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 

Cord-Cutters - The Nightmare for Cable Providers to Come ?

We been expecting cord-cutters for a while and have yet seen any moves. 剪線潮,喊很久,卻只聞樓梯響,不見人下來。 Cord-Cutting Might Not Be So Bad for Cable Companies Today, video is only about 40% of cable companies’ profits… For a typical…

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…

Crooked Construction Firms(Part 2)

追訴法律責任?大家別傻了。 一案建商,遠比消費者、比政府更精於算計,要比奸比賤,我們是贏不了的。 曾有律師投書向媒體表示:「像這種法律責任事沒有時效消滅的問題,就算公司結束了還是可以追究負責人。」 我們不這麼樂觀。 建案完銷,股東把賺的錢分一分,公司就辦停業或解散,你覺得董事長或總經理還會把錢留在身上、把財產放自己名下,等著將來自己起的樓被發現是海砂屋、或輕輕一震房子就倒時,供屆時賠償之用? 也許讀者認為可以用刑事責任逼他們展現誠意? 可預見的狀況是:賠償金十億,而這些不良建商負責人被法院以業務過失致死判二年,最後關個一年半就假釋在外。 或是開公司期間,這些建商的董事長和總經理,根本是每個月領三萬元車馬費的人頭? 那要不要再出個殺手鐧,立法禁止任何一個建商在房子蓋好後到住戶同意非因瑕疵而拆屋重建(例如都更)前,全部售屋所得均不得以股利或任何其他模式處分掉、更不准解散清算?(能想得出這種橋段的人肯定不知道憲法上的平等權和財產權保障是什麼意思) 故此,這幾十年來台灣建築業生態上常見的現象該如何解套,請見下篇「民刑事責任,對掃蕩瑕疵建案毫無幫助」。