Usually, no. Sometimes, yes. Seeing as we are also talking about “exercising unlawful control over [property belonging to another]”, it very clearly could be a criminal offense under Taiwanese law. And New York law. And apparently Canadian law.
Cheap dig.
I still don’t see it as unlawful control. If this other person simply claims that he “will” pay it back at a later date, as they agreed upon, it is not criminal. This is why contracts are important.
As an aside, do you practice law in Canada? Or are you involved in legal disputes here? I am curious as to the last time you were involved in a criminal case in Canada prosecuting someone for a unpaid loan as theft. Pretty much never.
Debtor’s prison is illegal in every free/democratic countries I am aware of. Maybe in Roman times can people go to prison or sold into slavery for being unable to pay their debts.
Only Communist China would jail people for being unable to repay a credit card debt. They call it “fraud involving government funds” (all banks in China are government run).
Only time you can prosecute someone for unpaid loan is if fraud is involved, or you could somehow prove that the person never intended to pay it back. That’s nearly impossible to do.
I am admitted to practice law only in 2 US states.
2 Likes
It’s not nearly impossible to do, and we are not just talking about a loan, we are talking also about “exercising unlawful control over [property belonging to another]”.
I figured something along those lines. I will admit that there is a possibility that a criminal offence may have occurred in this case, but that at least in Canada (where I deal with these cases almost everyday), the burden of proof needs to be much higher for an arrest to occur, let alone for a criminal case to proceed. It would be dealt with in Civil court, unless direct evidence of criminal intent came to light. Like I said previously, I am not sure how these cases are dealt with in Taiwan, but I suspect it would be similar.
1 Like
The OP is not presenting a criminal case to a jury. He is asking for a lawyer to help him solve a problem. I don’t know what evidence he has, what the LINE messages say, what emails may exist, or what verbal contracts were made, if any. But a criminal case very clearly might be made under my reading of the Taiwanese law I quoted.
1 Like
I guess my over-involvement with criminal cases shows? True enough, point taken.The OP should definitely go to a lawyer to see what sort of case he has, of whatever variety.
Are you a lawyer? Are you licensed to practice in Taiwan?
Why can’t I PM you? My profession is not something I prefer to discuss in public, thanks.
PM problem solved.
If you gave it to him, it’s not theft.
If you gave it to him, it’s not theft.
Maybe embezzlement would be a more correct term:
Embezzlement is the act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion (theft) of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, either to be held or to be used for specific purposes
…
Embezzlement statutes do not limit the scope of the crime to conversions of personal property. Statutes generally include conversion of tangible personal property, intangible personal property, and choses in action. Real property is not typically included.
UK law is helping the OP as much as Canadian so here we go.
1 Basic definition of theft.
(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.
(2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.
(3)The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section).
Modifications etc. (not altering text)
C1
S. 1(1) applied (25.8.2000) by 2000 c. 6, ss. 148(8), 168
2 “Dishonestly”
(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—
(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or
©(except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
(2)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.
3 “Appropriates”.
(1)Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.
(2)Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property.
Guys, please! 
Taiwan is not a common law jurisdiction!
When judges here do care about foreign law, you can bet your finest computer parts it’s going to be German law, or maybe Austrian in a pinch. Once in a blue moon, US law comes up (like when the Council of Grand Justices ordered the legalization of SSM). The point being though, Canadian/US/UK law won’t affect this case, unless @Marco somehow has a claim under foreign law that can be enforced in accordance with the Act Governing the Choice of Law in Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements, which it sounds like he doesn’t.
The relevant chapter of the Code of Criminal Procedure starts at Art. 319.
I agree, however, that it’s most likely a waste of time and money (unless you want to learn through experience) to attempt prosecution in this case.
For a civil suit, see the section on loans (it sounds like both types exist here) starting at Art. 464 of the Civil Code. Keep in mind that oral contracts are still contracts (in most cases), and line messages are not solid proof, but they are evidence.
In a civil case, the losing party pays the court fee (and it’s usually proportional in the event of a partial victory), but each party pays its own lawyer’s fees (or gets legal aid, if the party’s income and assets are low enough). If you settle through pre-trial mediation at the court, a phase which is usually compulsory unless you’ve already gone through (proper) mediation outside the court, you get a partial refund (2/3 iirc) of the court fee, so if you want to inflict any of that on the defendant you’ll need to include it in the settlement amount.
First, I would go for a free consultation with one of the lawyers at Taipei City Hall (assuming no interpreter is required), or the LAF, to get some clarity. Then I would probably send “Mr. Mingtian” a legal deposit letter, clearly stating the details of the case including dates etc., citing the relevant articles of the CC and maybe a Supreme Court decision or two, and giving him one final opportunity to settle the debt, to show that this is getting serious. Then if necessary, most of the preparation would already be done, and drawing up a 起訴狀 and filing it at the court would be relatively straightforward.
Then the waiting would begin, but hey, Romulus didn’t get Remus to pay him back in a day. 
4 Likes
This is an old post but I’m stuck here waiting in line doing useless paperwork…
This came up as a suggested post so, anyway what happened?
Did you ever get your computer parts and money back?
Did you send some special Taiwanese collectors after the person? Did you become best friends and forgive each other?
