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 

SOP Combo

SOP stands for Standard Operating Procedure. The purpose of SOP is to regulate workflow as a standard, written regulations. SOP是Standard Operating Procedure 的縮寫,意思是標準作業流程,標準作業流程的功能在於將工作上相關的流程做成制式化的書面規範,使從事相關作業的人能夠「按表操課」,快速進入狀況,達到「按部就班、縮短學習時間、減少異常的目標」。每一家企業都會有自己的SOP,這些SOP就是具體落實的內部控制制度。 我們在前面的章節不斷的提到「企業的內部控制很重要」、「做好內控就可以防弊興利」,想必讀者們現在一定很想一窺「內部控制」的堂奧,本節將會深入淺出的將內部控制的基本觀念介紹給大家。 內部控制,目前最被廣為接受的說法是由美國的COSO委員會^1所提出的定義,簡單的說,內部控制就是一種過程,其有效與否受到企業的董事會、經營階層以及員工等企業全體人員是否遵守而定,而內部控制的目標在於企業營運之效果與效率、財務報導之正確性以及遵循相關的法規,這三個目標就是內部控制的三大目標。精簡扼要的用一句話來描述的話,就是企業內部環環相扣的標準作業程序、或是企業內各部門作業流程之總和。 從上面所說的定義來看,讀者們應該要了解到,內部控制是一個非常廣泛的概念,牽涉到企業經營的各種面向,與整個企業息息相關。 沒有任何一種內部控制制度是放諸四海皆準的,因為各種企業不論是在規模、業務種類、經營風格都大不相同,他們當然也需要不一樣的內部控制制度;沒有任何一種內部控制制度是完美無瑕的,一套有效的內部控制可以提供企業通往內部控制三大目標的合理保證,但是仍然有可能被有心人士規避,比如說員工無心的疏失、員工聯手舞弊或是管理階層踰越內部控制都會使內部控制失靈,第一章的各類弊案正是最佳例子。 內部控制之於企業,正如同鞋子之於人。每個人都要穿鞋子來保護他的腳,但是每個人的腳大小不同,需要不同SIZE的鞋子才會合腳;穿了鞋子較當然受到合理的保護,但是踩到太尖銳的東西還是會穿透鞋子而傷到腳。 1. 1985年至1987年間由美國會計師協會(American Institute of Certified Public Accountants)、美國會計協會(American Accounting…

The E-commerce Organised Crime

The Taiwanese authority recently cracked down a group of 5 people who allegedly sell imported Chinese counterfeits (luxury clothings, accessories, etc.) to over a thousand Taiwanese buyers on several e-commerce platforms in Taiwan. This isn’t something…

Merger Is Not the Cure for Everything

With Taiwan’s technology firms’ performance worsen, business pundits often advocates for mergers between local manufacturers or suppliers. 宏達電斷尾求生 能否東山再起? 「……光是靠台灣市場是沒有辦法讓宏達電起死回生的。唯一的辦法,也是拯救台灣品牌的方式,就是讓目前台灣幾家主要的智慧型手機廠商進行整併,大家一起重新整合資源,才有機會讓台灣品牌衝出一條路。」 http://udn.com/news/story/6848/1135575 每次遇到台廠出大問題,就會有企管蒙古大夫跳出來,開出「與競爭對手或上下游產業鏈整併」的處方箋。我看說他們蒙古夫夫並不貼切;藥到命除,用劊子手形容還合適些。 hTC + Asus + Acer + … 這種招式,小學生都講得出來。但是會不會有用? Continue reading