This Act is enacted to safeguard the freedom of private communications and privacy, to protect from unlawful intrusion, and to ensure national security and maintain social order.

Communication surveillance may only be conducted for the necessity of ensuring national security, and maintaining social order.
The surveillance mentioned in the preceding Paragraph shall not exceed the necessary limits to achieve the objective, and the appropriate methods for the action should have only the minimum intrusion.

The "communications" as defined in this Act refer to:
1. Utilizing wired and wireless telecommunication equipment to send, store, transmit, or receive symbols, texts, images, sound or other types of information.
2. Mail and letters
3. Speeches and conversations.
Surveillance of the "communications" mentioned in the preceding Paragraph is limited to those who have sufficient facts to support that those being monitored have reasonable expectations that the contents of their communications are private or secret.

The “communications records” as defined in this Act refer to records such as the telecommunications numbers of the sender and the recipient, time of communication, length of use, address, service type, mailbox or location information generated by the telecommunications system after the telecommunications user uses the telecommunications services.
The “communications user’s information” as defined in this Act refers to the telecommunications user’s name, number of identification document, telecommunications number and information completed in the application, for any type of telecommunications service.

Persons under surveillance as defined in this Act include, in addition to those delineated in the provisions of Article 5 and Article 7, those who assist in sending, transmitting, receiving communications or those who provide communication equipment, or facilities.

An interception warrant may be issued, if there is sufficient evidence that the accused or the suspect is involved in one of the following crimes, which may severely endanger national security, economic order or social order, and that there is reasonable belief that the content of his/her communication is relevant to the case being investigated, and that it is difficult or there are no other methods to collect or investigate the evidence.
1. The offenses are punishable with a minimum of a three-year fixed-term imprisonment.
2. Offenses as stipulated in Article 100, Paragraph 2 preparing to commit civil disturbance, Article 101, Paragraph 2 preparing to commit civil disturbance with force, or Article 106, Paragraph 3; Article 109, Paragraphs 1, 3 and 4; Article 121, Paragraph 1; Article 122, Paragraph 3; Article 131, Paragraph 1; Article 142; Article 143, Paragraph 1, Article 144; Article 145; Article 201-1; Article 256, Paragraphs 1 and 3; Article 257, Paragraphs 1 and 4; Article 298, Paragraph 2; Article 300; Article 339; Article 339-3 or Article 346 of the Criminal Code.
3. Offenses of corruption for breach of official duty as stipulated in Article 11, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Anti-Corruption Act.
4. Offenses as stipulated in Article 2, Paragraphs 1 and 2, or Article 3 of the Smuggling Penalty Act.
5. Offenses as stipulated in Article 82, Paragraphs 1 and 4, or Article 83 Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.
6. Offenses as stipulated in Article 173 Paragraph 1 of the Securities and Exchange Act.
7. Offenses as stipulated in Article 112, or Article 113 Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Futures Trading Act.
8. Offenses as stipulated in Article 12, Paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5, or Article 13, Paragraph 2, 4 and 5 of the Act Governing the Control and Prohibition of Guns, Cannon, Ammunition, and Knives.
9. Offenses as stipulated in Article 102, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act.
10. Offenses as stipulated in Article 47-1 or Article 47-2 of the Farmers Association Act.
11. Offenses as stipulated in Article 50-1, or Article 50-2 of the Fishermen Association Act.
12. The offenses prescribed in Article 32, Paragraphs 1, 3, 4 ,and 5 of the Child and Youth Sexual Exploitation Prevention Act.
13. Offenses as stipulated in Article 11, Paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Money Laundering Control Act.
14. Offenses as stipulated in Article 3, second half of Paragraph 1, second half of Paragraph 2; Article 6 or Article 11, Paragraph 3 of the Organized Crime Prevention Act.
15. Offenses as stipulated in Article 14, Paragraph 2; Article 17, Paragraph 3; Article 18, Paragraph 3; Article 19, Paragraph 3; Article 20, Paragraph 5; Article 22, Paragraph 4; Article 23, Paragraph 3; Article 24, Paragraphs 2 and 4; Article 58, Paragraph 5, or Article 63, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of the Armed Forces.
16. Offenses as stipulated in Article 13-2, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trade Secrets Act.
17. Offenses as stipulated in Article 52, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Forestry Act.
18. The offense as stipulated in Article 46 of the Waste Disposal Act.
The interception warrant mentioned in the preceding Paragraph shall be applied for, during the investigation, by the prosecutor upon receiving applications from judicial police authorities, or applied by the prosecutor ex officio to the court concerned for issuance. The application shall specify the case numbers starting with the words “Zheng” and “Tang” and information delineated in Article 11, and the reasons, along with relevant documents. If the target of interception is not a user of a telecommunications service, it should be specified in the application. Relevant documents and investigation information about the residence of the target of interception should also be attached, specifying that there is sufficient reason to believe that the contents of communications are related to the case, that prior investigation has been conducted in another manner without success, or that it is reasonably clear that investigation in another manner will not achieve the purpose or creates material risk. The prosecutor should respond within four hours after accepting the application. If the case is complex, the deadline may be extended for four hours with the consent of the Chief Prosecutor. The court should reply within 48 hours after receiving the application case as approved by and transferred from the prosecutor. If the case is in trial proceedings, the warrant should be issued ex officio by the judge. The judge may also enter appropriate instructions to the enforcement officers on the interception warrant.
If the application as referred to in the preceding Paragraph is inconsistent with the legal procedure, lacks reason, is not specified or not sufficiently specified, it shall be denied by the court. The decision to deny an application by the court shall not be challenged.
The enforcement authority shall file at least one report every 15 days during the period of communication surveillance, describing the progress of conducting the surveillance, and/or if there is the necessity to continue implementing the surveillance. The prosecutor or the judge that issued the interception warrant may also order the enforcement authority to submit a report at any time. If a situation arises where the surveillance should not be conducted continuously, the judge shall consider, by free evaluation based on the rules of experience and logic, withdrawing the issued interception warrant.
The application for interception warrant shall be limited to the same target, under the same case number starting with the words “Zheng” and “Tang” or related cases. An application may be filed to seek several interception warrants.

If there are sufficient facts to support that the accused or the suspect is committing the offenses of interference with voting as stated in the Criminal Code; the offenses as stipulated in the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act, the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Act, Articles 7 and 8 of the Act Governing the Control and Prohibition of Guns, Cannon, Ammunition, and Knives, Article 4 of the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act; the offenses of Extortion and Kidnapping for Ransom, or the offenses of Extortion by means of using bombs, explosives, or poison; offenses as stipulated in Article 3 of the Organized Crime Prevention Act, Article 11, Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Money Laundering Control Act, Article 222, Article 226, Article 271, Article 325, Article 326, Article 328, Article 330, Article 332, or Article 339 of the Criminal Code, in order to protect people's lives, bodies, or property from immediate harm, or there are facts justifying the existence of other communications that are used for contact in order to commit the offenses under Paragraph 1 of the previous Article and the situation is urgent, the judicial police authority may report to the prosecutor concerned, who will then verbally inform the enforcement authority to give priority to the communication surveillance. However, the prosecutor should inform the enforcement authority of the content as delineated in Article 11, and report to the court concerned within 24 hours and request the issuance of an interception warrant; the prosecutorial agency should designate a Head Prosecutor, or a prosecutor, as an emergency contact to facilitate the investigation in a timely manner.
The court should designate a specific communication contact to handle the case, and should issue an interception warrant within 48 hours; if an interception warrant is not issued within 48 hours, the surveillance activity should be halted.

When it is necessary to conduct surveillance on the following communications in order to collect intelligence on foreign forces or hostile foreign forces to protect national security, the head of the authority overseeing national intelligence may issue the interception warrant.
1. Domestic communications of foreign forces, hostile foreign forces, or their agents.
2. Cross-border communications of foreign forces, hostile foreign forces, or their agents.
3. Off-shore communications of foreign forces, hostile foreign forces, or their agents.
The issuance of an interception warrant for persons under the communication surveillance as described in the preceding Paragraph, who have a registered permanent address within the country, should be approved by the dedicated judge of the high court that has jurisdiction over the authority overseeing national intelligence. However, this restriction does not apply in the event of an emergency.
As for the proviso in the preceding Paragraph, the authority overseeing national intelligence should inform the dedicated judge of the high court concerned of the issuance of interception warrant and obtain the permission ex post facto. If permission is not granted within 48 hours, the surveillance activity should be halted.

The foreign forces or the hostile foreign forces as referred to in Paragraph 1 of the preceding Article are defined as follows:
1. Foreign governments, foreign or overseas political entities, their subordinate organizations or representative agencies.
2. Organizations under the direction or control of foreign governments, foreign or overseas political entities.
3. Organizations with the aim of operating international or cross-border terrorist activities.

An agent of foreign forces or offshore hostile forces as referred to in Article 7, Paragraph 1 is defined as follows:
1. A person who participates, coerces others, or abets others in gathering secret intelligence, or other secret intelligence activities for foreign forces or offshore hostile forces, that risk endangering national security.
2. A person who participates, coerces others, or abets others in sabotage or cross-border terrorist activities for foreign forces or offshore hostile forces.
3. A person who serves as an official, or an employee for foreign forces or offshore hostile forces, or as a member of an international terrorist organization.

Information gathered via communication surveillance pursuant to the provisions of Article 7 is to be used for national security warning intelligence purposes only. However, if circumstances as described in Article 5 are found, the information obtained should be forwarded to judicial police authorities, judicial authorities, or military courts to be processed in accordance with the law.

The following information should be included in an interception warrant:
1. Grounds for the case, and the laws and regulations referencing the alleged violation.
2. Surveillance subjects.
3. Features of the communication surveillance, such as types or numbers, that is sufficient for identification purposes.
4. Surveillance location
5. Reasons for surveillance
6. Duration and methods for surveillance
7. Petition agency
8. Enforcement agency
9. Setup organization
The enforcement agency as referred to in Subparagraph 8 of the preceding Paragraph is the agency involved in gathering communication contents. While the setup organization as referred to in Subparagraph 9 is the organization that simply provides the software/hardware components of communication surveillance equipment and has no contact with communication contents.
The procedure for issuing an interception warrant shall not be made public.

When a prosecutor investigates an offense punishable by term imprisonment of more than 3 years, if there are facts leading to the belief that communications records and information of the communications user are necessary and relevant to the investigation of the case, unless in the situation of an emergency for which prior application is not possible, a written application should be filed with the court for an access warrant. For the matters to be specified in the application, Paragraph 1 of the previous Article shall apply mutatis mutandis.
When a judicial police officer investigates the situation of offense by a criminal suspect and collects evidence, if the officer deems it necessary to access the communications records, following the approval by the prosecutor, an application may be filed with the court of jurisdiction for issuance of an access warrant in accordance with the previous Paragraph.
When a prosecutor or judicial police officer investigates an offense punishable by a term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, the offense of robbery, forcible taking, fraud, extortion, kidnapping for ransom or violation of the Human Trafficking Prevention Act, Statute for Fire Arms, Ammunition and Harmful Knives Control, Statute for Punishment of Smuggling, Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act or Organized Crime Prevention Act, and if the prosecutor or judicial police officer deems it necessary, the prosecutor may access the communications record ex officio, or the judicial police officer may do so after filing a request for consent to the prosecutor, and the restrictions under the previous two Paragraphs shall not apply.
After the reason of emergency under Paragraph 1 disappears, an application should be filed with the court for issuance of an access warrant.
The access warrant shall specify the following:
1. The case.
2. The communications records or user’s information to be accessed.
3. The validity period and the specification that no access shall be allowed after expiration of said period and that the access warrant shall be returned after access is obtained.
The court’s decision to reject any application under Paragraphs 1, 2 or 4 shall not be challenged.
The procedure for issuance of an access warrant shall not be public.
In case of any need to access the communications records of any target of surveillance under Article 7 and the communications user’s information, the authority overseeing national intelligence may seek access with the telecommunications or postal organization and the restrictions under the previous 7 Paragraphs shall not apply.

The communication surveillance duration of Articles 5 and Article 6 is not to exceed 30 days each time; while the communication surveillance duration of Article 7 is not to exceed one year each time. If it is necessary to continue the surveillance, specific reasons must be specified, and the last date for petition should be no later than two days before the expiration date. However, the period of continuous surveillance under Articles 5 and 6 shall not exceed one year. If the enforcement authority deems it necessary to continue surveillance, a new application shall be filed in accordance with Articles 5 and 6.
Prior to the expiration of the communication surveillance described in Article 5 and Article 6, if the surveillance is deemed as unnecessary by the prosecutor or the trial judge, the surveillance activity should be halted immediately.
Prior to the expiration of the communication surveillance described in Article 7, if the surveillance is deemed as unnecessary by the head of the authority overseeing national intelligence, the surveillance activity should be halted immediately.

Surveillance should be conducted by intercepting, wiretapping, sound recording, video recording, photographing, opening, checking, copying communications or other similar necessary methods, but there should be no installation of listening devices, video recording equipment, or other surveillance devices in a private residence.
When implementing communication surveillance, with exception to those having been dealt with by the law, the communications should be maintained in a smooth and open manner.
Unless the enforcement authority has any justification, the surveillance recordings should be collected every 3 days.
Any content of surveillance recording under the previous Paragraph that is not related to the purpose of surveillance shall not be translated.

The enforcement authority and location for the communication surveillance should be designated in accordance with the request from the petitioning agency. When a judge issues an interception warrant ex officio, the issuer shall designate such authority and location; likewise, when issuing a warrant pursuant to the provisions of Article 7.
Telecommunication businesses and postal services are obligated to assist in the implementation of communication surveillance. The items of assistance include providing communication surveillance related facilities for the use of the enforcement authority, and personnel assistance.
Expenses generated, while assisting in the implementation of communication surveillance as defined in the preceding Paragraph, may be reimbursed by the enforcement authority after the surveillance operation is completed. The expense items and fee standards shall be formulated and promulgated by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications in consultation with relevant agencies.
The communication systems of telecommunication businesses should be equipped with the functions required to provide surveillance assistance. While the telecommunication businesses are obligated to assist in the setup for the setup organization, and to maintain the communication surveillance system, its obligations are limited to having reasonable technology and economic development at the time of setup, and expectations should not exceed the possibilities.
Expenses generated by assisting in the setup of communication surveillance systems, as defined in the preceding Paragraph, shall be paid for by the setup organization. The necessary expenses generated while assisting in maintaining the normal functions of the communication surveillance operation shall be enacted and promulgated by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications in consultation with relevant agencies.

The enforcement authority of communication surveillance cases as described in Article 5, Article 6, and Article 7, Paragraph 2 should, when the communication surveillance is over, state the name, permanent address or contact address of the person under surveillance, the Subparagraph under Article 11, Paragraph 1 that is applicable to the surveillance case and reference number of the authority issuing the interception warrant, the actual period of surveillance, whether communications information corresponding to the purpose of the surveillance has been obtained and the remedy procedure in the report to the prosecutor, or the authority overseeing national intelligence, whom in turn should report to the court, so that the person under surveillance may be notified. The report should also include the reasons if such a notification is deemed to be interfering with the purpose of the surveillance, or if the person should not be notified.
If the report under the previous Paragraph is not filed with the prosecutor and the authority overseeing national intelligence one month after the completion of the communications surveillance, the court shall notify the person under surveillance within 14 days, unless such notification is not possible.
Upon receiving the report as described in the first Paragraph, the court should notify the person who was under surveillance, with the exception that if there is a concrete reason showing that such a notification is deemed to be interfering with the purpose of the surveillance, or if the person should not be notified.
When the reasons for not notifying cease to exist, the enforcement authority should submit a report to the prosecutor, or the authority overseeing national intelligence, so that the court may supplement the notification. If the reason has not ceased to exist, the status of said case shall be continuously reported to the court every three months after submission of the report under the previous Paragraph. If the report is not filed in time, the court shall notify the person under surveillance within 14 days.
Contents of the report submitted by the enforcement authority shall be verified by the court and forwarded to the judicial associate officer for use in notifying the communications service user who was under surveillance, except if such a notification is not possible.
The telecommunications service users under surveillance referred to in the previous Paragraph include individual, institutions (agencies) or organizations.

Upon commencing the communications surveillance, the enforcement authority should submit a monthly status report to the prosecutor, the judge who issued the interception warrant or the head of the authority overseeing national intelligence. The prosecutor, the judge who issued the interception warrant ex officio or the head of the authority overseeing national intelligence may also request that the enforcement authority submit reports at any time.
The supervision over a communications surveillance operation as referred to in Article 5, or Article 6 shall be assumed by the prosecutorial agency during the investigation, or by the court during a trial. The supervision over the communications surveillance operation as referred to in Article 7 shall be assumed by the authority overseeing national intelligence. The authority will dispatch personnel to the setup organization or use electronic supervision devices, to supervise the enforcement of the communications surveillance. For cases under investigation, the court shall dispatch personnel to supervise the enforcement authority on a regular basis.

The enforcement authority and supervisory authority for communications surveillance shall prepare an annual report with relevant statistical information of the communications surveillance performed during the year. Said report shall be published online regularly and shall be submitted to the Legislative Yuan for reference.
The previous Paragraph concerning regular online publication shall not be applicable to communications surveillance under Article 7.
The annual report of statistical information under Paragraph 1 shall include the following matters:
1. Cases of applications and approvals for communications surveillance under Articles 5, 6 and 7 and Article 12, Paragraph 1, number of targets under surveillance, number of cases, number of lines and types of lines. The same shall be applicable to case access under Article 11-1.
2. Situations where surveillance is stopped under Article 12, Paragraphs 2 and 3.
3. Notice or non-notice under Article 15, types of reasons for non-notice and situations where the reasons continue to or do not continue to exist.
4. The court’s supervision of the enforcement by the enforcement authority in accordance with the previous Article.
5. Execution of information destruction in accordance with Article 17.
6. Types and quantities of intercepted records.

The information obtained from the communication surveillance should be sealed or otherwise marked, and stamped by the enforcement authority to preserve its true completeness without addition, deletion or change. Information used as case evidence shall be kept in the file, or otherwise kept for as long a time as is necessary for surveillance purposes. The enforcement authority should safe-keep the information for five years after the communication surveillance is completed, and destroy it afterwards.
For information obtained from the communication surveillance that is completely irrelevant with the surveillance objective, the enforcement authority should submit a report to the prosecutor, the judge who issued the interception warrant ex officio or the head of the authority overseeing national intelligence, and destroy the information after gaining their approval.
When destroying the information as described in the preceding two Paragraphs, the enforcement authority should record the facts concerning the communication surveillance, and submit a request to the prosecutor, the judge who issued the interception warrant ex officio or the head of the authority overseeing national intelligence to dispatch an on-site representative.

Information obtained from the communications surveillance pursuant to this Act shall not be provided to other agencies (institutions), groups or individuals. However, this restriction does not apply to those complying with the surveillance objective as described in Article 5 or Article 7, or other laws and regulations.
Records of continuous process flow shall be established for the safekeeping, use and destruction of information acquired from the applications, issuances, execution of interception warrants under Articles 5 and 6. Network connection shall be established with the communications surveillance management system of the Taiwan High Court.
The other authorities that enforce communications surveillance under the previous Paragraph shall transmit all interception records to the communications surveillance management system of the Taiwan High Court through a designated line or in a confidential manner on a monthly basis.

Any content about any other case acquired through communications surveillance enforced in accordance with Articles 5, 6 or 7 shall not be used as evidence. However, a submission may be filed with the court within 7 days from the discovery and such evidence may be admitted if the court recognizes that said case is related to the case for which communications surveillance is enforced or if the case involves an offense listed under any Subparagraph under Article 5, Paragraph 1.
Any content acquired through communications surveillance enforced in accordance with Articles 5, 6 or 7, or any evidence deriving therefrom that is not related to the purpose of the surveillance, shall not be used as evidence or for any other purpose in any judicial investigation, judgment or other proceeding and must be destroyed in accordance with Article 17, Paragraph 2.
Any content acquired through interception that is in violation of Articles 5, 6 or 7 or any evidence deriving therefrom shall not be used as evidence or used for any other purpose in any judicial investigation, judgment or other proceeding and must be destroyed in accordance with Article 17, Paragraph 2.

Persons who conduct communication surveillance that violates the provisions of this Act or other laws, or leak, provide, or use the information obtained from such communication surveillance are liable for damages.
Victims who suffered a non-pecuniary damage may claim a commensurate amount of compensation; those who suffered damages to their reputation may also request appropriate punishment for the restoration of their reputation.
The right to claim as described in the preceding Paragraph shall not be transferred or inherited. However, this restriction does not apply to those claims where the compensation amount has been committed to in a contract or where the claims are in an ongoing trial.

The total compensation for the damage as described in the preceding Article shall be calculated based on the days of the communication surveillance: each person who was under surveillance may be compensated with more than one thousand and less than five thousand New Taiwan dollars per day. However, this restriction does not apply to those who can produce proof that the damage suffered is beyond this dollar amount.
If the total days of communication surveillance as described in the preceding Paragraph is unknown, the amount shall be calculated as thirty days.

The right to claim begins when the claimant realizes the existence of a damage-and-compensation obligor, and ceases to exist if the right is not exercised in two years. Likewise, when exceeding five years since the damage occurred.

If civil servants or persons entrusted with power of authority, monitor others' communications while performing their duties, and violate the provisions of this Act or other laws, or leak, provide, or use the information obtained from the communication surveillance, then the nation should bear the responsibility for damage compensation.
Provisions of Article 19 Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, and Article 20 are applicable to the petitions filed for national compensation pursuant to the provision of the preceding Paragraph.

Damage compensations shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Provisions of the Civil Code and the State Compensation Law are also applicable.

Persons convicted of illegally monitoring other people's communications are subject to a fixed-term imprisonment of no more than five years.
Civil servants or employees, who enforce or assist with the enforcement of the communication surveillance, thus committing the offense as described in the preceding Paragraph by using the power, opportunity or means entrusted to their duties or businesses are subject to a fixed-term imprisonment of more than six months and less than five years.
Those who commit the offense as described in the preceding two Paragraphs with an intention of making profits are subject to a fixed-term imprisonment of more than one year and less than seven years.

Persons who leak or give, without good cause, knowingly and illegally obtained communication surveillance information are subject to a fixed-term imprisonment of no more than three years.
Persons who committed the offense as described in the preceding Paragraph with an intention of making profits are subject to a fixed-term imprisonment of more than six months and less than five years.

(Deleted)

Civil servants or former civil servants who have access to secret information because of the duties of their positions or possess such information obtained via communications surveillance conducted pursuant to the provisions of this Act or other laws, leak or give away such information without good cause, are subject to a fixed-term imprisonment of no more than three years.
If any of the circumstances set forth in Article 30, Paragraph 2 or Article 89, Paragraph 4 of the Judges Act exists when a judge or prosecutor applies this Act, he or she shall be subject to individual case evaluation.
Civil servants or former civil servant who use the information acquired from communications surveillance in a case for other purposes in violation of Article 18-1, Paragraph 2 or 3 shall be subject to a fixed-term imprisonment of no more than three years.

Non-civil servants, who are aware of the secret information due to their duties or possess such information obtained via communication surveillance conducted pursuant to the provisions of this Act or other laws, and who leak or give away such information without good cause, are subject to a fixed-term imprisonment of no more than two years, detention, or a fine of no more than twenty thousand New Taiwan dollars.

If any one of the following conditions is met when conducting surveillance on other people's communications, it is not punishable:
1. It is conducted pursuant to the law.
2. Employees of telecommunication businesses or postal services organizations (institutions) conducted the surveillance based on the objective of providing public telecommunications or postal services in accordance with the relevant laws.
3. The person conducting the surveillance is one of the parties in communication, or has obtained consent from one of the parties in communication, and the conduct is not for illegal purpose.

The offenses as stipulated in Article 24, Paragraph 1; Article 25, Paragraph 1, and Article 28 are only prosecutable upon receiving a complaint.

The telecommunication businesses or postal services organizations (institutions) that are obligated to assist in enforcing communication surveillance and have violated the provisions of Article 14, Paragraph 2 shall be subject to a fine of more than five hundred thousand and less than 2.5 million New Taiwan dollars by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Those who, upon receiving the notification for compliance, continue to violate the law shall be fined continuously on a daily basis, and their special permits or permits will be withdrawn.

A military judicial authority, during its investigation or trial of active military personnel concerning communications surveillance offenses, may apply mutatis mutandis the provisions of this Act.

The Ministry of Justice shall make annual reports to the Legislative Yuan about the status of the enforcement of the communications surveillance. If required, the Legislative Yuan may ask the Ministry of Justice to make reports and may ask to access relevant information.
The Legislative Yuan may send personnel at any time to the infrastructure authority, telecommunications enterprise, postal enterprise or other organizations, businesses and premises that assist with the enforcement of communications surveillance, to supervise the status of enforcement of communications surveillance, or use electronic monitoring equipment to perform said supervision.
Any matter that is not provided in this Act shall be exercised by the Legislative Yuan ex officio or subject to the application of other laws.

The enforcement rules of this Act shall be formulated by the Executive Yuan in conjunction with the Judicial Yuan.

The Act will be put into effect on the date of its promulgation, except for Articles which were amended and promulgated on May. 30, 2006 and took effect on July. 1, 2006. As for Articles which were amended and promulgated on July.11,2007 and Jan. 29,2014 shall be put into effect five months after its promulgation. As to the implementation date of Articles which were amended on March. 25, 2016 shall be determined by Executive Yuan.