Dollar.

schematic diagram.

(European News Agency file photo)

[Reporter Yang Guowen/Taipei Report] A woman surnamed Yang wanted to go to Shanghai, China the year before last, but was found by the security inspectors that she was carrying an excess of 63,000 US dollars and 4,500 yuan in foreign currency. In addition to returning the 10,000 US dollars and 4,500 yuan in accordance with the law, she did not The excess foreign currency of US$53,000 and about NT$1.63 million declared in accordance with the regulations were confiscated. She refused to accept it and filed an administrative lawsuit, pleading that this was the medical expenses she had saved for her son’s medical treatment and should be returned to her. However, the Kaohsiung High Administrative Court It is believed that Ms. Yang went abroad 23 times in 8 years. She should have known the relevant regulations and sentenced him to lose the case. She still refused to accept and filed an appeal.

The judgment pointed out that on July 2, 2021, a woman surnamed Yang wanted to take EVA Air's BR-706 flight to Shanghai at Kaohsiung International Airport. When she passed the exit security inspection area, she was seized by the security inspection team of the Kaohsiung Branch of the Aviation Police Bureau. Carrying excess foreign currency that was not declared in accordance with Article 12, Item 1 of the Money Laundering Prevention Law. After counting, she carried a total of 63,000 US dollars and 4,500 RMB on her body. The portion of the excess foreign currency amounting to US$53,000 declared in accordance with the regulations (calculated at NT$30.8 in recent days, approximately NT$1.63 million) was confiscated in accordance with Article 12, Item 4, of the Money Laundering Prevention Law.

Please read on...

Ms. Yang refused to accept, and after the appeal was rejected, she filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting the original punishment and decision on the appeal.

Ms. Yang contended that she did not see any announcements related to the exit of foreign currency referred to by the Kaohsiung Customs Administration on the route of exit customs clearance. Secondly, the foreign currency confiscated by her was not proceeds of crime, but her hard-earned savings for her son’s medical treatment. For medical expenses, Kaohsiung Customs directly confiscated the foreign currency, which obviously violated the legislative purpose, the principle of proportionality and the principle of good faith of the Money Laundering Prevention Law.

In addition, she brought all the US dollars 63,000 and RMB 4,500 with her, which can prove that she has no intention of hiding. When the security inspector asked her if she had declared these foreign currencies, she answered where to declare them, which can prove that she has He verbally expressed his intention to declare voluntarily, so the confiscation of USD 53,000 should be revoked.

However, the Kaohsiung High Administrative Court ruled that Article 12, Item 4 of the Money Laundering Prevention Act and Article 3, Item 1 of the Measures for the Entry and Exit Declaration and Notification of Money Laundering Prevention Articles stipulate that foreign currency that exceeds the equivalent of 10,000 US dollars without reporting Those who have been found shall be confiscated in order to urge them to actively and honestly declare.

The Kaohsiung High Administrative Court held that the Kaohsiung Customs Administration not only disclosed the relevant regulations on the website of the Customs Administration of the Ministry of Finance and Kaohsiung Customs, but also erected notice boards in the departure hall of Kaohsiung International Airport, the customs passenger service desk and the security inspection line. Moreover, the handwriting is obvious, and ordinary people can know it even if they pay a little attention. Obviously, they have fulfilled their duties of publicity and publicity.

In particular, from June 12, 2012 to December 6, 2020, Ms. Yang entered and exited the country 23 times at Kaohsiung International Airport and Kinmen Airport. There are relevant publicity notices in the inspection area and customs clearance routes, so Ms. Yang should have some understanding of the relevant regulations, and Ms. Yang was sentenced to lose the lawsuit.

Nv Yang refused to accept it and filed an appeal.

The Supreme Administrative Court found that Ms. Yang appealed that the original judgment violated the law, but did not raise any violations of the law or improper application of regulations. The appeal was illegal, so it ruled to reject the decision.