Telephone
02-77093611
Line
@fdlaw
address
17th Floor, No. 180, Section 2, Dunhua South Road, Da'an District, Taipei City
Telephone
02-77093611
Line
@fdlaw
address
17th Floor, No. 180, Section 2, Dunhua South Road, Da'an District, Taipei City

Both ruling and opposition parties have proposed amending the Election and Recall Law to relax the restriction that "those on probation cannot run for office," with the bill scheduled for review next week. News Link: KMT legislator Chen Yu-chen and DPP legislator Lin Shu-fen have both proposed amending the Election and Recall Law to relax the restriction that "those on probation cannot run for office," with the bill scheduled for review next Wednesday. However, lawyers point out that reverting to a clause amended just three years ago not only undermines the stability of the law but also easily raises questions about whether it is a case of biased legislation, making it difficult for the public to accept this direction of amendment. Amidst the opposition between the ruling and opposition parties, it is rare to see a consensus on amendment content, but there seems to be room for discussion in persuading the public. Lawyer Li Yu-sheng of Fidelity Law Firm stated that the 2023 Public Officials Election and Recall Law stipulates that even if someone sentenced to imprisonment is…

A Taiwanese tourist lost their phone in Okinawa two years ago and found it was located in a mobile phone store in Taiwan. The incident was later clarified. A Japanese driver found the phone and, seeing a lucky charm on it, knew it belonged to a Taiwanese tourist. He asked other Taiwanese tourists to take it back to Taiwan and hand it over to the police. However, the owner, who reported the loss in Okinawa, was unaware the phone had been returned to Taiwan. After six months of no claim, the finder claimed the phone and legally resold it to the mobile phone store. Lawyer Li Yusheng of Fuda Law Firm stated that finding a phone in Okinawa generally requires following local laws to complete the claim process. In this case, the phone was found…

A woman was furious after her online purchase of a "Good God" mop for only NT$130, only to have it cancelled. She accused the online salesperson of blaming her for the purchase. The woman complained to customer service, who asked, "Would you dare use a mop for NT$130?" Good God Mop apologized and offered compensation. (Reporter: Hsiao Yu-hsiu) According to lawyer Li Yu-sheng of Fidelity Law Firm, in principle, when goods are sold online, a sales contract is established when a consumer places an order, and the manufacturer must deliver the goods as agreed. However, in rare cases, if the listed price differs significantly from the market price, and there is other evidence suggesting that the consumer knowingly placed the order despite the incorrect price, the sales contract may not be valid. If a dispute arises, it may require further determination of the validity of the online purchase by consumer protection agencies or even the courts. Fidelity Law Firm Line: https://lin…

Ko Wen-je's second trial may overturn the verdict; prosecutors appeal and convict Xiao Shen of 1500. Xiao Shen's smile confirms Ko Wen-je received a 2.1 million NTD bribe; judge says there was a quid pro quo relationship. Reporter Wang Yi-qi, Dai Wei-chen. News Link: Lawyer Li Yu-sheng of Fuda Law Firm stated that regarding the 1500 NTD issue, the prosecution can still investigate and find evidence. If the actual flow of funds can be traced, whether it's a cold wallet or an overseas account, the fund's trajectory is irrefutable evidence. Second, they can seek witnesses, making breakthroughs with involved middlemen or accountants, persuading them to become witnesses for the prosecution. Third, they can use situational evidence, cross-referencing the timelines of the accounting records with the official documents regarding the Jinhua Province's lenient housing reward program, which may piece together a quid pro quo relationship for the bribe. These are all directions the prosecution can explore in the future. How should one respond to corruption charges against a public official…

Former President of the Disciplinary Court, Li Bodao, was dismissed and suspended from office for one year for alleged sexual harassment. (TTV News reporter Wu Routing) News Link: Former President of the Disciplinary Court, Li Bodao, was accused of sexually harassing female subordinates six times and engaging in workplace bullying. The Disciplinary Court today (26th) ruled to dismiss him and suspend him from his position for one year, barring him from holding any government job. The panel of judges believed that Li Bodao abused his power as president to sexually harass and bully subordinates, severely damaging their personal dignity and working environment. Furthermore, he will be barred from serving as a judge or lawyer in the future, and his retirement pension and pension will be significantly reduced. Lawyer Xu Wanwei of Fidelity Law Firm stated that the Disciplinary Court today ruled to dismiss Li Bodao from office in connection with the sexual harassment and workplace bullying case. The judges believed that Li Bodao, as the former president of the Disciplinary Court, repeatedly used his position of power to engage in physical contact and verbal sexual harassment of subordinates…

Sanlih News reporter Hsu Hsiang-yun's news link: On the day of Ko Wen-je's landmark verdict, which garnered nationwide attention, a large number of media and concerned citizens gathered outside the court. Regarding this significant case, Attorney Li Yu-sheng of Fidelity Law Firm was invited to provide live coverage from the courthouse and various news media outlets, offering an objective and professional analysis of the legal core behind the verdict. In the interview, Attorney Li clearly pointed out that the biggest legal battleground in this case lies in the definition of "bribery" under the Anti-Corruption Act. According to Article 6, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the Act, the objective and subjective elements constituting the crime of seeking personal gain are very strict. It requires that a public official, in matters under their supervision or management, "knowingly violates the law" and "directly or indirectly seeks illegal benefits for themselves or other private individuals, thereby obtaining…