That’s extremely difficult because the FSC’s mission is to monitor financial institutions and they do not really interact with the general public directly. That’s why I mentioned the possibility to sue the banks. If they actually break the law then the odds would be better.
true, but that requires courts and lawyers and whatnot. I am a cheap basterd haha, would avoid courts as much as possible.
funny, monitor FIs but then can’t receive whistleblower or financial consumer reports. That’s a real asymmetry.
Also lots of money.
I apparently received ten calls from the FSC today, but I wasn’t paying attention to my phone and missed them.
I wonder what that was about. 
I guess I’ll need to wait until Monday to find out. I’m 80% sure they’ve already rejected my appeal anyway, because I got the slip telling me to go to the post office through the mailbox yesterday and I’m not expecting any other registered mail.
That’s borderline doxxing
A civil servant’s manager set an urgent and arbitrary deadline to change the status field in a spreadsheet.
I’m curious as to why the FSC’s response to a complaint is not an administrative action? Their decision not to act on a complaint is merely “informational”?
This relates to the complaint about opening bank accounts.
Take a look at this especially Article 2.
My understanding is that this approach closely follows German law.
The FSC has the power to supervise banks. But it is the bank that decides to open an account or not. The FSC did not act (or fail to act) in the context of his complaint. Classic example of government acts are approval/denial of applications and the imposition of fines and other sanctions.
See also Article 92
The term “administrative disposition” in this Act denotes a unilateral administrative act with direct external effects, rendered by an administrative authority in making a decision or taking other actions within its public authority, in respect of a specific matter in the area of public law.
His complaint was treated as a petition because he was “report[ing] on acts in breach of law or neglect of administrative duties or protection of the [people’s] rights and interest in administration.”
See Chapter VII Article 168 on.
https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=A0030055
Yes, I came to the that understanding. Administrative actions are extremely narrowly interpreted and recognised here. It must be a decision to an application for something within the agency remit.
I checked Italian regulations about how to report violations of FIs to the regulators, and in Italy beside the Bank of Italy (central bank) we have the FOI too (financial and banking referee is called). Its decisions are not binding (unless you bring them to a judge for a court order, which takes time and money) and technically those decisions are not an administrative act appealable to the administrative courts (it is clearly stated in the terms to lodge a complaint/report).
So in this case what is the correct path to litigate a violation of the non-discrimination clause? Do you need to directly sue the bank in (which?) court?
A Taiwanese lawyer somewhere above thought that suing the bank would be the right way to get a remedy. I doubt you would get more than NT$10,000 in token damages though.
In theory, you can file a complaint with the National Immigration Agency. They have the power to impose fines. My understanding is that they never find discrimination.
Part of the problem is that Taiwan doesn’t really understand discrimination except that it is a bad thing you don’t want to be accused of. This make sense since it considered itself to have no minorities until recently.
From what I have seen, action gets taken on discrimation only if someone does or says something that is deeply offensive to indigenous or disabled people. Even then, most of the pressure is social.
The FSC called me back just now. Only three missed calls today.
The main part was a bit of a silly, confusing, bureaucratic discussion about what the “object” of my appeal was. Apparently on the appeal form I’d entered the wrong number in the administrative sanction letter box (“行政處分書發文日期及文號”). The FSC had given me at least five different numbers during my previous communications with them — one for each of my two messages submitted through the online form, some kind of separate case number during the first message from them, and two different numbers (labeled “Ref” and “Message number”) on the Banking Bureau’s final short response in December — and I’d used what I assumed was the number representing the overall case rather than the “message number” (“銀局(控)字第”) as I apparently should have done (which I’d also cited elsewhere in the appeal). 
So they wanted to check whether I was appealing against my own initial complaint to the FSC or the FSC’s response to it. We went around in circles for a bit while I was waiting for my computer and myself to start up so I could check which numbers I’d used and should have used, and in the end we confirmed that I was appealing against the Banking Bureau’s inaction to my initial complaint, as might seem obvious.
This followed a worrying start to the call where the guy was indicating I’d need to translate my original complaint and the Banking Bureau’s response to me into Chinese because supporting materials might need to be in Chinese as well. I asked him whether they couldn’t perhaps just look at what the Banking Bureau had sent and responded to, and in the end it wasn’t necessary. He also asked me how I’d been able to submit the appeal in Chinese, and he was fine with the answer (ChatGPT and a friend quickly checking) and said I had the right to appeal.
The guy was alright actually, and we then spent a good 20 minutes chatting about the appeals procedure. I mentioned that the FSC appears to have rejected approximately 100% of the appeals listed on its website, and he was surprised that I knew that and confirmed that this is the most likely outcome of an appeal to the FSC, or government agencies in general. He mentioned that the system was based on the French system and that administrative appeals aren’t usually successful and rarely result in higher administrative agencies disagreeing with lower agencies, including in other countries. He noted that I’d still have the right to appeal the case to the court but an administrative appeal in itself was unlikely to be “successful” (as already indicated upthread).
He was talking in a general sense here and kind of off the record, because I don’t think he’s the one responsible for deciding the outcome, but the key point, as I think also already mentioned above, is apparently that the Administrative Appeal Act only covers situations where the person’s rights or interests were injured by government actions (and possibly inactions), but not where they were injured by another organization such as a bank.
I suppose that kind of makes sense. He said I should probably receive a response to the appeal by late April.
I’m not sure about after that — I haven’t decided yet whether to follow @Mataiou’s approach of trying the Control Yuan, something with the FOI (?), or just dropping it. The Richart/Taishin/JKO promotion I originally complained about is ending this month anyway, though Richart/Taishin previously said they’re intending to run another different promotion when it does and foreigners still can’t apply right now.
Lesson learnt: never take inspiration form the Frenchies haha (which we Italians already know full well)
My initial thought was to sue the bank in the civil court and demand that they approve your applications. It will take some serious research before I can come up with a plausible cause of action and even so it might be a weak case that will be thrown out of court. That said, this route would stand a slightly better chance than administrative appeal/litigation, which as @Andrew cogently points out, is almost guaranteed to fail. If you do win in civil court, damages awarded would be nominal at best but that’s beside the point.
Because Taiwan’s legal system does not allow judges to make law, it is frankly not sensible to expect changes from the judiciary. These types of cases are best dealt with by raising awareness, pushing for social reform and persistent lobbying, all of which takes considerable time and resources. Perhaps you can try to find a large group of plaintiffs, file the case and get media coverage. That might be the fastest way but do keep in mind that mainstream Taiwanese media is…pretty messed up to say the least.
Very insightful observation. Couldn’t agree more. I was born and raised here in Taiwan, but spent a little while living in the US and I fully understand what it means to be in the minority. I just wish I could be more helpful as a lawyer.
I guess only constitutional court and supreme court judgments can strike down unconstitutional or “unlawful” articles or acts as it happens in Italy. But it’s only striking down, they can’t formulate something new, that can only be done by the legislature.
This is pretty understandable, but it is not possible for judges to order companies to obey the current law? Or just highly unlikely?
I mean, what is even the point of having laws if it’s impossible to have them enforced in any meaningful way?
If you’re referring to the anti-discrimination law (Article 62 of the Immigration Act), it has not been applied in any civil cases so far (at least not according to publicly available information). It has been brought up in a few administrative cases but no meaningful discussion was made. So to answer your question, I think it’s possible, it’s just that no one has challenged it in court and made it to final adjudication yet.
Well, I think I’ve figured out why they were trying so urgently to call me.
I finally collected the letter waiting for me at the post office on Friday… and at the time of the phone call checking what I was appealing about and indicating my appeal had yet to be considered, they’d already mailed out the letter rejecting it. Oops! 
(I haven’t properly read it yet, because there are like 20-25 pages in Chinese and I was busy this weekend.)
nothing new under the sun
I’ve now joined @Mataiou on the FSC’s “you can’t appeal against us” list. 
FSC Administrative Appeal Decision (Case No. 11300004)
The administrative appellant, in connection with the filing of a complaint, refused to accept the email (Ref: yin ju ko zi No. 1120235970) issued by the FSC Banking Bureau on 15 December 2023, and therefore filed an administrative appeal with the FSC. The FSC Administrative Appeal Review Committee decided as follows: The administrative appeal will not be entertained.
The Chinese version goes into a little more detail:
上列訴願人因陳情事件，不服本會銀行局112年12月15日銀局(控)字第1120235970號電子郵件及應作為而不作為，提起訴願，本會決定如下：
發布單位：金融監督管理委員會
金融監督管理委員會訴願決定書（案號：11300004）
金管訴字第11301925634號上列訴願人因陳情事件，不服本會銀行局112年12月15日銀局(控)字第1120235970號電子郵件及應作為而不作為，提起訴願，本會決定如下：
主 文
訴願不受理。
理 由
一、按訴願法第1條第1項本文規定：「人民對於中央或地方機關之行政處分，認為違法或不當，致損害其權利或利益者，得依本法提起訴願」。第3條第1項規定：「本法所稱行政處分，係指中央或地方機關就公法上具體事件所為之決定或其他公權力措施而對外直接發生法律效果之單方行政行為」。次按行政機關所為單純的事實敘述或理由說明，並非對人民之請求有所准駁，既不因該項敘述或說明而生法律上之效果，非訴願法上之行政處分，人民對之提起訴願，自非法之所許，最高行政法院107年度判字第157號判決可資參照。
二、復按訴願法第2條第1項規定：「人民因中央或地方機關對其依法申請之案件，於法定期間內應作為而不作為，認為損害其權利或利益者，亦得提起訴願」。依本條項提起訴願者，須以人民依法申請之案件為前提，如非依法申請之案件，即無提起訴願之餘地。而所稱「應作為而不作為」係指行政機關對於人民之申請負有法定作為義務，卻違反此一作為義務而言。亦即人民須有請求行政機關作成行政處分之法令上依據，始為該當。若法令僅係規定行政機關之職權行使，而非賦予人民有請求行政機關為行政處分之公法上權利，則人民請求行政機關作成行政處分，性質上僅係促使行政機關發動職權，而屬建議、舉發之性質，並非屬於「依法申請之案件」。據上，對於非行政處分或其他依法不屬訴願救濟範圍內之事項提起訴願者，依訴願法第77條第8款規定，應為不受理之決定。
三、 緣訴願人以112年10月10日及11月4日電子郵件，向本會銀行局陳情略以，○○○○○○銀行股份有限公司（下稱○○銀行）及○○○○支付股份有限公司（下稱○○支付）聯合推出之「街利存專案」未開放外國籍人士參與。經本會銀行局請○○銀行向訴願人說明，並以112年12月15日銀局(控)字第1120235970號電子郵件回復訴願人略以，「街利存專案」業務內容係屬個別銀行經營自主範疇，由各銀行自行衡酌其作業成本、效益評估及擬定目標客戶，且○○銀行已研議提供外國籍人士其他相類似之優惠方案。經洽訴願人表示對本會銀行局112年12月15日電子郵件內容不服，並主張其權益因本會銀行局之不作為而受損害，依訴願法第2條第1項提起訴願。
四、查本會銀行局112年12月15日電子郵件，係該局對訴願人所為陳情之回復，性質核屬單純之事實敘述或理由說明，並非對訴願人權益有所影響，對外直接發生法律效果之單方行政行為，自非訴願法第1條所稱之行政處分。訴願人對之提起訴願，揆諸首揭規定，程序顯有不合，應不受理。
五、至訴願人援引金融消費者保護法第7條、第8條及第12條之1等規定，主張本會銀行局應強制○○銀行及○○支付採取補救措施一節。查金融消費者保護法上述規定，並未賦予人民有請求行政機關為特定作為之公法上權利，訴願人之主張屬陳情性質，與訴願法第2條第1項規定之「依法申請之案件」有別，本會銀行局亦無「應作為而不作為」之情形。爰訴願人就此部分所提訴願，不屬訴願救濟範圍內之事項，揆諸前揭規定，亦應不受理。
六、另本會銀行局113年2月23日銀局(控)字第11302032921號函附訴願答辯書略以，○○銀行表示係因外國籍人士使用線上開立數位帳戶人數尚未達規模經濟，考量專案效益及系統資源配置等情，目前未開放外國籍人士參與「街利存專案」，該局已請○○銀行持續研議提供外國籍人士友善的數位金融服務，提供多元客戶不同需求，併予敘明。
據上論結，本件訴願為不合法，爰依訴願法第77條第8款決定如主文。
Machine translation:
The petitioner, dissatisfied with the email from the Banking Bureau of this Commission dated December 15, 2023 (Ref. No. 1120235970) and the lack of action, has filed an appeal. The decision is as follows:
Main Text: The appeal is not accepted.
Reasoning:
- According to Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Appeal Act, “If a person believes that an administrative action by a central or local government agency is illegal or inappropriate and harms their rights or interests, they may file an appeal under this Act.” Article 3, Paragraph 1 stipulates, “An administrative action refers to a decision or other measure taken by a central or local government agency concerning a specific matter under public law, which directly results in legal effects.” Pure factual descriptions or explanations by administrative agencies are not considered administrative actions and do not create legal effects; thus, they are not subject to appeal. This is supported by the Supreme Administrative Court’s 2018 Judgment No. 157.
- Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Appeal Act states, “A person who believes that their rights or interests are harmed by the failure of a central or local government agency to act on an application made in accordance with the law within the statutory period may also file an appeal.” An appeal under this provision must be based on an application made in accordance with the law. If the case is not lawfully submitted, there is no basis for an appeal. “Failure to act” refers to the administrative agency’s legal obligation to act on an application, which it fails to fulfill. If the law only mandates the exercise of authority by the administrative agency without granting the person a public law right to request an administrative action, the request is merely a recommendation or report, not a lawful application. Therefore, appeals regarding non-administrative actions or matters not subject to appeal under the law shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 77, Item 8 of the Administrative Appeal Act.
- The petitioner, through emails dated October 10 and November 4, 2023, complained to the Banking Bureau that the “Street Profit Savings Plan” jointly launched by Bank XX and Payment Company XX did not allow foreign nationals to participate. The Banking Bureau requested Bank XX to explain to the petitioner and responded with an email on December 15, 2023 (Ref. No. 1120235970), stating that the “Street Profit Savings Plan” falls within the autonomous business scope of individual banks, which independently consider their operational costs, benefits, and target customers. Bank XX is also exploring similar offers for foreign nationals. The petitioner, dissatisfied with this response, claimed harm to their rights due to the Banking Bureau’s inaction and filed an appeal under Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Appeal Act.
- The December 15, 2023 email from the Banking Bureau was a factual explanation in response to the petitioner’s complaint, not an administrative action affecting the petitioner’s rights and creating legal effects. It is not considered an administrative action as defined in Article 1 of the Administrative Appeal Act. The appeal procedure is therefore improper and should not be accepted.
- Regarding the petitioner’s invocation of Articles 7, 8, and 12-1 of the Financial Consumer Protection Act, claiming the Banking Bureau should compel Bank XX and Payment Company XX to take remedial measures, these provisions do not grant individuals the public law right to request specific actions by administrative agencies. The petitioner’s claim is a complaint, differing from a lawful application case under Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Appeal Act. Therefore, the Banking Bureau has no “failure to act” situation. The appeal on this matter, not being within the scope of appeal remedies, should also be dismissed.
- Additionally, the Banking Bureau, in its letter dated February 23, 2024 (Ref. No. 11302032921), attached a defense statement from Bank XX, indicating that the number of foreign nationals opening online digital accounts has not reached an economic scale. Considering project benefits and system resource allocation, foreign nationals are currently not allowed to participate in the “Street Profit Savings Plan.” The Bureau has requested Bank XX to continue exploring friendly digital financial services for foreign nationals to meet diverse customer needs.
Based on the above, the appeal is unlawful and is therefore dismissed in accordance with Article 77, Item 8 of the Administrative Appeal Act.