The existence of criminal syndicates poses a potential threat of harm to the legal interest protected by law, and must, of course, be prevented and eliminated. The purposes of the Organized Crime Prevention Act are to maintain the social order and safeguard the legal interest of individuals by means of preventing and restraining criminal activities of an organized pattern. The term "participation in a criminal syndicate" used in Article 3, Paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Act denotes that to constitute the offense it is sufficient that one joins a criminal syndicate and becomes a member thereof, regardless of whether or not he participates in any activity of the syndicate. Whether such an act is in a continuous state is determined by the fact of whether he continuously participates in activities of the syndicate or maintains contact with the syndicate. The burden of proof of this criminal act lies legally with the prosecutor that represents the state in the prosecution of crimes. Where a syndicate member voluntarily surrenders himself to the authorities before his act of participation is discovered or has had no contact with the syndicate or has not participated in syndicate activities for a long time, with sufficient evidence to prove that he has positively broken away from the criminal syndicate, he should no longer be considered to be continuously participating in the syndicate. The first sentence of this Yuan’s Interpretation No. 68, which is intended to explicate the Betrayers Punishment Act, quotes: "A person who participated in a rebel organization shall certainly be deemed to be continuously participating in the organization before he voluntarily surrenders himself to the authorities or where there is no evidence to prove that he has definitely broken away from the organization." Now that this Act has been repealed, the above-cited Interpretation together with other similar interpretations delivered by this Yuan, namely Interpretation Yuan-Tze No. 667 and Interpretation No. 129, must be overruled to the extent that any part thereof is inconsistent with the purpose of our holding here in respect of whether the act of participation in a criminal syndicate is continuous and the share of the burden of proof. Furthermore, the provision of Article 18, Paragraph 1, of the Organized Crime Prevention Act with respect to the interim period does not preclude the application of this Interpretation in line with the foregoing purpose, and is not contrary to the Constitution in the protection of the physical freedom of the people.

    An organized crime committed by a syndicate of a cliquey, habitual, and coercive or violent nature with the commitment of crimes as its goal or employing its members to commit crimes is entirely different from an ordinary act of crime in that it poses a comparatively greater threat to the social order and the people*s rights and interest than other crimes do, and must, of course, be restricted and eliminated. This is the purpose for which the Organized Crime Prevention Act, promulgated on December 11, 1996, is enacted. A syndicate, however, is an abstract association incapable of doing any act or taking any action by itself, its criminal objectives and activities being carried out through the participation of its members. The term "participation in a criminal syndicate" used in the Act denotes that to constitute the offense it is sufficient that one joins a criminal syndicate and becomes a member thereof, regardless of whether or not he participates in any activity of the syndicate. Whether such an act is in a continuous state before the statute of limitations of prosecution expires is determined by the fact of whether he continuously participates in activities of the syndicate or maintains contact with the syndicate. The burden of proof of this criminal act lies legally with the prosecutor that represents the state in the prosecution of crimes. Where a syndicate member voluntarily surrenders himself to the authorities before his act of participation is discovered or has had no contact with the syndicate or has not participated in syndicate activities for a long time, with sufficient evidence to prove that he has positively broken away from the criminal syndicate, he should no longer be considered to be continuously participating in the syndicate. The relevant statute of limitations of prosecution should naturally begin to run from either the time of joining the syndicate or of last taking part in syndicate activities or the time of breaking away from the syndicate, as the case may be. Interpretation No. 68, which is intended to explicate the Betrayers Punishment Act, quotes: "A person who participated in a rebel organization shall certainly be deemed to be continuously participating in the organization before he voluntarily surrenders himself to the authorities or where there is no evidence to prove that he has definitely broken away from the organization. Where an act is in a continuous state after the Betrayers Punishment Act became effective on June 21, 1949, Article 2 of the Criminal Code is not applicable because the change of law did not occur after the commission of the act; nor can the Decrees for Amnesty and Punishment Reduction of Criminals, which is applicable only to crimes committed before December 31, 1945, be invoked if the commission of the criminal act is in continuation thereafter." Now that this Act has been repealed, the above-cited Interpretation together with other similar interpretations delivered by this Yuan, namely Interpretation Yuan-Tze No. 667 and Interpretation No. 129, must be overruled to the extent that any part thereof is inconsistent with the purpose of our holding here in respect of whether the act of participation in a criminal syndicate is continuous and the share of the burden of proof. It goes without saying that a person who, while participating in activities of a syndicate, commits a crime other than those specified by the Organized Crime Prevention Act, must be dealt with in pursuance of Article 5 of said Act.     

    Participation in a criminal syndicate is a punishable act (See Article 154 of the Criminal Code). The Organized Crime Prevention Act provides in Article 18, Paragraph 1, which quotes: "A member of a criminal syndicate formed before this Act comes into force who breaks away from the syndicate within two months after this Act comes into force without being found to have committed any crime and registers with the police authorities is exempted from punishment. The same applies where the person who founded, took charge of, controlled, or directed a syndicate disbands the same within two months after this Act comes into force without being found to have committed any crime and registers with the police authorities." The purpose of this Act is to encourage syndicate participants to make a fresh start. The interim period therein provided is also intended to avoid unconditional and arbitrary retroactive application of the law. Furthermore, the provision of said Article with respect to the determination of the act of syndicate members participating in the syndicate does not preclude the application of this Interpretation in line with its purpose stated above, and is not contrary to the Constitution in the protection of the physical freedom of the people. 

*Translated by Raymond T. Chu.