Goto Main Content
:::

Chapter Law Content

Chapter IV Decision on Imposition,Increase and Reduction of Penalty and Expansion Thereof
Article 18
In the case of imposition of a fine, consideration shall be given to such factors as the culpability of the act in breach of duty under administrative law, the impact resulted therefrom and the benefits gained from such an act. Additionally, the financial ability of the person penalized may also be taken into account.
If the gained benefit referred to in the preceding paragraph exceeds the maximum statutory amount of fine, the fine may be increased to the extent appropriate within the scope of the benefit gained, regardless of the statutory limitation of maximum fine.
In the case of reduction of penalty under this Act, the amount of fine to be imposed shall not exceed one half of the maximum statutory mount of fine, nor shall it be less than one half of the minimum statutory amount of fine; where there is also a provision for remission of the penalty, the fine shall not exceed one third of the maximum statutory fine, nor shall it be less than one third of the minimum statutory fine, unless it is otherwise provided by law or by self-governing ordinances.
The preceding paragraph shall apply mutatis mutandis to other types of administrative penalties of which the imposition is subject to specified limitation of period.
Article 19
Penalty for an act in breach of duty under administrative law which is punishable by a maximum statutory fine of three thousand New Taiwan Dollars (NT$3,000) may be remitted if the act was committed in a trivial circumstance for which it is considered appropriate not to punish.
In the circumstance referred to in the preceding paragraph, corrective actions or dissuasions may be exerted upon the person having committed an act in breach of duty under administrative law, and such actions shall be entered into a record, which shall be signed by such person.
Article 20
A person who, having made another person liable for penalty in consequence of an act in breach of duty under administrative law committed by him for the benefit of such person, has nevertheless received no penalty himself despite the fact that he has gained benefits in property as a result of such act, may be demanded to have such benefits in property returned to a certain extent within the scope of the value of the benefits which he has gained.
If a person is liable for penalty by reason of his commission of an act in breach of duty under administrative law, but another person who, despite the fact that he has gained benefits in property as a result of such act, has received no penalty therefor, the latter may be demanded to have such benefits in property returned to a certain extent within the scope of the value of the benefits which he has gained.
The demand for returning of benefits under the two preceding paragraphs shall be made in the form of an administrative disposition to be delivered by the competent agency imposing the sanction.
Article 21
Unless otherwise provided by this Act or any other laws, only a thing belonging to the person punished may be subject to forfeiture.
Article 22
A thing owned by a person other than the person punished but was made an instrument for the commission of an act in breach of duty under administrative law out of the intention or gross negligence of the owner thereof may be subject to forfeiture.
The foregoing provision applies where the owner, knowing that the thing may be subject to forfeiture, has acquired the ownership for the sole purpose of evading the sanction of forfeiture.
Article 23
If the person punished or the owner of a thing referred to in the preceding article has disposed of or made use of the thing subject to forfeiture or by any other means made it impossible to execute forfeiture of the same, before the sanction of forfeiture is imposed, it may be ordered that the value of the thing be forfeited. If the value of the thing has been reduced or decreased, a sanction of forfeiture may be imposed on the thing together with the price difference resulting from such reduction or decrease.
If the person punished or the owner of a thing referred to in the preceding article has disposed of or made use of the thing subject to forfeiture or by any other means made it impossible to execute forfeiture of the same, after the sanction of forfeiture is imposed, he may be demanded to pay an amount equal to the value of the thing as recompense. If the value of the thing has thus been reduced or decreased, additional payment of the price difference resulting from such reduction or decrease may be demanded.
The demand for payment under the preceding paragraph shall be made in the form of an administrative disposition to be delivered by the competent agency imposing the sanction.