What happens if someone is detained in a major financial case under the Securities and Exchange Law? The detention court first addresses issues such as collusion, destruction of evidence, and flight risks.

When a major securities transaction case is investigated and the Bureau of Investigation searches the premises, the proceedings are often very swift.

The relevant procedures can be found in the document.Securities trading law research, interviews, and defense in major financial criminal cases.

Search for your company or residence in the morning;

He was taken to the investigation bureau for questioning during the day;

He was transferred to the district prosecutor's office for further questioning in the evening;

The prosecutor requested detention after questioning the suspect;

The court may then convene a detention hearing very soon.

For family members, the most immediate questions are usually:

"Why are people being detained for cases involving only companies or stocks?"

Is it easy to get a lawsuit under the Securities Exchange Act?

"The company's accounting books, cell phones, and computers have already been confiscated. What else can be used to destroy evidence?"

"Does finding a deposit guarantee mean I can pay bail?"

"Does the detention court focus on whether a crime has been committed, or on whether the suspect will not escape?"

These issues cannot be addressed in a single sentence:

"Because the case is serious."

Let me answer.

Criminal detention is not a form of punishment.

The court must decide whether, before a judgment is finalized, it is necessary to deprive individuals of their personal freedom to ensure that investigation, trial, and subsequent execution can proceed.

Therefore, the defense of custody in major financial criminal cases usually requires addressing three levels simultaneously:

First, has the suspicion of a crime truly reached a serious level?

Second, are there any specific facts regarding the risks of escape, collusion, or destruction of evidence claimed by the prosecutor?

Third, even if there are certain procedural risks, can detention be replaced by bail, liability, restrictions on residence, restrictions on leaving the country or going to sea, or other measures?

Securities transaction law cases, in particular, often involve multiple individuals, corporate organizations, large amounts of electronic data, and complex financial flows; detention courts cannot simply state the facts in an abstract manner.

"The defendant will definitely cooperate with the investigation."

The risks that the court is truly concerned about need to be addressed one by one.

First, let's clarify: Securities trading law cases do not necessarily involve "detention for every defendant".

according toArticle 101 of the Criminal Procedure LawAfter being questioned by the judge, the defendant must first meet the following requirements:

The suspect is highly suspected of committing a crime.

Furthermore, there must be a legally recognized reason for detention, and it must meet the following criteria:

Without detention, it would be difficult to prosecute, try, or enforce the charges.

Only when the circumstances warrant detention can the court order such a detention.

Common reasons for detention include:

There may be facts sufficient to suggest that there is a risk of escape;

There are sufficient facts to suggest that there is a risk of destroying, forging, or altering evidence, or of colluding with accomplices or witnesses;

And specific serious crimes as stipulated by law.

therefore:

The seriousness of the case does not automatically justify detention.

Securities transaction law cases may involve high amounts of money, a large number of defendants, and complex company documents, making prosecutors pay more attention to procedural risks.

However, the court must still make a judgment based on the specific circumstances of each defendant.

two,Article 171 of the Securities Exchange LawThe penalties are severe, but Article 171, Paragraph 1, does not mean "detaining someone for a serious crime simply because of a charge."

This is a very important legal distinction in detention courts for major financial cases.

Certain serious offenses under Section 171, Paragraph 1 of the Securities Exchange Act, such as:

Market manipulation;

insider trading;

The financial statements are inaccurate;

Unconventional transactions;

Special breach of trust;

The statutory penalty is imprisonment for a term of not less than three years but not more than ten years, and may also be subject to a hefty fine.

One of the grounds for detention stipulated in Article 101, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Law requires that the offense committed is:

death penalty;

life imprisonment;

Or a crime punishable by imprisonment for a minimum term of five years.

therefore:

It is not permissible to conclude that the defendant necessarily meets the elements of a serious crime under Article 101, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Law simply because the defendant is suspected of violating Article 171, Paragraph 1 of the Securities Exchange Law.

The lightest sentence under Article 171, Paragraph 1 is three years, not five years.

However, if the case involves Section 171, Paragraph 2 of the Securities Exchange Act:

The proceeds or property obtained through the crime amount to more than NT$100 million.

The situation changes when the statutory penalty is increased to imprisonment for seven years or more.

Furthermore, even in cases involving serious crimes under Article 101, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Criminal Procedure Law, current law still requires:

There are considerable reasons to believe that there is a risk of fleeing, destroying, forging, or altering evidence, or colluding with accomplices or witnesses.

That is to say:

"Severe punishment"

That alone is still not the only reason.

This firm has a separate office.Specialized services for major financial criminal cases and securities trading lawA dedicated service page that integrates defense efforts related to searches, detention, transaction flows, and accounting documents.

III. Why is "collusion of evidence" the most common charge in major financial cases?

Securities trading law cases are usually not handled entirely by one person.

For example, market manipulation cases may also involve:

Funding providers;

Securities account holder;

The person who placed the order;

Company internal staff;

Those involved in market transactions.

Cases involving false financial statements may involve:

director;

Manager;

Finance Manager;

Accounting supervisor;

business;

purchase;

External trading partners.

Special breach of trust or unconventional transactions may involve:

Board of Directors;

Company head;

Related companies;

counterparty in the transaction;

Finance personnel.

Therefore, prosecutors can easily argue that:

If the defendant returns to the company or is free to contact other people, it is possible that:

Confirm the contents of each other's statements;

Discuss how to answer;

Demand that employees change their wording;

Influence on witnesses;

Or reinterpret the company documents.

This is why, in major financial criminal cases involving multiple individuals, it is usually strictly forbidden for the defendants to contact other involved parties to discuss the matter after a search is conducted:

What did you say today?

"What did the prosecutor ask you?"

"Shouldn't we agree on what we're saying?"

Even if the person involved simply wants to know what happened, it may increase the prosecutor's concerns about the risk of collusion.

Fourth, the detention court should not simply say "I can't fabricate evidence," but should ask: What else can I fabricate evidence for?

This is one of the core aspects of detention defense.

If the prosecutor argues for the risk of collusion, the defense should further break down the argument in detail:

Have the inquiries of the key co-defendants been completed?

Have the key witnesses already given their statements?

Have important company documents been seized?

Have the cell phones and computers been seized by the investigation authorities?

Are bank and securities data stored by a third-party financial institution?

Has the company's emails or server been mirrored or seized?

Has the defendant left his/her original position?

Does the defendant still have the actual ability to control the relevant employees?

For example:

If the main mobile phones, computers, company ledgers, bank transaction records, and securities trading data have all been obtained by the investigators...

The defense should further ask:

What core evidence is still at hand that the defendant can destroy?

Instead of simply accepting it abstractly:

"There is a lot of data in financial cases, so there is definitely a risk of destroying evidence."

5. Why is "abundant electronic data" particularly prone to becoming a point of contention in detention cases in financial cases?

Major financial cases now frequently involve:

cell phone;

LINE;

Email;

Cloud drive;

Company server;

Accounting system;

ERP;

Securities transaction information;

Online banking;

Excel;

Board of Directors' electronic documents.

The prosecution may argue that if the defendant still has access to the company or personal accounts, then:

delete;

Revise;

Remote removal;

Ask someone else to handle it;

There is a risk of altering the content of the information.

Therefore, it is strongly discouraged to do it yourself after searching:

Delete LINE;

Leave the group and clear the content;

Delete email;

Format the phone;

Reinstall the computer;

Request IT to delete the account;

Remote logout or clear device.

Even if the party concerned believes it is only:

"Organizing personal documents."

These can lead to completely different interpretations in criminal proceedings.

The relevant procedures can be found in the document.Company executives summoned by the investigation bureau or company searched.

VI. If mobile phones, computers, and account books are all confiscated, they may actually become defense material to reduce the risk of evidence destruction.

The search is certainly a disadvantageous procedure for the defendant.

However, from the perspective of the necessity of detention, another problem may arise:

If the prosecutor has already seized all the key evidence he needs, what is there to prevent by continuing to detain him?

For example:

The mobile phone involved in the case has been seized;

The computer has been seized;

The accounting books have been seized;

The company's server data has been copied;

Securities transaction records can be obtained directly from securities firms;

Bank cash flows can be obtained directly from financial institutions;

Board minutes have been obtained.

In this case, the defense should include:

List of seized evidence

Organize it clearly.

Because the necessity of detention cannot be determined solely by:

"The case could have had evidence."

Instead, we should look at:

What specific risks still exist?

7. Securities trading law cases often involve many co-defendants, but one cannot infer collusion and evidence based solely on the fact that "others haven't finished asking their questions."

The investigation of cases involving multiple perpetrators is indeed complex.

However, detention is still determined on a case-by-case basis for individual defendants.

For example, A is the chairman of the board;

B is the finance manager;

C is a general accounting staff member;

D is merely the nominal holder of the securities account.

These four people:

Company authority;

Influence on others;

Obtain information;

Degree of involvement;

and the possibility of actual contact

It could be completely different.

Therefore, we cannot use just one sentence:

"There are other accomplices in this case who are still under investigation."

It replaces individualized judgment.

The defense should provide specific details:

Who exactly did the defendant have working relationships with?

Does a hierarchical relationship still exist?

Have you already resigned?

Are you willing to refrain from contacting specific individuals?

And whether the risk can be reduced by means such as prohibiting contact.

8. Another key point of the detention hearing: Is there a risk of the defendant fleeing?

Major financial cases typically carry heavier penalties and may involve substantial amounts of illicit proceeds; therefore, prosecutors sometimes argue that:

The defendant faces severe punishment and has reasons to flee.

However, the risk of fleeing still needs to be assessed based on specific facts.

Commonly organized materials include:

fixed residence;

Family relationships;

child;

Long-term work;

Company or profession;

Assets in Taiwan;

Did you arrive on time when you were notified in the past?

Will you cooperate after the search?

Do you have any plans to travel abroad?

Do they have foreign status or have lived abroad for an extended period?

Are there any signs that they are actually preparing to flee?

"The sentence could be very heavy."

It is a risk factor.

However, it cannot usually replace all other specific situations.

9. Does having overseas assets, foreign clients, or frequent business trips necessarily mean one will flee?

uncertain.

In cases involving financial institutions, listed companies, and multinational corporations, company executives or senior managers may inherently:

Frequent business trips;

It has overseas companies;

Has an overseas account;

Dealing with foreign clients;

Some even have foreign residency status.

These facts may be brought up by the prosecution.

However, further distinctions should still be made:

Normal long-term business activities

and

Specific plans for escape after the incident

Are they the same thing?

If the court remains concerned about the risks of leaving the country, the defense can further assess the following:

Restrictions on leaving the country and going to sea;

Hand over the passport;

Residency restrictions;

Guaranteed;

Regular check-in;

or other measures

Is it sufficient to replace detention?

10. Detention is not limited to just two options: "detention" and "complete freedom".

Article 101-2 of the Criminal Procedure LawIt is clearly stipulated that:

Even if certain circumstances under Section 101 or Section 101-1 exist, the court may still order: If detention is not necessary.

Guaranteed;

Responsibility;

Or restrict residence.

In addition, when a court suspends detention, it may impose certain conditions of compliance in accordance with the law.

Therefore, the detention court cannot only do:

"Risk-free"

Choose one of the two.

More importantly:

Are there any less harmful but still risk-controlling alternatives?

For example:

High-value insurance coverage;

Residency restrictions;

Restrictions on leaving the country and going to sea;

No contact may be made with any specific co-defendant;

Entry into the premises of certain companies is prohibited;

Specific evidence may not be disposed of;

Regular check-in;

Other necessary restrictions.

A truly complete defense of custody should include:

Alternative detention options.

The relevant procedures can be found in the document.Criminal detention and release on bail.

11. Having money to pay bail does not guarantee that you can exchange your bail money for your freedom.

Common questions that families ask immediately after major financial cases:

"How much money do I need to pay for insurance?"

There is no fixed answer to this question.

Ju Bao is not:

Paying a sum of money to the court will guarantee your departure.

The court must first determine:

Is detention necessary?

If you believe that even with a large deposit, you still cannot control the situation:

Serial certificates;

Destroy evidence;

escape

Specific risks,

He may still be detained.

Conversely, if the court believes that bail, restricted residence or other restrictions are sufficient to control the risk, it should not necessarily detain someone simply because the case is significant.

therefore:

A margin is a tool to secure procedures, not a price to buy freedom.

12. Should the detention court argue for "no crime committed" or "no need for detention"?

Both may need to be addressed, but we cannot focus on just one.

The first layer is:

Is the suspicion of a crime serious?

If the prosecutor's current evidence still has significant gaps, for example:

The transaction was not directly related to the defendant;

The account was not under the defendant's control;

The defendant did not participate in the decision-making process;

Key information was taken out of context;

The defendant did not have the relevant authority in his/her position.

This can lead to disputes over whether the suspicion of a crime has truly reached a serious level.

However, even if the court believes there is strong suspicion of a crime,

We still need to proceed to the second level:

Is there a reason for the detention?

Third layer:

Is there any need for detention?

So they only kept saying it in the detention court:

I have not committed a crime.

But nothing is done:

Why won't there be any certificate fraud?

Why didn't they flee?

What alternative measures are sufficient?

It is usually not a complete detention defense.

Thirteen, in detention courts handling major financial cases, a "risk assessment table" can be prepared in advance.

In practice, you can compile a list of the reasons that the prosecutor may raise.

For example:

Prosecutor: Risk of collusion

The response should be specific:

Which co-defendants have been questioned?

Which key witnesses have given statements?

Whom are you prohibited from contacting?

Have you left your original position?

Does the company still have the ability to control its employees?

Prosecutor: Risk of destroying evidence

Response:

Cell phones, computers, and account books have been seized;

Bank and securities firm data are stored by a third party;

The company's server has been acquired;

What other data can still be destroyed?

Prosecutors: There is a risk of escape

Response:

fixed residence;

family;

Work;

Assets in Taiwan;

Circumstances of each arrest;

Willing to accept restrictions on leaving the country and going to sea;

Hand over the passport;

Guaranteed.

This is better than a letter that is entirely composed of:

"The defendant is of good character, deeply remorseful, and will definitely cooperate."

The written statement is closer to the real points of contention in the detention court.

Fourteen, if the company's responsible person is not the principal perpetrator, the role must be clearly distinguished in the detention defense.

In major financial cases, professional titles are easily misunderstood.

For example:

Chairman;

President;

Chief Financial Officer;

director;

Supervisor;

Manager.

The prosecution may start by examining the formalities of the duties.

However, criminal liability still needs to be addressed as follows:

Actual work content;

Actual decision-making power;

Whether or not they participated in the transactions in question;

Do you have control of the account?

Do you have access to financial documents?

Do you know about the actions of others?

Similarly, regarding the assessment of detention risks:

Not all directors have the ability to influence all witnesses;

Not all senior executives control accounting data;

Not all company executives participate in securities trading.

Therefore, "not a key personnel" cannot be just a conclusion.

Need to use:

Company organization;

Responsibilities;

Approval process;

Actual work content

Prove the differences in roles.

15. The prosecutor's statement that "the case is still under investigation" does not mean that the defendant must be detained until the investigation is completed.

Investigations certainly take time.

But the legal purpose of detention is not:

This allows prosecutors to conduct their investigations at a leisurely pace.

There must still be a legal reason and necessity for detention.

Therefore, if the prosecution states:

There are still cash flows that need to be investigated;

There are still accounts that need to be analyzed;

There is still company information that needs to be compared;

Further questions should be asked in the defense:

Do these investigations necessarily require the defendants to be detained in a detention center in order to be completed?

Bank records can be provided by financial institutions;

The brokerage firm can provide the information.

The electronic equipment has been seized;

The accounting books have been seized;

Will this evidence really disappear just because the defendant is away?

This is:

Necessity of investigation

and

Necessity of detention

The reason why we had to separate.

16. Detention does not mean waiting until prosecution.

Even if the court has already ordered detention, there are still ways to seek further relief.

Further assessment may be conducted on a case-by-case basis:

Appeal against the detention order;

Request to lift detention;

Request bail to release the detainee;

Responsibility;

Residency restrictions;

And the subsequent extension of detention, which led to further disputes over the reasons for and necessity of the detention.

Article 107 of the Criminal Procedure LawIt also stipulates:

When the cause of detention ceases to exist, the detention should be lifted immediately.

The defendant and their defense counsel may also petition the court to revoke the detention in accordance with the law.

Therefore, the defense of custody in major financial cases does not only occur during the first detention hearing.

Following this:

The questioning of key witnesses has been completed;

Phone identification complete;

The main evidence has been secured;

Clarifying the defendant's role;

File a lawsuit;

Or other program changes,

The necessity of detention may also change.

17. How long can someone be detained during an investigation?

according toArticle 108 of the Criminal Procedure Law:

In principle, the period of detention during an investigation shall not exceed two months.

If continued detention is still necessary, the prosecutor must submit specific reasons to the court before the statutory deadline to request an extension of the detention.

The extension of detention during an investigation is not allowed indefinitely.

Even in major cases with extensive evidence, the court must still review them in accordance with the law.

Does the original reason for detention still exist?

Is it still necessary to continue detaining him?

Current progress of the program;

And whether there are other alternative measures that are sufficient to control the risk.

Therefore, after the defendant is detained, the lawyer needs to keep track of the investigation progress, rather than waiting two months before starting to prepare.

18. "No visitation" during detention and detention itself are not entirely the same thing.

In major cases involving multiple individuals, in addition to detention, the court may sometimes restrict the defendant's access to, communication with, or exchange of items with specific individuals.

The purpose is usually still related to:

To prevent escape;

To destroy evidence;

Serial certificates

related.

So the family heard:

"Detention and incommunicado confinement"

When doing so, it is necessary to first confirm the actual content of the ruling.

The process of a lawyer conducting a defense in accordance with the law is not entirely the same as being received by a family member or other person.

If the risks associated with the case have been reduced in the future, an assessment can be made in accordance with the law to determine whether to seek changes to the relevant restrictions.

19. In securities law cases involving multiple defendants, differing accounts do not necessarily mean that one of them is lying.

Financial cases often span several years.

Different people are only responsible for a part of it.

For example:

The directors remember the transaction decisions;

The finance manager should remember to make the payment;

The accountant should record this in the books;

The account holder only knows how to place orders;

Ordinary employees may only handle documents.

Therefore, the same event is remembered by different people:

date;

Division of labor;

Meeting Content

They may be different.

The prosecution will, of course, compare whether the testimonies are contradictory.

However, a distinction should also be made in the defense:

The statement that they are truly mutually exclusive

and

Differences arise from differences in job duties, memory, and information scope.

We cannot assume that inconsistencies in the transcripts necessarily indicate collusion or lying.

20. In major financial detention cases, what is the value of lawyers getting involved as early as possible?

The most direct value is not the guarantee of insurance payment.

No lawyer should guarantee the outcome of detention.

What early intervention can truly do is:

Find out the issues before being questioned by the investigation bureau or prosecutor;

Avoid making excessive guesses when you don't understand complex transactions;

Confirm the search and seizure area;

Organize company roles and decision-making processes;

Prepare detention court documents;

Contact family members and prepare necessary documents;

Propose alternative detention options;

And after being detained, the strategy was adjusted by reviewing the case files and the progress of the investigation.

Once the initial statement taking, search, and detention procedures are completed in major financial cases, many facts have already been established.

Therefore, the front end of the program is often more important than the person involved imagines.

21. Fidelity Law Firm recently handled another major securities transaction law detention case.

Fidelity Law Firm has recently been reappointed to handle a major securities transaction law criminal case.

The case involves multiple defendants, investigation and detention, a large amount of company financial data, securities transactions and criminal evidence, and lawyer Li Yusheng participated in reviewing the case files and criminal defense.

Based on the principles of non-disclosure of investigations, protection of the parties' privacy, and safeguarding the interests of the defense, this firm will not disclose the case number, the defendant's name, or the specific details of the investigation that have not yet been made public.

In major financial cases, the defense of detention typically cannot consist of only the following:

Household registration information;

Proof of employment;

Family photos.

These materials can certainly illustrate the foundation of life.

But the real core issue remains answering each question one by one:

Does the risk of collusion mentioned by the prosecutor still exist?

What key pieces of evidence have been seized?

What other information or people can the defendant control?

Are there really signs of an escape?

Can measures such as restricting exit from the country, providing bail, restricting residence, and prohibiting contact be used instead of detention?

The real task that detention courts need to address in major financial criminal cases is to break down each of the detention risks.

Securities Trading Law Detention Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Does every case under Article 171 of the Securities Exchange Act constitute a serious crime requiring detention?

It cannot be generalized. The basic penalty for some crimes under Article 171, Paragraph 1 is three to ten years, not all cases where the minimum penalty is five years or more as stated in Article 101, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the crime involves obtaining property or benefits exceeding NT$100 million, the statutory penalty increases to seven years or more. The actual penalty must still be determined based on the alleged crime and the facts of the case.

If someone is suspected of a serious crime with a minimum sentence of five years or more, can the court always detain them?

No. According to Article 101, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of the current Code of Criminal Procedure, even for crimes punishable by death, life imprisonment, or a minimum sentence of five years or more, there must still be substantial grounds to believe that there is a risk of escape, destruction, falsification, alteration of evidence, or collusion with accomplices or witnesses, and the level of detention must be sufficient.

If the cell phone, computer, and company books have already been seized, can we still claim there is a risk of evidence destruction?

The prosecution may still assert risks based on other information or personnel relationships that have not yet been obtained, but the defense should specifically compile a list of which core information has been seized, which records are held by third parties such as banks or securities firms, and further argue whether the defendant still has the actual ability to destroy evidence.

There are still many employees in the company who haven't been questioned yet, so why must the person in charge be detained?

Not necessarily. It is still necessary to determine the actual relationship between the person in charge and the relevant employees, whether there is a hierarchical relationship, whether the defendant is still employed, and whether the risk can be controlled through lower-level invasive measures such as prohibiting contact with specific individuals.

Does being willing to pay a large deposit guarantee insurance coverage?

Not necessarily. A bail bond is just one way to secure the process. If the court still believes there is a significant risk of collusion, destruction of evidence, or absconding that cannot be controlled by bail, liability, or restrictions on residence, it may still order detention.

Can I apply for bail again after being detained?

A person may apply for bail to suspend detention on a case-by-case basis, or apply for the revocation of detention when the cause of detention ceases to exist. As evidence is secured, witnesses complete their questioning, or the proceedings progress, the original necessity of detention may change.

How long can a person be detained for the first time during an investigation?

According to Article 108 of the Criminal Procedure Law, detention during an investigation shall in principle not exceed two months; if continued detention is necessary, an application for extension must be made to the court in accordance with legal procedures.

What documents should a lawyer in a detention court prepare?

In addition to the roles, transactions, and evidence related to the case itself, documents such as fixed address, family, work, assets in Taiwan, arrest records, passport, and willingness to accept travel restrictions or other alternative measures should usually be prepared, depending on the prosecution's request. The actual focus will vary depending on the reasons for detention in each case.

The real question that the Securities Exchange Act Detention Court needs to answer is not just "whether a crime was committed".

The detention hearings in major financial criminal cases are highly procedural battles.

The court is not only asking:

Is the defendant suspected of a crime?

Still asking:

If we release the defendant now, will he run away?

Could the evidence be altered?

Will they contact other people?

If risks exist, are there ways to control them that are less harmful than detention?

Therefore, an effective defense in custody must include:

Suspected of a crime;

Serial certificates;

Destroy evidence;

escape;

Alternative measures

Handle them separately.

If a family member is currently being detained by prosecutors on charges of securities trading, corporate finance, market manipulation, insider trading, special breach of trust, or other serious financial crimes, you should first compile a list of search warrants, seized items, relevant laws, company positions, and known investigative procedures to quickly identify the risks that the detention hearing will truly need to address.

otherMajor criminal cases and criminal defenseIt should also be prepared according to specific procedures.