Company Directors' Criminal Liability of Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Date Issued
2015
Date
2015
Author(s)
Ro, Yi-Shan
Abstract
Recently, the Supreme Court often finds the company directors being guilty for criminal Breach of Trust or Special Breach of Trust as acting contrary to their fiduciary duty. However, instead of any Criminal Code, the provision of “fiduciary duty” is enacted in the Company Law section 23 subsection 1. Whether a person has criminal culpability for breaching of civil fiduciary duty is related to the essence and the interest of Breach of Trust or Special Breach of Trust. Compared with the Fraud by Abuse of Position of English Fraud Act and the Honest Services Fraud of United States Code, the Breach of Trust of Criminal Code and the Special Breach of Trust of Sepcial Criminal Code indeed more likely focus on the gain or loss of property interest and require the result element, but are not merely to protect the full property interest of victims. The Breach of Trust is in order to protect both the personal full property interest and the relation of appointment, and the Sepcial Breach of Trust is not only in order to protect the company’s full property interest, but also to maintain the order of socio-economic. Through the typed obligation of company directors’, the thesis provides an initial determination of guilty conducts: the contrary to the obligation of appointment or the fiduciary duty would constitute the element of acting contrary to duty in Breach of Trust, but unless the quantity of infringement in property interest is sufficient to cause damage of the socio-economic order, the directors shall not constitute the element of violating their duty in Special Breach of Trust.
Subjects
fiduciary duty
loss of property interest
Fraud by Abuse of Position
Mail/Wire Fraud
Honest Service Fraud
Breach of Trust
Special Breach of Trust
SDGs
Type
thesis
File(s)![Thumbnail Image]()
Loading...
Name
ntu-104-R99a21063-1.pdf
Size
23.32 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum
(MD5):77dabca8a9ea95d4262d04b86fb96e2b