Earlier this year, Mega International Commercial Bank’s New York branch was punished with a fine of US$180 million by the US Department of Financial Services for breaching the US Bank Secrecy Act and money-laundering laws. The news shocked the nation.
Taiwan’s Money Laundering Control Act (洗錢防制法) lags far behind international standards: It does not punish unsuccessful attempts at money laundering, touch on criminal liability of legal entities, its regulations on financial inspection and law enforcement are incomplete, penalties for violations are mild and reporting obligations are low. In addition, confiscation powers are inadequate, making it impossible to completely seize illegal profits.
Because of this gap in the regulations, the nation’s financial sector stumbled badly at the starting line of financial competition in the international community, showing that an immediate amendment to the act is necessary.
Besides, the Asia-Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG) is to conduct an evaluation in Taiwan in 2018. If Taiwan does not pass the evaluation, it would be listed as a high-risk area for money laundering, and such an outcome would have serious consequences for trade and capital, the financial sectors and foreign affairs.
Although Taiwan is a founding member of APG, the nation has failed to keep up with the times and it has been on the group’s watch list since an evaluation in 2007.
Taiwan has also joined the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on money laundering on the basis of its APG membership. With 37 members and nine international organizations, including the APG, the FATF is the world’s most important and largest network against money laundering.
The FATF in 2012 announced that it would end Turkey’s membership of the organization if it were unable to strengthen its legislation against money laundering and terror financing. The announcement forced Turkey to promptly pass the Act on the Prevention of the Financing of Terrorism to keep its membership.
If Taiwan does not pass the 2018 evaluation, it would not only hurt the willingness of foreign banks to work with their Taiwanese counterparts, it would also hurt the willingness of foreign companies to invest in the nation. It could also mean that the FATF would end Taiwan’s membership.
Although the Legislative Yuan is trying to catch up by amending the act, the legislation has been delayed due to a controversy over the confiscation of property.
Instead of stipulating a US civil confiscation model, articles 15 and 18 of the draft amendment to the act adopt a German-Austrian model, stating that if prosecutors obtain sufficient evidence to prove that there is a connection between an offender’s property and money laundering, that property could be seized if the accused is unable to clarify the source of the property.
If the offender is found guilty of money laundering in a criminal trial, the property can then be confiscated.
Also, if prosecutors obtain sufficient evidence to prove that an offender’s property is acquired through other illegal conduct, the property can be seized if the offender is unable to clarify the source of the property.
Compared with the civil confiscation procedures of the US rules against money laundering, the regulations proposed in Taiwan’s draft bill are limited.
The US law sees illegal profits resulting from money laundering as illegal objects. Regardless of whether money laundering was carried out, confiscation can still be implemented.
The burden of proof, which says that “there must be sufficient fact to recognize” that money laundering has taken place, is also greater than the judge’s discretion to evaluate evidence in the US civil confiscation procedure.
According to the proposed amendment, even if a Taiwanese prosecutor meets the burden of proof, the offender’s property would not be seized if the offender can provide a reasonable explanation for the source of that property.
It is clear that Taiwan’s confiscation rules are weaker than the rules in the US and other other nations. Also, the draft bill fails to address the liability of financial institutions as legal entities.
As for violations of reporting obligations, these are defined as administrative misconduct in the draft bill and the fines are far too low compared with international standards.
Take Singapore for example: Several years ago, it classified not reporting violations as a criminal offense.
It is questionable if this nation’s draft bill would be enough to meet the APG’s evaluation criteria.
Taiwan cannot afford the risk of another huge fine or to be labeled as a high-risk nation for money laundering. Hopefully, the draft bill will be passed soon to allow the nation to build a healthy legal system that fights money laundering in line with international standards.
Carol Lin is an associate professor at the National Chiao Tung University Graduate Institute of Technology Law.
Translated by Eddy Chang
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military
RSS