Machine translation:
Decision of the Administrative Appeals by the Executive Yuan, Case No. 113 *******
The appellant, due to matters related to the Immigration and Nationality Act, was dissatisfied with the correspondence (Ref No. 112********) issued by the Ministry of the Interior on December 11 of the year 112, and filed an appeal. The court decided as follows:Main Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Facts
- The appellant argued that Taishin International Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Taishin Bank) excluded foreign nationals residing in Taiwan from the bank’s promotions, products, services, applications (APPs), and website usage. For example, foreign nationals were excluded from the “JieLi Save” promotional event launched in collaboration with JKOPay Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as JKOPay), and from using the “Richart Digital Bank Account” application (APP) developed by Taishin Bank. The appellant claimed this was discrimination against foreign nationals residing in Taiwan and filed a discrimination complaint with the original decision-making authority, the Ministry of the Interior, on October 12 of the year 112. The original authority informed the appellant with the correspondence (Ref No. 1120*******) on December 11 of the year 112 (hereinafter referred to as the original decision) that the complaint was unfounded.
- The appellant’s grounds for appeal: The issues raised in the complaint exceeded the freedom of contract and the rights of banks and other enterprises to conduct business and select their target customers. The original decision-making authority stated, when implementing the new Alien Resident Certificate Number (residence number) in the year 110, that the purpose was to make online services more accessible to foreign nationals. If service providers like Taishin Bank and JKOPay were still allowed to exclude foreign nationals based on the numbers 8 and 9 in the new certificate numbers (8 for males, 9 for females), the policy would not be successful. Other digital banks in Taiwan (such as LINE Bank, KOKO Bank, Bankee, NEXT BANK, New New Bank, OMNI-U) also exclude foreign nationals. The appellant questioned why, in a developed and democratic country, such practices are deemed acceptable. As a legal foreign resident in Taiwan, the appellant is excluded from the “JieLi Save” promotional event and the “Richart Digital Bank Account” APP, among other products and services. The Richart website clearly states that these products, rights, and activities are only applicable to natural persons of the nation. According to Article 62, Paragraph 1 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, enterprises are not allowed to discriminate in their operations or based on the principle of freedom of contract. The policies of Taishin Bank and JKOPay are harming the rights of legal residents in Taiwan, and the appellant requested further review of the original decision.
- Defense by the original decision-making authority: (a) This case was referred to Taishin Bank and JKOPay for a response, and the Immigration Department (hereinafter referred to as the Immigration Department) queried Taishin Bank’s handler about related issues on November 1 of the year 112. After deliberation in the 30th meeting of the Discrimination Complaint Review Panel on November 24 of the year 112, it was determined that Taishin Bank was only able to offer limited digital banking services to the appellant due to development capacity constraints, and it was not a refusal to provide services. Furthermore, the promotional schemes were commercial activities and promotions, which could set target customers based on commercial considerations. It was difficult to argue that Taishin Bank and JKOPay had engaged in discriminatory practices that unlawfully infringed on the appellant’s rights, leading to the decision that the complaint was unfounded. (b) Since January of the year 110, the Immigration Department has implemented a new Alien Resident Certificate Number, coded similarly to the national ID number (one letter followed by nine digits), to facilitate the use of online services by foreign nationals and to avoid issues with system acceptance of the number format. Additionally, the Immigration Department has set up a “Resident Certificate Inquiry Website” to verify the authenticity of residence certificates. If the input data matches, the website displays the original photo submitted by the certificate holder; if the data does not match or the certificate is invalid, the result shows “Data Mismatch.” As profit-oriented enterprises, Taishin Bank and JKOPay do not discriminate against customers based on nationality, and there is no evidence that they have refused to contract with foreign nationals. On the contrary, Taishin Bank has developed digital banking services and launched the “Richart Q3-Q4 New Taiwan Dollar Savings Account Project” for the year 112, offering the same benefits to both nationals and foreign nationals. Given their nature as profit-oriented enterprises, their service development or promotional offers are considered based on cost-effectiveness and organizational capacity, and under the principle of freedom of contract, it is hard to argue that there has been discriminatory behavior.
Reasoning
- Article 62, Paragraph 1 of the Immigration and Nationality Act stipulates that “No one may discriminate against people residing in the Taiwan area on the basis of nationality, race, skin color, class, place of birth, or other such factors.” Paragraph 2 of the same article states that “If rights are unlawfully infringed upon due to the aforementioned discrimination, unless otherwise stipulated by law, the affected party may file a complaint with the competent authority based on the nature of the harm suffered.”
- The appellant filed a discrimination complaint on October 12 of the year 112, against the treatment of people residing in Taiwan. The original decision-making authority, after receiving the complaint, requested written defenses from Taishin Bank and JKOPay on October 17 of the year 112 through two correspondences (referred to as the October 17, 112 correspondences). Taishin Bank responded on October 30 of the year 112, and JKOPay on November 1 of the year 112. After the Immigration Department queried Taishin Bank’s handler on November 1 of the year 112, the original decision-making authority convened the 30th meeting of the Discrimination Complaint Review Panel on November 24 of the year 112. The decision was made that Taishin Bank, due to limited development capacity, only offered limited digital banking services to the appellant and did not refuse service; the promotional schemes offered in collaboration with JKOPay were commercial activities and promotions, legally justified in targeting specific customer groups (some promotions also provided the same benefits to nationals and foreign nationals). It was difficult to claim that Taishin Bank and JKOPay engaged in discriminatory practices that unlawfully infringed on the appellant’s rights, thus the complaint was ruled unfounded. The original decision was supported by evidence including the discrimination complaint filed by the appellant on October 12 of the year 112, the October 17, 112 correspondences, the responses from Taishin Bank and JKOPay, the public service telephone record from the Immigration Department on November 1 of the year 112, and the minutes of the 30th meeting of the Discrimination Complaint Review Panel on November 24 of the year 112.
- The claim that as a legal foreign resident in Taiwan, the appellant is excluded from the “JieLi Save” promotional event and the “Richart Digital Bank Account” APP among other products and services, and that the Richart website clearly states that these products, rights, and activities are only applicable to natural persons of the nation, contradicts the provisions of Article 62, Paragraph 1 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits discrimination in business operations or based on the principle of freedom of contract. Taishin Bank and JKOPay’s discriminatory policies allegedly harm the rights of the appellant as a legal resident in Taiwan. According to a letter from Taishin Bank dated October 30 of the year 112 and customer service emails from October 6 of the year 112, Taishin Bank indicated that the “Richart Digital Bank Account” was the first in Taiwan to offer foreign nationals the ability to open digital deposit accounts online. Currently, due to limited development capacity, foreign nationals cannot use the Richart APP, and the “JieLi Save” promotional event, assessed similarly for limited development capacity, is only available to natural persons over the age of 18. Taishin Bank stated that the setting of the “JieLi Save” promotional event as a specific customer group management project is reasonable, as banks, as profit-oriented institutions, consider cost-effectiveness and target customer groups in their profit considerations. Based on the principles of private autonomy and freedom of contract, Taishin Bank and JKOPay are entitled to choose their contracting parties and launch promotional activities or services for specific customer groups, and such freedom of contract should be protected. Taishin Bank and JKOPay, as profit-oriented businesses that do not discriminate against customers based on nationality, have no evidence to suggest they refuse to contract with foreign nationals. Moreover, Taishin Bank provides numerous physical and digital services to foreign nationals, and JKOPay allows foreign nationals to apply for electronic payment services. As stated by the appellant, many digital banks have not yet permitted foreign nationals to open accounts; however, Taishin Bank is notably the first bank to allow foreign nationals to open digital accounts. Even if some promotional offers or digital services are not provided for specific reasons, it is difficult to claim that these are based on discriminatory motives causing adverse effects or unlawful infringement of the appellant’s fundamental rights. The original decision-making authority has sufficiently argued against the claim of discriminatory behavior by Taishin Bank and JKOPay, and the original decision should be upheld.
- Based on the above discussions, this appeal is without merit, and the decision is made as stated in the main text.