- <![CDATA[我國保險業暨保險輔助人間防制洗錢暨打擊資恐監理之研究]]>科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>Study of the Supervision of AML/CFT on the Taiwanese Insurance Companies and the Intermediaries</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>黃天牧；邵之雋<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201903<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong> 洗錢防制；保險輔助人；大額通報；風險基礎法；加強審查；Anti-Money Laundering；Countering Terrorism Financing；Insurance Company；Insurance Agent；Insurance Broker；Insurance Intermediary；Risk Based Approach；Enhanced Due Diligence<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
本文簡介保險業與保險輔助人之洗錢與資恐監理規範與實際作業，並綜述國內外犯罪人士利用保險商品進行洗錢與資恐常見不法態樣，以及英美國家對保險業與保險輔助人間防範洗錢與資恐相關法令規範。本文發現在如何建置符合我國保險業與保險輔助人間防制洗錢與資恐有效監理法規與作業方面，可從兩個面向著手：保險輔助人與保險公司建構合作通路管理機制之作法，以及增進保險輔助人與保險公司確認及驗證客戶身分之作法。此外，為避免業務員偏重業績，而忽略相關協力義務，本文建議將業務員之執行防制洗錢及打擊資恐之狀況納入酬金制度之一環，以實際得受領之佣金，來管控業務員之作業。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
This study briefly introduces the regulations and compliances of the insurance companies and the insurance agents and brokers (“intermediaries”) on anti-money laundering and countering terrorism financing (“AML/CFT”). It also reviews the common illegalities of domestic and foreign criminals’ using insurance products for money laundering and terrorism financing, and U.S. and U.K.’s regulations for AML/CFT between the insurance companies and intermediaries. In terms of how to establish effective regulations and compliances of AML/CFT which are suitable for Taiwanese insurance companies and intermediaries, this study suggests that we can start from two aspects: the practice of the insurance companies and intermediaries to establish a cooperative access management mechanism, and the practice of enhancing the insurance companies and intermediaries to confirm and verify the clients’ identity. In addition, in order to prevent the salesman’s over emphasis on performance and neglect the relevant cooperation obligations, this study proposes to include the salesman’s implementation of AML/CFT into the part of the remuneration system, and to control the salesmen’s compliances with the actual commission that can be collected.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396863035758350336&type=s我國保險業暨保險輔助人間防制洗錢暨打擊資恐監理之研究
- <![CDATA[現行證券交易法對臺灣存託憑證（TDR）之規範依據]]>科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>The Regulatory Basis on Taiwan Depositary Receipts (TDR) in the Securities and Exchange Act</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>王志誠<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201903<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>臺灣存託憑證；有價證券；第二上市；第二上櫃；Taiwan Depositary Receipt；Securities；Secondary Listing；Second Cabinet<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
在2012年1月4日增訂證券交易法第165條之2規定之前，證券主管機關雖認為臺灣存託憑證（TDR）係屬「外國之其他具有投資性質之有價證券」，但司法實務上亦有判決認為，存託機構在我國內所發行之臺灣存託憑證，雖是「表彰存放於保管機構之外國發行人有價證券」，仍與該外國發行人在外國發行之「外國有價證券」本身有別，導致證券主管機關是否曾依證券交易法第6條第一項規定之授權，將臺灣存託憑證核定公告為證券交易法上之有價證券，產生重大爭議。至於我國於2012年1月4日增訂證券交易法第165條之2規定後，因已對於來我國第二上市或第二上櫃之有價證券，明定其有價證券在中華民國募集、發行及買賣之管理、監督，準用證券交易法第6條規定，臺灣存託憑證成為我國證券交易法上之有價證券，應無疑義，但司法實務上竟有判決認為證券交易法第165條之2之規範對象與臺灣存託憑證無關。本文期能釐清實務爭議之所在，並從解釋論之觀點提出管蠡之見，以杜爭議。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Prior to the stipulation of Article 165-2 of the Securities Exchange Act on January 4, 2012, the securities authority Identified by itself that it has announced the Taiwan Depositary Receipt was one of “other securities of foreign countries with investment nature”. However, some courts held that the Taiwan Depositary Receipt issued by the depositary institution in R.O.C. is still different from the “foreign securities” issued by the foreign company, although it is recognizing the securities in the account of the custodian institution which is issued by the foreign company. The major controversy is whether the securities authority has announced the Taiwan Depositary Receipt (TDR) belong to the securities under Paragraph 1, Article 6 of the Securities Exchange Act. As for the amendment of Article 165-2 of the Securities Exchange Act on January 4, 2012 in Taiwan, it has been identified Article 6 of the Securities Exchange Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the secondary listing or second cabinet of the securities which issued by the foreign company. That is the public offering, issuing, management and supervision in R.O.C. shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Article 6 of Securities Exchange Act. Therefore, there is no dispute about the Taiwan Depositary Receipt become the securities in the Securities Exchange Act. In fact, there are some courts held that the Taiwan Depositary Receipt does not regulated by the Article 165-2 of Securities Exchange Law. This paper will clarify the core point of the practical disputes, and put forward the views from the perspective of interpretation theory to eliminate the mentioned disputes.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[非律師者之法律業務參與──論英國2007年法律服務業法]]>科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>Incorporating Non-lawyers into the Provision of Legal Services--The United Kingdom’s Legal Service Act of 2007</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>陳鋕雄<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201903<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>法律服務業法；法律服務委員會；新型商業架構；非律師之律所所有權；律師獨立性；the Legal Services Act 2007；Legal Service Board；Alternative Business Structure；Non-lawyers Ownership of Law Firms；Independence of lawyers<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
英國於2007年通過著名的法律服務業法，可謂大幅改寫既有法律服務提供之遊戲規則，對歐美國家造成深遠影響。該法在高度管制及放任市場運作這兩種模式中找到平衡點，於規範目的中明示了保護消費者、促進競爭及建立一個具有獨立、健全、多元及有效法律服務市場之決心。該法在監管方面最為特別之處，在於創設由非法律人組成的法律服務委員會，由其作為法律服務之最終監督機構，而日常活動之監管，則交由專業人員自行組成的認證監管機構負責。該法亦創設法律申訴辦公室，以行政調解來統一處理消費者對於法律服務之申訴。雖然英國此一新法帶給消費者更大的選擇自由，對整體法律服務市場帶來極大的利益，然而，有些潛在的法律倫理問題需要注意。本文擬就英國之法律服務業法及實施成效加以分析，並探討此法於運作上所可能產生之倫理議題，最後則會為我國提出政策建議，以期引起更多有志者的討論。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
The famous Legal Services Act 2007 of the United Kingdom dramatically rewrites the traditional rules of legal service and has profound impact to the Western countries. The law finds a balancing point between highly governmental regulations and free market competition and announces in the regulatory goals the determination to protect consumers, to promote competition, and to build up a legal service market with independence, integrity, diversity, and efficiency. The law is special in the approach of regulatory governance that it established Legal Service Board which is dominated by non-lawyer persons as the ultimate regulator, and leave the day-to-day activities to be monitored by approved regulators organized by professionals. The law creates Office for Legal Complaints to handle consumers’ complaints by administrative mediation. Although the new law brings more freedom to choose for consumers and creates great benefits for the legal service market, but there are certain legal ethics issues requiring attentions. This article analyzes the Legal Services Act and the empirical data of the law’s performance, discusses the potential ethical issues, and makes some recommendations for Taiwan’s policymakers in the hope to have more fruitful discussion in this area.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396862555464404992&type=s非律師者之法律業務參與──論英國2007年法律服務業法
- <![CDATA[職業工會適用我國罷工投票規範之研究──德國法制之啟示]]>科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>The Study on the Application of the Regulation of Strike Ballot in Craft Unions and the Implication of German Labor Law</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>邱羽凡<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201903<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>職業工會；爭議權；罷工；罷工投票；勞資爭議處理法第54條第一項；Craft Unions；Right to Dispute；Strike；Strike Ballot；Article 54；Section 1 of the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
我國職業工會自2011年新勞動三法實施後，逐步朝向自主化與多元化的發展，並發展出不同於以往勞健保職業工會模式的工運路線，亦有進行罷工之事例出現，此均讓職業工會適用罷工規範的相關問題開始受到矚目。勞資爭議處理法第54條第一項規定：「工會非經會員以直接、無記名投票且經全體過半數同意，不得宣告罷工及設置糾察線。」此一規範限制工會於宣告罷工前，應先經過罷工投票且取得全體工會會員過半數同意。由於職業工會具有「跨廠場、跨企業」以及「結合相關職業技能之勞工」二大特點，職業工會應如何在罷工投票中適用「全體過半數」之規範，迭生爭論。本文分析德國法上相關討論，釐清罷工投票程序的目的在於實現工會民主，故「全體會員過半數」應以爭議範圍中的工會會員為全體會員的範圍，而違反罷工投票規範應屬工會違反對於會員的義務，不應導出罷工違法以及讓雇主取得對於工會或勞工請求損害賠償之權利。現行勞資爭議處理法第54條第一項將罷工投票規範置於勞資爭議處理法的爭議行為章之中，實有導引讓人誤解罷工投票之組織（工會）內部效力要件為外部效力之問題，故立法上應將罷工投票事項回歸為工會依章程自主所保障的權限，以落實工會內部的直接民主，而不宜再將規範工會與其會員間的事項與勞資爭議處理法中的罷工合法要件併列，造成不當限制工會與勞工之罷工權的結果。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Since the latest collective labor laws came into effect in 2011, craft unions which used to take care of the labor insurance and health insurance in the past, now become more independent and diverse, and even lead strikes. As a result, this phenomenon raises issues about how the procedural requirement for a strike to be applied on craft unions. Article 54, section 1 of the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes provides “A craft union shall not call a strike and set up a picketing line unless a strike has been approved by more than half of the members in total via direct and secret balloting,” which means a craft union should hold a poll, and get more than half of members’ approval before calling for a strike. However, professional unions are consist of members whose occupations are same, but from different enterprises. Therefore, how should “half of members’ approval” from a professional union be counted? Through analyzing German laws, this paper clarifies that the purpose of voting procedures is fulfilling “democracy in craft unions.” Therefore, the base number of “over half of members’ approval” should only include the number of members concerning the instant dispute. In addition, defying such procedure only resulted when a union violates its obligation toward members. Employers cannot claim for any compensation resulting violation of the procedural requirement of a strike. Due to placing Article 54, section 1 of the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes in the chapter of the Industrial Action, people often misunderstand the voting procedure as an issue of external rather than internal effect. Hence, the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes should not regulate the relationship of a craft union and its members, as it will unreasonably limit the right to strike of a craft union and its members. Article of the craft union should have the full autonomy in regulating the procedure of vote to strike in order to achieve the goal of direct democracy in a craft union.]]><![CDATA[]]>