B. Interim progress of the concluding observations on the “Initial Report Under the United Nations
V. International mutual judicial assistance and law-enforcement cooperation in criminal
67
The purpose and elements of laws are inconsistent regarding the sanctions for corruption and the state compensation for the infringement of people‟s rights. According to paragraph 3 of Article 2, paragraph 5 of Article 3, and paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the
“State Compensation Law, the state‟s right to claim is determined by the state‟s liability for compensation. As corruption may not infringe the rights and interests of specific citizens to constitute state compensation, the state may not be able to claim compensation from those committing corruption according to the “State Compensation Law.” In addition, please refer to section B-IV-(V) Implementing a new system of asset confiscation in this report for the deprivation of illegal gains to stop crime.
(V) Implementing a new system of asset confiscation (Measure 45)
Measure 45：Taiwan has implemented a new system of non-conviction-based asset confiscation.
Taiwan is now able to confiscate assets that have been converted to cash.
1. The amendment to the “Money Laundering Control Act” and the “Criminal Code” for a new system of asset confiscation makes thorough forfeiture of the illegal gains from corruption the policy goal of combating corruption. In 2017 the MOJ promulgated and implemented the “Directions for Prosecution Entities to Claim Criminal Gains” and published the “Seizure and Confiscation Handbook.” The MOJ also urged the prosecution of all levels to form a task force for claiming criminal gains and train professionals to enhance the effectiveness of claiming criminal gains.
2. The MOJ constantly supervises the prosecution to establish a mechanism for seizing criminal gains, enforce the auction of seized articles, and establish a special account for recovering the criminal gains of major cases catching much social attention. Please refer to section B-IV-(II)-3 Statistics on bribery and corruption cases involving confiscation in this report for details.
V. International mutual judicial assistance and law-enforcement cooperation in criminal
68
Measure 38：Taiwan has recently enacted a revised Act on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters which is consistent with the requirements of the UNCAC and has entered into agreements and arrangements with several countries in order to implement the Act. Where that is not possible Taiwan can provide mutual legal assistance in criminal matters based on the principle of reciprocity.
1. Status of international mutual judicial assistance
(1) Apart from signing agreements on mutual judicial assistance in criminal matters with the USA (effective as of March 26, 2002), the Philippines (effective as of April 19, 2013), and South Africa (effective as of February 9, 2016) respectively, Taiwan also signed an agreement on law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters with Poland (signed on June 17, 2019 and evaluation completed by the LY, waiting for Poland to complete related domestic procedures), an agreement on mutual judicial assistance in criminal matters with Nauru (signed on August 7, 2019, waiting for the completion of domestic procedures by both countries), an agreement on mutual judicial assistance in civil matters with Vietnam (effective on December 2, 2011). Taiwan also engages in the liaison and holds consultative meetings or bilateral working meetings on the status of cases requiring mutual judicial assistance.
(2) For countries or regions without signing an agreement on mutual judicial assistance but with actual mutual judicial assistance with Taiwan, the MOJ maintains bilateral cooperation based on reciprocity and constantly promotes the signing of agreements on mutual judicial assistance to effectively combat transnational crimes. The table below shows the number of criminal cases requiring internal mutual judicial assistance in the last three years.
Year
Number of MOJ Criminal Cases Requiring Mutual Judicial
assistance
Number of Criminal Cases Based on Bilateral (USA, Philippines, and
South Africa) Mutual Judicial assistance
2017 63 cases 20 cases
2018 87 cases 38 cases
2019 100 cases 33 cases
2. Statistics on cases based on the “Cross-Strait Joint Crime-Fighting and Judicial
69
Mutual Assistance Agreement”
(1) The table below shows the judicial document delivery, investigation and evidence collection, reports on the restriction of personal freedom, and return of criminal gains under the “Cross-Strait Joint Crime-Fighting and Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement”
(Cross-Strait Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement) in the last 3 years.
Year
Judicial Document Delivery (pcs) Reports on Restriction of Personal Freedom
Request by Taiwan
Completed by Mainland
China
Request by Mainland
China
Completed by Taiwan
Reported by Taiwan
Reported by Mainland China
2017 4,724 4,919 2,842 2,846 639 756
2018 3,590 3,819 2,405 2,394 1,057 815
2019 3,158 3,546 2,132 2,223 1,103 879
Year
Investigation and Evidence Collection (cases) Return of Criminal Gains (NTD)
Request by Taiwan
Completed by Mainland
China
Request by Mainland
China
Completed by Taiwan
Returned to Taiwan
Returned to Mainland China
2017 229 153 345 300 0 2,380,570
2018 195 120 242 254 0 0
2019 171 146 328 282 0 10,400,000
(2) Please refer to section B-V-(IV)-3 Status of cross-strait intelligence exchange in this report for cross-strait cooperation in combating crime.
(II) Extradition practice and amending “Law of Extradition” (Measure 39 and 40)
Measure 39：With regard to extradition, Taiwan has a number of practical and legal mechanisms in place to effect the removal and return of fugitives to requesting countries in accordance with the type of relationship existing with requesting countries.
Measure 40：One of those mechanisms is through the Law of Extradition and the current law is being revised in order to remedy some deficiencies and improve its coverage including, for example, the acceptance of bribes by public officials of a foreign country. The committee recognizes these proposed improvements and encourages the finalization and enactment of the revised draft.
1. Studying the amendments of the “Law of Extradition”
70
(1) After completing the amendment to the “Law of Extradition,” the MOJ submitted it to the EY for evaluation on May 17, 2018. The EY held four evaluation meetings on August 6, September 4, and October 11, 2019 and May 7, 2019 respectively. The MOJ has asked the LY to prioritize the evaluation of the amendment to the “Law of Extradition.”
(2) According to the current version of paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the “Law of Extradition”:
“Extradition may be approved if the offense is committed within the territory of the country making requisition therefor and if it is punishable both under the laws of the Republic of China and those of the country making such requisition.” That is, extradition is granted when a case is punishable in both Taiwan and the requesting country (i.e.
double penalty). According to Article 10 after the amendment, however, extradition is possible in the absence of a “double penalty.” For example, although some crimes determined under the UNCAC are not covered in Taiwan‟s law, under the amended “Law of Extradition,” the extradition for committing these crimes may be rejected, but not shall be rejected.
2. Entering into bilateral extradition agreements
Signing a bilateral extradition agreement with a foreign country can ensure a legal basis for requesting extradition between both countries. Currently, no extradition request for any specific case has been made. If there is a case, extradition can be requested for or accepted accordingly to extradite the requested person(s) to the requesting country for investigation, a lawsuit, or criminal execution, in order to let criminal justice be served.
3. Status of implementation of the “Cross-Strait Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement”
The table below shows the number of fugitives extradited in the last 3 years from signing the “Cross-Strait Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement” in April 2009 until December 2019.
Year Request by
Taiwan
Completed by Mainland
China
Request by Mainland
China
Completed by Taiwan 2017 114 persons 13 persons 0 person 0 person 2018 98 persons 11 persons 6 persons 3 persons
71
2019 123 persons 11 persons 6 persons 6 persons By December 2019 1,550 persons 496 persons 30 persons 21 persons
(III) Transfer of sentenced prisoners (Measure 41)
Measure 41: With regard to the transfer of sentenced prisoners Taiwan has, where possible, adequate agreements and arrangements in place to transfer sentenced prisoners.
1. Since the “Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act” promulgated on January 23, 2013 and took effect as of July 23, 2013, Taiwan has signed five bilateral agreements regarding the transfer of sentenced prisoners and has transferred nine sentenced prisoners. On July 8, 2019, the ambassador of the Taipei Representative Office in Denmark and director of the Trade Council of Denmark, Taipei signed the “Arrangement between the Taipei Representative Office in Denmark and the Trade Council of Denmark, Taipei on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons,” and one sentenced prisoner was transferred back to Denmark to serve his term in December 2019, as shown in the table below. The MOJ will continue to actively sign agreements on the transnational transfer of sentenced prisoners with other countries to set out a reference for the bilateral or multilateral arrangements of the transfer of sentenced prisoners.
Signatory Country
Date of
Conclusion Name of Agreement Completed
Transfer Germany October 23,
2013
Arrangement between the Taipei Representative Office in the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Institute in Taipei on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons and Cooperation in the Enforcement of Penal Sentences
7 German citizens
UK April 15, 2016
Arrangement Between the Justice Authorities of Taiwan and the Authorities of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons
One UK citizen
Kingdom of Eswatini
February 27, 2019
Agreement between the Government of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the Government of the Kingdom of Eswatini on the Transfer of Convicted Offenders and Cooperation in the
Enforcement of Penal Sentences
None so far
Republic of Poland
June 17, 2019
Agreement between the Taipei Representative Office in Poland and the Polish Office in Taipei on the Legal Cooperation in Criminal Matters
None so far
Kingdom of Denmark
July 8, 2019
Arrangement Between the Taipei Representative Office in Denmark and the Trade Council of Denmark, Taipei on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons
One Denmark citizen
72
2. The table below shows the number of sentenced prisoners transferred in the last 3 years from signing the “Cross-Strait Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement” in April 2009 until December 2019.
Year Request by
Taiwan
Completed by Mainland
China
Request by Mainland
China
Completed by Taiwan 2017 11 persons 0 person 0 person 0 person
2018 2 persons 0 person 0 person 0 person
2019 4 persons 0 person 0 person 0 person
By December 2019 446 persons 19 persons 0 person 0 person
(IV) Engaging in international law enforcement cooperation with various means (Measures 42)
Measure 42: In relation to law enforcement cooperation Taiwan has various means available to it.
These include mutual legal assistance in the investigation, pursuit and prevention of crime as well as joint law enforcement cooperation and exchanges of information on crimes such as economic crimes, narcotics, corruption and malfeasance and repatriation of fugitives. It can also, in some circumstances, access INTERPOL information, use dispatched police liaison officers and exchange information with foreign FIUs and through financial supervisory agencies. The committee recognizes the proactive nature of these efforts.
1. Participating in international organizations, seminars, and forums
(1) Besides signing agreements on mutual judicial assistance with the USA, the Philippines, and South Africa to enhance bilateral cooperation, Taiwan has also participated in various important international networks in the Asia Pacific, such as the Asset Recovery Inter-Agency Network of Asia/ Pacific (ARIN-AP), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), APEC Network on Anti-Corruption Authorities and Law Enforcement Agencies (ACT-NET), and the AGP. After becoming an official member of these organizations, Taiwan has successfully provided member countries with criminal intelligence over the ARIN-AP. In addition, Taiwan is a partner and designated liaison window of the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (EUROJUST) and an observer of the European Judicial Network (EJN). Taiwan also attends the EJN annual meeting as an observer every year.
73
(2) In September 2019 the MOJ sent prosecutors of the Department of International and Cross-Strait Legal Affairs to share Taiwan‟s experience at the 6th Annual Conference of the ARIN-AP in Mongolia. The contents included the status of mutual judicial assistance in criminal matters and asset tunneling and offshore money laundering of insurance companies in recent years.
(3) The international conferences and forums participated by the MOJ in 2019 are described as follows:
A. The MOJ recommended prosecutors of the Taipei District Prosecutors Office to participate in the trans-border cybercrime seminar held by the US Inland Revenue Services (IRS) and the World Bank in Washington DC to discuss issues including computer-based financial crime, the dark web, virtual currency, encrypted information, and trans-border recovery of stolen assets.
B. In September 2019, the MOJ sent personnel to participate in the 24th IAP Annual Conference of the International Association of Prosecutors in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
At the conference, attendees exchanged opinions on international cooperation and established relationships. The MOJ also sent personnel to participate in the 2019 NAAG Winter Meeting held by the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), the EJN Summer and Winter Annual Conferences, and the Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime. In addition, at the “Combating Transborder Drug Crime Seminar”
co-organized with the MOI and related units, the MOJ invited prosecutors from different foreign countries to speak at the event in Taiwan.
C. In December 2019 the MJIB sent personnel to participate in the “2019 Cross-Strait Criminal Law Forum” in Chongqing, mainland China to present three keynote reports and act as the host and presenter of group discussion. The forum will be held by Taiwan in 2020, with the College of Law of Fu Jen Catholic University as the organizer and the MJIB as the sponsor.
(4) To capture the international trends of AML regulations and deepen international cooperation, the AMLD actively sends personnel to participate in related international
74
organizations and conferences on AML/CTF described as follows:
A. Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF): Since the 18th FATF Conference in October 2006, the AMLD began to send personnel to the FATF conference and related working group meetings for global and regional AML cooperation and constantly review and improve Taiwan‟s legal and supervisory systems.
B. Asia-Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG): Taiwan is a founding member of the APG in the name of Chinese Taipei. Every year the AMLD sends personnel to participate in the APG annual conference, seminars on money laundering patterns, and irregular appraiser training activities. Taiwan is also a member of APG‟s Donors and Providers (DAP) Group and began to participate in APG‟s projects from 2011 to provide members and observers of Pacific islands to improve AML/CTF capacity.
C. Egmont Group (EG): In 1998 the MJIB joined the EG to enhance cooperation on international money laundering control through intelligence exchange, training, and professional sharing. In recent years, the AMLD has organized training courses with EG‟s technical and financial support and provided guidance for non-EG members, including AML training courses for Mongolia, Nepal, Cambodia, and Vietnam. The AMLD has also assisted these countries in developing human resources. The AMLD exchanges AML/CTF intelligence via the EG intelligence network and foreign financial intelligence centers. The table below shows the intelligence exchange in the last 3 years.
Year
Request for assistance from foreign countries
Request for assistance from
Taiwan
Active intelligence sharing by foreign
countries
Active intelligence sharing by Taiwan
2017 60 cases 168
cases 21 cases 87 cases 53 cases 100
cases 45 cases 94 cases 2018 48 cases 164
cases 23 cases 107
cases 98 cases 196
cases 20 cases 46 cases 2019 71 cases 279
cases 38 cases 292
cases 81 cases 198
cases 17 cases 50 cases 2020
January-May 25 cases 88 cases 10 cases 34 cases 23 cases 53 cases 9 cases 17 cases D. Asset Recovery Inter-Agency Network of Asia/ Pacific (ARIN-AP): In January 2014,
Taiwan participated in the ARIN-AP to establish an efficient and coordinative network
75
for recovering criminal assets through regional cooperation. By participating in ARIN-AP‟s annual conference and related activities, Taiwan captures the progress in establishing an efficient and coordinated network. Based on the examples and experience in criminal asset recovery of foreign countries, Taiwan actively participates in the international cooperation of trans-border recovery of criminal assets.
E. The table below shows the international conferences that the AMLD participated in 2019-2020.
Time Conference Place
January 27-31, 2019 EG Working Group Meeting Jakarta, Indonesia June 16-21, 2019 The 3rd Meeting of the 30th FATF
Annual Meeting and Working Group Meetings
Orlando, USA
June 30-July 5, 2019 The EG Annual Conference The Hauge, the Netherlands August 18-23, 2019 The APG Annual Conference Canberra, Australia September 2-6, 2019 APG Appraiser Training Seminar Bandung, Indonesia September 23-24, 2019 The ARIN-AP Annual Conference Ulaanbaatar,
Mongolia November 7-8, 2019 No Money for Terror Ministerial
Conference on Counter-Terrorism Financing
Melbourne, Australia
January 27-31, 2020 EG Working Group Meeting Republic of Mauritius
June 2020 The 3rd Meeting of the 31st FATF
Annual Meeting and Working Group Meetings
Video Conference
October 2020 (planned to participate)
The 1st Meeting of the 32nd FATF Annual Meeting and Working Group Meetings
Paris, France
December 2020 (planned to participate)
The ARIN-AP Annual Conference Queenstown. New Zealand
(5) During April 20-28, 2019, the CGA sent personnel to attend the 16th “International Conference on Transnational Organized Crime and Terrorism” (ICTOCT) in the USA and presented oral and written reports on “CGA‟s Performance in Drug Smuggling Tracking and Major Cases Sharing.”
2. Developing continuous cooperation channels with other countries
(1) Since the establishment in 2011 and until May 2020, the AAC has established liaison and
76
cooperation mechanisms with the anti-corruption entities in 11 countries to exchange corruption intelligence for a total of 69 cases (including 6 with mutual judicial assistance and 63 with intelligence exchange). Upholding the principle of reciprocity, the AAC actively expands and establishes transborder cooperation mechanisms through different channels.
(2) The MJIB has established liaison channels with over 80 law enforcement units and organizations in more than 50 countries. In addition, it has sent legal secretaries to 26 cities in 20 countries across the world. The legal secretary in Russia was sent in mid-July 2019 to engage in criminal intelligence exchange, personnel training, and investigation cooperation, and to establish continuous, unofficial cooperation channels with the host country. Through cooperation with equivalent entities in the host country, the MJIB investigates and repatriates fugitives escaping overseas. The table below shows the achievements in the last 3 years.
Year Number of fugitives escaping overseas repatriated
2017 3 persons
2018 3 persons
2019 2 persons
January-May 2020 3 persons
(3) Through cooperation agreements, the police liaison officers in foreign countries, or short-term mission dispatch, the cooperation channels between the NPA and other countries include: The NPA engages in cooperation with and requests for assistance from the police of other countries and the Interpol. The table below shows NPA‟s achievements in cracking transborder criminal cases and arrest and repatriation of fugitives escaping overseas in the last 3 years.
Year Cracking transborder criminal cases
Arrest and repatriation fugitives escaping overseas
2017 49 cases 54 persons
2018 61 cases 42 persons
2019 60 cases 36 persons
January-May 2020 14 cases 13 persons
(4) The National Immigration Agency (NIA) of the MOI has 28 locations across the world to strengthen the establishment of cooperation channels, exchange criminal intelligence,
77
and combat transnational crimes with the border control, immigration, and prosecution entities of the host country to repatriate Taiwanese criminals escaping overseas to receive judicial sanctions through law enforcement cooperation. The NIA has signed memoranda of understanding (MOU) or agreements on immigration affairs cooperation, human trafficking control, and immigration intelligence exchange with countries including Indonesia, Vietnam, Paraguay, the USA, Japan, Belgium, and Australia for the reference of investigation cooperation. The table below shows the achievements in assistance in arresting Taiwanese fugitives escaping overseas of NIA‟s overseas immigration secretaries in the last 3 years.
Year Number of fugitives escaping overseas repatriated
2017 86 persons
2018 88 persons
2019 87 persons
January-May 2020 25 persons
3. Status of cross-strait intelligence exchange
(1) The table below shows the intelligence exchange requested by both sides in the last 3 years according to the “Cross-Strait Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement” signed in April 2009 until December 2019:
Year
Statistics on the Cross-Strait Requests for Intelligence Exchange
Intelligence from Taiwan Intelligence from Mainland China
2017 658 cases 98 cases
2018 549 cases 73 cases
2019 589 cases 84 cases
By December 2019 6,523 cases 1,744 cases
(2) From signing the “Cross-Strait Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement” in April 2009 until December 2019, through exchanging intelligence for investigation cooperation with mainland China, the CIB, MJIB, and CGA cracked 229 cases and arrested 9,419 persons, as shown in the table below.
Entity Investigation Cooperation Through Intelligence Exchange with the Mainland China Police
CIB Cracked 162 cases and arrested 8,957 persons together, including fraud,
78
narcotics, kidnapping for ransom, murder, robbery, embezzlement through money laundering, and distribution of child/youth pornography.
MJIB
Cracked 26 cases on transborder drug smuggling and arrested 190 persons, including 74 Taiwanese citizens, together.
Cracked 6 cases and arrested 44 persons together in investigation cooperation on other cases.
CGA Cracked 25 drug cases (8,083 kg of different kinds of drugs), 6 smuggling cases, and 4 illegal immigration cases and arrested 228 persons together.
(3) From signing the “Cross-Strait Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement” in April 2009 until December 2019, the NIA and the mainland China police cracked human trafficking gangs together. The NIA arrested 5 Chinese suspects and 11 Taiwanese suspects, while the mainland China police arrested 7 Taiwanese suspects and 2 Chinese suspects.
(V) Recovering assets (Measure 44)
Measure 44：The Review Committee recognises the challenges faced by Taiwan in recovering assets from corruption cases involving citizens and organisations based in those countries which do not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Nevertheless, Taiwan has been able to recover substantial assets in some cases.
1. Please refer to section B-IV-(II)-1 The APG published the MER 3 in this report.
According to the MER 3, Taiwan was rated for “regular follow-up,” the best of the kind.
2. The criminal gains (proceeds of crime) from the corruption in the “Lafayette Frigate Deal”
have been transferred to overseas banks. Since 2001, Taiwan has frozen a total of 61 accounts with a sum of US$1,008,420,000 through mutual judicial assistance with Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Austria, Jersey, and Mann. Later, Taiwan independently announced the forfeiture of these criminal gains, and the Supreme Court ruled the forfeiture and force collection of the principal US$312,539,913.44 (approx.
NT$9.4 billion, at the exchange rate of US$1:NT$30). As the responsible unit for forfeiting criminal gains and mutual judicial assistance, the Taipei District Prosecutors Office immediately actively contacted Switzerland and other countries to claim for the said amount of criminal gains ruled by the Supreme Court. The MOJ assisted the prosecution with liaison with Switzerland to confirm the current status of the frozen criminal gains and actively discuss the procedures and regulations for claiming the