A blaze at a Launch Technologies Co (明揚國際) factory in Pingtung County resulted in heavy casualties among firefighters and employees. Launch Technologies and its parent company, Advanced Group (明安國際), in an online news conference promised to set up a trust fund to compensate people affected by the disaster.
However, the incident not only involves civil liability, but potential criminal liability, including for company executives.
Paragraph 2 of Article 190-1 of the Criminal Code says that a factory or business proprietor, employee or other personnel can be sentenced to up to seven years in prison if they are found guilty of throwing, abandoning, draining, releasing or using a poisonous substance or any other substance that might cause harm to public health. The article also includes penalties for negligence leading to pollution.
If an offense results in serious physical injury, the offender shall be sentenced to prison for a minimum of three years and a maximum of 10. If an offense causes death, the sentence is seven years to life imprisonment, the article says.
Actions regulated by the Criminal Code are not limited to the discharge of toxic substances. It also covers substances that are “harmful to health.”
While the chemicals stored in Launch Technologies’ factory would not be considered harmful as they were, the gases they emitted after the explosions were, which brings Article 190-1 into play.
Legal responsibility for the incident might not be limited to low-level employees, but could include company executives, even the chairman and general manager. Whether executives of the parent company should face charges is a complex issue.
To judge accountability among top management of Launch Technologies, it must be determined whether there was a failure of supervisory responsibilities. Companies operate on a hierarchy. If executives had ordered their subordinates to pay close attention to the materials in storage, they might be exempt from liability because their obligation of supervision would have been fulfilled. The success of a prosecution would rely on the ability of investigators to find evidence.
Even if it were found that top management failed to fulfill their supervisory responsibilities, the “negligence” passages of Article 190-1 would apply, which have lower penalties.
“An offender who commits the offense ... due to negligence shall be sentenced to imprisonment for no more than three years, detention, or a fine or combined with a fine no more than NT$6 million [US$185,943],” the article says.
Because Article 190-1 does not have a provision for aggravated negligence causing death, the alternative would be to apply Article 276 of the Criminal Code, which says that “a person who negligently causes the death of another shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years ... or a fine of not more than NT$500,000.”
Moreover, Article 55 of the Criminal Code says that when an act constitutes several offenses, only the most severe punishment shall be imposed. So even though there were many casualties in the fire, the negligence passages would limit prison terms to not more than five years.
Clearly there is an imbalance in criminal liability.
The law should be amended to increase penalties for people found guilty of discharging harmful substances causing death or serious injury.
In addition, lawmakers should consider increasing the punishment in cases of negligence causing death.
Wu Ching-chin is a professor in Aletheia University’s Department of Law and director of the university’s Criminal Law Research Center.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS