Skip to content

About us

eCounsel group

A boutique firm with unparalleled expertise in business and technology. We have good command of industrial ecology and legal practice, and have undertaken highly regarded cases. Because the small business scope, we pay more emphasis on effectiveness and efficiency, and choose clients with deliberation. The managing partner not only has extensive experiences in various legal issues more over than 20 years, but invests and manages several technology companies. In addition, he always checks each case rigorously. Clients’ business objectives are our primary focus. To achieve the same in the most cost-effective fashion trumps all seemingly sophisticated legal discussions.

Sharing Economy: A Hoax or What?

2018 - 03 - 06

“Sharing isn’t new. Giving someone a ride, having a guest in your spare room, running errands for someone, participating in a supper club—these are not revolutionary concepts.” – The MIT Press

Sharing economy has been a hot topic in the last couple of years. From ride-sharing, food delivery, to spending a night in someone’s apartment, many sharing economy based startups rise and become a global player, including Uber, AirBnb, and more. These companies reach a global success both in fame and wealth, but not so much for their compliance efforts when it comes to meeting local regulations.

Take Uber for example, since its launch in Taiwan (where licensed yellow cabs are everywhere) in 2013, Uber has been in disputes with local regulators regarding the legality of its registration as an internet / software service company, as opposed to a transportation service provider. Taiwanese Uber drivers do not have a professional license like regular yellow cab drivers and can be dangerous and put passengers at risk. Moreover, with its disguise as a software company, Uber is unregulated, uninsured, and untaxed like any legal transportation service provider.

“In any case, a big part of the debate of the sharing economy is the state of existing regulations…here are two competing views here. One is that the regulations we have are mostly beneficial to customers and well-crafted, and where improvements need to be made they should be done within the existing regime. Technology and the sharing economy are simply profiting by dodging these good laws that protect consumers, and should be aggressively prevented from doing so.” – Forbes

Recommended article 

Other Cases

Besides the criminal law, corporate law, securities and exchange act, patent law, and fair trade act, there are many laws that are highly important to business owners. 除了本書前面章節裡面談到的刑法、公司法、證券交易法、專利法與公平交易法之外,與公司負責人息息相關的法律還有許多種1,舉幾個例子來說: 勞工安全衛生法(技術性) 勞工安全衛生法之立法目的在於防止職業災害,保障勞工安全與健康2,如該法規定雇主應該要設置必要的安全衛生設備防止特定災害之發生3,還有像是如果是具有危險系的機器設備則是需要經過主管機關之檢查合格後才可以使用4,若違反這些規定而發生職業災害的話就要負擔刑事責任5。 稅捐稽徵法(抽象) 人民都有納稅的義務,各企業行號當然也必須依照稅捐稽徵法之規定繳納各種稅捐,如果納稅義務人有使用詐術或其他不正之方法逃漏稅捐者,依稅捐稽徵法第41條之規定就有五年以下的有期徒刑還可能併科六萬元以下之罰金! 企業都要節稅,但是正當與不正當就會有天差地別的後果。 商業會計法(技術) 商業會計法則是規範公司行號當中的各種會計事務之法規,因為企業的各種財務報對於國家整體的經濟與廣大的投資人來說都有深遠的影響,其重要性不言可喻,所以如果企業的商業負責人或是會計人員有不實製作、銷毀或是偽造變造各種會計表冊時也負擔刑事責任6。 消費者保護法(技術)…

Internal Control Systems : Born With Flaws (Part 2)

Internal Control Systems are usually designed by accountants or underwriters according to company practices in similar fields and internal controls regulations. 內控機制的先天缺陷-制訂內控制度未能全面涵蓋重要營運事項 內部控制制度通常是由會計師或承銷商為公司所設計,但他們不是憑空產生,而是參照其他相類似產業的公司與相關法令的內部控制制度來設計的,然而其所引用、參考的母版對原來的公司而言都可能已經有不完備的現象了,更別提以削足適履、東打補釘、西改褲長的方式來為新的委託人規劃內控了,產生疏漏是命中注定的事情。    除了上述會計師、承銷商設計內控的問題之外,公司內負責執行內部控制作業的部門通常是內部稽核單位,但是內部稽核人員是否充分了解其他部門的作業習慣以及可能產生弊端之處呢?實務操作上十分困難。因為真正了解全盤情況的高階主管必須負責處理公司內比「撰寫內部控制制度」更迫切的問題如拓展業績、尋找有利之融資管道、規劃新的產品線及通路佈局、美化財報數字等,根本不可能將此種稀有人力資源花費在陪同會計師處理內部控制制度之問題上。 肇因於上述的兩個理由,企業的內部控制制度常常不符其需求。照道理來說,內部控制制度應該包含公司所有營運活動,而公司為他人背書保證、負債承諾、將公司資金貸予他人等處分公司資產之重要事項卻常未訂定相關程序,或是未訂有相關人員違反時的罰則。 如果對於公司本身背書保證、負債承諾、將公司資金貸予他人之行為不予控管,那麼就等於敞開不肖人士掏空公司的大門。管理階層可以輕易的動用公司資金來從事有利於其自身的活動,比如說未經董事會審核而將錢貸與或投資另一家管理階層人士掌控的公司、管理階層自己向銀行貸款而以公司資產作保,之後卻不償還債款致公司資產被變賣,這些行為都是實務上常見的現象,沒有一個有效全面的內控制度,公司資產安全堪慮! 印鑑管理也是某些公司會出現的問題,有些公司雖然訂有印鑑領用之程序,卻忽略印鑑有無歸還以及定期盤點印鑑,使印鑑易被盜用。無獨有偶,國票案及理律案都恰好在印鑑管理上有極大缺失,理律案因為「信任」兩個字而授權劉偉杰全權處理客戶股票事宜因而將相關印鑑統一由其保管;國票則是將印鑑隨意放置在員工辦公桌上,對於每個員工所持有的印鑑缺乏有效的管理機制,隨後才會引發一連串風波。

Crypto - Fiat Financial Regulation

Traditional financial institutions (e.g. banks) have been reluctant to work with cryptocurrencies and crypto businesses. Many banks treat crypto exchange businesses as high risk clients. In the end of last year, the Taiwanese Financial Supervisory Commission…