action, or in civil procedure involving only property, administrative litigation,
and in family cases due to obstacles arising within the judicial environment.
This review should be done in order to assure the rights of people with
dementia and to apply the judicial system equally.
112. The Ministry of Justice and Judicial Yuan should continue to strengthen their
staff’s competence through training to improve their understanding of
dementia and to raise their awareness in protecting the rights of people with
dementia. There should be concern to save people with dementia from civil
disputes arising from the transactions they engage in, or help them make
claims to defend themselves when they are suspected of committing a criminal
offense; some literature indicates that it is possible to help people with
dementia claim their rights or avoid disputes through various means, e.g. notes
of caution attached to registration of real estate, memoes on financial records,
petitions for guardianship or assistance, and application for legal aid. Upon
investigation and subsequent follow-up by the Control Yuan, the Judicial Yuan
has organized courses to improve the judicial staff’s awareness of the rights of
those with dementia. Notwithstanding, amendments are still pending for the
regulations governing the trust policy supported by the guardianship system,
and determining if the judicially disadvantaged are able to stand trial.
Article 15 Principle of No Law, No Penalty
113. The term “securities with monetary value” is an element referred to in Article
6 of the Securities and Exchange Act in reference to criminal liability for
securities fraud, manipulation of markets, and insider trading, all of which
incur severe punishment including restrictions of personal freedom, i.e.
imprisonment. The “other securities approved by the competent authority”
referred to in Paragraph 1 thereof, which are legal, should therefore be
authorized on the most clear and specific basis possible. The Financial
Supervisory Commissions (FSC) identified the public notice made by the
Ministry of Finance on September 12, 1987, as the basis by which a “Taiwan
Depository Receipt” (hereinafter referred to as a “TDR”) may apply the
certifications referred to in Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Securities and
Exchange Act. Subsequent to this, said public notice was found to supplement
the interpretation of the general powers referred to in Paragraph 1 of Article 6
of the Securities and Exchange Act through the general requirements regarding
“foreign (or)…other investment-based securities.” Obviously, this brings up
some circular argument issues. The discretionarily expanded scope of
securities has created the major dispute over whether TDR has been authorized
by the competent authority through exercise of its powers. It is not only
difficult for the general public to understand such disputes, but also
disjunctures amongst the academic theories and judicial practices have been
48