's prosecution investigating prediction markets.
Taking the cases in Hsinchu and Miaoli as examples. The defendant first applied for a betting account on Polymarket, and the platform then bound that account to a specific deposit contract address. After the police obtained these addresses, they further requested data from local exchanges in Taiwan to identify who had transferred USDC or other assets into that address. Since Taiwanese exchanges generally require users to complete real-name verification, once the source of funds is linked back to the exchange account, the real name, ID documents, and wallet address can be integrated into a complete chain of evidence.
In other words, as long as funds have ever flowed in and out of a centralized exchange, 'decentralization' in practice does not equal 'anonymity,' nor does it equal 'untraceable.'
The red line for Taiwan's prosecution: must act when it involves elections.
From these cases, it can also be seen that the prosecution's handling strategy is quite pragmatic. On one hand, for gamblers who simply bet, prosecutors usually do not easily escalate to the more serious charge of 'intending to profit, providing a gambling venue or organizing gambling.' In the Hsinchu case, for example, the prosecutor clearly pointed out that the defendant merely participated in an existing betting market on Polymarket and did not provide a gambling venue or engage in profit-oriented group behavior, thus not constituting the more serious crime under Article 88-1, Section 4, and could only be handled as a lighter simple betting offense.
On the other hand, the prosecution's red line is actually very clear: 'Is it related to the election?' From all the cases seen so far, as long as the betting target is the presidential or other election results, regardless of whether the platform is located overseas, whether it uses a decentralized structure, or whether it uses cryptocurrency, it will almost uniformly be included in the handling scope of the (presidential and vice-presidential election recall law). In other words, the issue is not whether you are using Polymarket, but rather the target you are betting on. Once it involves an election, it directly enters the criminal risk zone.
Offshore exchanges are not lawless, and CEX usually cooperates with law enforcement.
A bigger signal is that Taiwan's law enforcement agencies have already integrated on-chain transactions, stablecoin fund flows, and centralized exchange KYC into the traditional criminal investigation system. This method is not only applicable to Polymarket but also has extensibility for all cases involving on-chain fund flows. As long as law enforcement agencies grasp the target address, and with the cooperation of exchanges in providing information, the difficulty of restoring an anonymous address to a named individual is actually much lower than many people imagine.
(Binance CEO meets with Taiwan Criminal Police Bureau and receives a commemorative badge to thank them for their cooperation in crime prevention.)
Moreover, this kind of cooperation does not only exist in local exchanges in Taiwan. Large offshore centralized exchanges often provide necessary information when faced with law enforcement requests. Binance has publicly emphasized cooperation with the Taiwan Criminal Police Bureau in recent years and stated that it has responded to numerous requests from law enforcement agencies in Taiwan and worldwide. This means that for users, the real risk is not just whether the platform is overseas, but that as long as your funds have any connection with a centralized exchange, your identity is very likely to be revealed.
This article reviews all prediction market judgments, revealing how Taiwan investigates Polymarket election cases, which first appeared in Chain News ABMedia.