強制公開收購之構成要件與法律責任──憲法法庭112年憲判字第5號判決

The Requirement and Responsibility of Mandatory Tender Offer

證券交易法第43條之1第3項並未授權主管機關制定「一定期間」之要件，母法原本所欲引進者為只論比例多寡、而不論期間的強制公開收購樣態，但主管機關竟自行將母法預設之樣態轉換為「短期內大量取得」的樣態，已逾越母法之授權，可惜憲法法庭未發現此一問題。
日本與我國相同，也是授權主管機關制定強制公開收購之要件，惟不同之處在於違反時之責任，日本僅處行政罰，我國卻是處刑罰，除容易踩到罪刑法定原則的紅線外，也並不恰當。本文建議將刑責改為高額罰鍰。

Paragraph 3 of Article 43-1 of Securities and Exchange Act does not authorize competent authority to promulgate“a certain period”requirement. This Act was meant to introduce a mandatory tender offer that only concerning about the percentage of acquisition, not period. But the legal category of mandatory tender offer is transformed into different category“short-term mass acquisition”by competent authority beyond the delegation of this Act, while Constitutional Court did not find out.
Japan’s legal regime and ours are the same, both permit competent authority to promulgate the requirement of mandatory tender offer, but the duty is different, Japan’s duty is administrative penalty, Taiwan’s duty is criminal penalty. The criminal penalty is apt to disobey the principle of“no penalty without a law,”this article suggest replaced the criminal penalty into huge amount of fine.