Next year, the Constitutional Court will first review whether the Evidence Act is a blank criminal law.
Schematic diagram of the Constitutional Court, which has nothing to do with this case.
[Reporter Wu Zhengfeng/Taipei Report] China Development Financial Holdings’ merger and acquisition of Jinding Securities was suspected of insider trading. Chief Legal Counsel Nan Yijun, Senior Deputy Manager of Strategic Planning Chen Xiangming and others were arrested in 2015 for violating the "Securities Exchange Act" public acquisition regulations. The verdict of guilty was confirmed.
Nan Yijun and Chen Xiangming questioned that the Securities and Exchange Act is a "blank criminal law" and violated the clarity of the law. They petitioned for constitutional interpretation, and the Constitutional Court decided to accept it. It will be the first case to be heard next year.
The Constitutional Court will hold oral arguments on February 7, 2023 at 10 am in the Constitutional Court (4th Floor, Judiciary Building).
Those who want to become friends of the court should submit their petitions before December 30, 2022. Overdue will not be accepted.
If approved, submissions should be submitted by January 9, 2023.
The trial will be open for observation and will be broadcast live online.
Please read on...
This case can be divided into four major points of contention. First, is there any difference in the judgment criteria and degree of the principle of clarity of punishment when compared with general criminal law in economic criminal law (taking the Securities and Exchange Law as an example)?
Is it necessary to supplement the previous relevant interpretations (Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 522 and Interpretation No. 680)?
Second, Article 175 of the Securities and Exchange Law amended and promulgated on February 6, 2002 stipulates that "those who violate... the provisions of Article 43-1, Item 3... shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than 2 years, criminal detention, or a new sentence. A fine of not more than NT$1.8 million", Article 43-1, Item 3 stipulates that "Anyone who intends to acquire a certain percentage of the total issued shares of a public offering company individually or jointly with others shall adopt a public tender offer unless certain conditions are met. method” (i.e. the second provision at issue), Article 43-1 Item 4 stipulates that “according to the provisions of the second item, the scope, conditions, period, related parties, declaration and announcement items and certain ratios and conditions of the preceding item , to be determined by the competent authority” and other 3 provisions, after the overall observation, is it a blank criminal law?
What is the criterion for judging the clarity of the penalty?
Is the regulation of "a certain proportion" predictable to the person subject to regulation?
Third, Article 3 is the same as Article 11, Item 1 of the "Administrative Measures for the Public Acquisition of Securities of Publicly Offered Companies" revised and announced on June 22, 2005. Those who issue more than 20% of the total shares of the company should adopt the method of public acquisition." Overall observation, whether the so-called "jointly scheduled to acquire more than 20% of the total issued shares of the company's issued shares within 50 days" is a violation of the Securities and Exchange Law What are the main elements of Article 175?
What is the meaning of "jointly booked within 50 days"?
From the perspective of criminal law, is the meaning of its constituent elements clear?
Regarding this part, is it foreseeable for the subject to "jointly scheduled to be obtained within 50 days"?
Is "jointly scheduled to be acquired after 50 days" the behavior that the four provisions intend to regulate?
Fourth, do the provisions of Article 4 meet the requirements of the principle of clarity of constitutional authorization and clarity of punishment?