Relevant Legal Provisions

Article 31 of the Criminal Code：Crimes committed due to identity or other specific relationships, including those who jointly commit, incite, or assist in the crime, even without a specific relationship, are treated as principal offenders or accomplices. However, their punishment may be reduced.
Article 59 of the Criminal Code：If the circumstances of the crime are deemed to be forgivable, and the minimum sentence still seems too harsh, the penalty may be mitigated.
Article 29-1 of the Banking Law：Borrowing, receiving investments, inducing others to become shareholders, or receiving funds from the public or unspecified individuals, while promising or paying dividends, interest, dividends, or other rewards that are disproportionately high compared to the principal, is regarded as accepting deposits.
Article 125, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Banking Law：Those who violate the provisions of Article 29, Paragraph 1, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than three years but not more than ten years, and may also be fined between 10 million and 200 million New Taiwan Dollars.
Article 125, Paragraph 3 of the Banking Law：In the case of a legal entity committing the crimes mentioned in the previous two paragraphs, the responsible person shall be punished.

Facts and Reasons

The defendant (this refers only to our client, not other co-defendants in the same case) operated banking business without the approval of the Financial Supervisory Commission, the competent authority. Together with other defendants, the defendant engaged in illegal deposit-taking activities based on non-banking operations and violated the standard operational model of multi-level marketing. Under the plan of other co-defendants, they used a distorted multi-level marketing method to explain investment schemes and profit models to the general public, attracting unspecified investors to join as members and profiting from it. Later, the defendant was prosecuted by the prosecutor, found guilty in the first instance, but due to an excessive sentence, an appeal was filed, and our law firm assisted with the pro bono defense.

Judgment

The sentence imposed in the original judgment is revoked (sentence reduced).

It was found that the defendant in this case was only a lecturer and salesperson, without the identity of a responsible officer for the legal entity. The original judgment did not reduce the defendant's sentence according to the provision of Article 31, Paragraph 1, proviso of the Criminal Code, which is subject to discussion. Furthermore, the defendant has consistently admitted to the crime, and considering their criminal motives, objectives, the degree of legal interest harmed, and the fact that the sentence in the original trial was overly harsh, the appeal filed is not without grounds. The court should revoke the original judgment regarding the defendant's sentencing and issue a new judgment.

(Note: To protect the client's interests, certain case details and judgment images have been redacted and modified. For a full review of the case, please refer to  Judicial Yuan's judgment database)

Attorneys：Herman Lyu