| 英文摘要 |
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. |
