2017.10.26
Emily Chueh
The Taiwan High Court rendered the 106-Chung-Shang-Keng-(1)-Qi-29 Criminal Decision of October 26, 2017 (hereinafter, the “Decision”), holding that the period between the date of judgment by a lower court and date the case becomes pending at a higher court shall be a period in which the statute of limitations continues.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the prosecutor prosecuted the Accused on the ground that the Accused had solicited borrowing or unsecured loans from nonspecific individuals through the advertisement sections in various newspapers and publication of telephone numbers before engaging in money laundering acts in this fashion and had habitually committed such offenses. The Accused contended that the statute of limitations had expired.
According to the Decision, if a party to a lawsuit which has been tried by a lower court appeals when the lawsuit is being transferred after it is tried by the lower court but before it is pending with a higher court, the courts in fact do not exercise any right to pursue the liabilities of the Accused. The duration of such a period often depends on administrative procedures and administrative efficiency. To prevent unnecessary elongation of such period as a result of protracted administrative proceedings or negligence or indolence from directly undermining the rights and interests of the accused with respect to the statute of limitations, the period when a lawsuit is being transferred between different levels of court (including the circumstances when the higher court remands or hands down a case to the lower court) is certainly not subject to circumstances where it cannot begin or continue pursuant to legal requirements or trial procedures. Therefore, the period between the date of judgment by a lower court and the date the case becomes pending at the higher court is not a period in which the trial is taking place and is a period in which statute of limitations continues. Therefore, this period in which the statute of limitations shall still continue shall certainly be deducted.
It was further held in this Decision that after prosecution was instituted in this case, the statute of limitations should exclude the period when a case is being transferred and is not tried. There were a total of four litigation proceedings not conducted in this case, and a total of 223 days in which no litigation was conducted should be deducted. The statute of limitations for this case expired on October 7, 2017. Therefore, the portions involving the charges against the Accused concerning habitual money laundering (including habitual fraud) and habitual usury should certainly be dismissed.