➡︎ download | save | print
➡︎ read the rest of this Modern Criminal Law Review Special Issue
Location, Relocation, and Dislocation: Sanctioning the Poor Through Document Service in Taiwan’s Criminal Legal System
Mao-hong Lin*
I. Introduction
On the final day of 2022, a wanted man to whom we will refer as John Doe was arrested by the police and brought to the prosecutor’s office, where he awaited transfer to prison. His fugitive status stemmed from his failure to appear at the prosecutor’s office on the scheduled date after being convicted of fraud and sentenced to three months in prison. However, his absence was not a deliberate attempt to evade justice; he had never received any official legal documents, including the summons, indictment, or judgment, before his conviction and subsequent classification as a wanted person. The man was precariously employed for low wages and struggled to make ends meet. As a result, when his three-month prison sentence was commuted to a fine of NTD 90,000, he found himself unable to pay the amount. With no financial support from family or friends, and without the means to secure the necessary funds on his own, he faced the prospect of being transferred to prison to serve his sentence if he failed to pay the fine in full by 5 PM that day. Fortunately, the man’s employer recognized the gravity of the situation and expended significant time and effort to secure the necessary funds. Just in time, he managed to collect the full amount, successfully preventing his employee from being sent to prison.[1]
This is not an isolated case—similar situations frequently impact indigent individuals. Like in many other countries, courts and prosecutors in Taiwan serve various legal documents on defendants, including summonses, subpoenas, indictments, rulings, and judgments. However, a key difference from other jurisdictions is that Taiwan’s service of process prioritizes the defendant’s registered address rather than ensuring the defendant actually receives the document. This practice, deeply tied to Taiwan’s household registration system, disproportionately affects indigent defendants, who often do not reside at their registered addresses due to financial instability, homelessness, or frequent relocations for work.
By default, courts and prosecutors serve documents via post to the address listed in the defendant’s household registration, unless the defendant actively updates the authorities. In Taiwan’s legal system, the registered address is presumed to be a person’s domicile. While this may seem like a reasonable presumption, it often fails for indigent defendants who lack stable housing or do not update their registration regularly. Many move frequently due to work, education, or personal circumstances, and others may not have a fixed address at all. As a result, they frequently miss critical legal notices, leading to a cycle of escalating consequences, including summonses, arrest warrants, imposition of wanted status, and even convictions, all taking place without their knowledge. Moreover, without awareness of a judgment, a defendant may miss the appeal deadline, making their conviction final.
For indigent defendants, this procedural choice turns legal proceedings into a series of insurmountable obstacles. Unlike wealthier individuals, who can afford legal assistance or maintain a stable address, marginalized people are more likely to be caught in this cycle of legal troubles. The failure to receive a document can ultimately escalate into imprisonment, not because the individual is guilty, but because systemic barriers prevented them from demonstrating their innocence. This demonstrates how procedural rules, not just substantive ones, can create severe consequences, particularly for the poor. This article argues that Taiwan’s misplaced emphasis on location rather than personal receipt in legal document service relocates indigent defendants from their communities into police stations, jails, and prisons. Instead of ensuring justice, this system dislocates the most vulnerable individuals, reinforcing existing hardships and creating cycles of poverty and incarceration.
This rest of the article is composed of four major parts. Part II lays out how the procedural emphasis on location rather than person exploits the vulnerability of indigent defendants. It makes legal documents functionally inaccessible to the indigent, because they are more likely to have moved for work, live in a place other than their registered address, or be homeless. Part III articulates that missing the documents will lead indigent defendants to be relocated to a police station by arrest, jail by detention, or even prison by conviction because they are absent from court or prosecution sessions, lose the opportunity to defend themselves, or even miss the time to file an appeal. Part IV argues that such a procedural default in the service of process inflicts extra sanctions on indigent defendants, not for their wrongdoings but their poverty, dislocating them onto a path of conflict with the justice system. Part V provides some solutions from a comparative perspective with a common tenet: refocusing service from place to person.
II. Location: Service of Documents in Taiwan’s Criminal Legal System
Taiwan’s household registration system requires every citizen to have a registered address, which serves as their legal domicile unless proven otherwise. Courts and prosecutors rely on this address for serving legal documents. This is effective if individuals actually reside there. However, many people, especially indigent individuals, frequently move or lack stable housing, making it easy for them to miss important legal notices. The legal system employs various service methods, such as supplementary service, service by deposit, and constructive service, but these focus on location rather than ensuring actual receipt by the individual. As a result, indigent defendants, whose registered addresses are often outdated or inaccessible, frequently fail to receive legal documents, leading to missed court appearances, arrest warrants, and default judgments.
This misplaced focus on addresses rather than individuals creates significant legal disadvantages, particularly for the poor. Since they often cannot update their registered addresses due to financial instability, they are disproportionately affected by the rigid service procedures. The failure to ensure proper notice deprives them of a fair opportunity to participate in legal proceedings, reinforcing a cycle of disadvantage. Moreover, the system does not account for modern mobility—many individuals move for work, education, or personal reasons. A more flexible and individualized approach to document service is needed to ensure fairness and uphold due process, preventing legal consequences that arise not from deliberate evasion but from systemic shortcomings.
A. Household Registration and Domicile
Every Taiwanese citizen is required to register an official address with the government as part of their household registration. This registration system is a key component of Taiwan’s administrative framework, linking individuals to a specific location for legal, governmental, and civic purposes. Each household registration record contains a wide range of personal information, including date and place of birth, date of death, parentage, adoption status (if applicable), marital status, guardianship details (if applicable), parental rights (if applicable), indigenous status (if applicable), and address, among other relevant details.[2] These records serve as the primary source for verifying a person’s legal identity and civil status.
Each individual is permitted only one registered address of their household at a time, meaning that multiple registered addresses are not allowed.[3] If a person moves out of their registered address or relocates to a new one, they are legally obligated to update their household registration with the authorities. These updates, known as “moving-out” and “moving-in” entries, formally record changes in residency.[4] However, despite the legal requirement to update registration, not everyone complies, often due to inconvenience, financial hardship, or lack of awareness. This leads to discrepancies between a person’s actual residence and their officially registered address.
By default, the registered address is presumed to be an individual’s permanent residence, or domicile, unless they actively provide evidence to prove otherwise. According to Taiwan’s Civil Code, a domicile is defined as the place where a person resides with the intention of making it their permanent home.[5] Additionally, a person cannot have more than one domicile at any given time.[6] This principle establishes a legal presumption that simplifies administrative and legal processes, but it also creates complications for individuals who move frequently or lack a stable residence.
Taiwan’s Supreme Court has reinforced this interpretation from a burden-of-proof perspective, stating: “The definition of a domicile is not solely hinged upon household registration. However, if there is no evidence showing that the person has abandoned the registered address and chosen another place as their new domicile, the registered address may still be regarded as the person’s permanent residence.”[7] In other words, unless a person can present clear proof of having established a new domicile elsewhere, the government, courts, and other authorities will continue to treat their registered address as their legal residence. This legal presumption is particularly significant in various legal and administrative matters, including law enforcement, taxation, social welfare eligibility, and court proceedings.
Ultimately, Taiwan’s household registration system plays a crucial role in governance, but its rigid approach to domicile can pose significant challenges. While it provides stability and administrative efficiency, it also risks misrepresenting the realities of people’s living situations, particularly for those who are vulnerable or marginalized. Without proper safeguards to accommodate individuals whose registered addresses do not align with their actual residences, this system may inadvertently contribute to legal and social disadvantages.
B. Where Courts and Prosecutors Serve Their Documents
Defendants, as well as other parties and stakeholders, must inform courts and prosecutors of the address where they wish to receive documents from the criminal legal system.[8] If they fail to do so, courts and prosecutors will follow the guidelines for civil proceedings to serve the documents.[9] In principle, service can be effectuated at a person’s domicile, temporary residence, office, or place of business.[10] As the Supreme Court has explained, the registered address is presumed to be one’s domicile unless evidence proves otherwise, for example if the defendant proffers an alternative address.[11] Since not everyone has a temporary residence, office, or place of business, but everyone certainly has a registered address, courts and prosecutors will, in practice, check the registered address of the person to be served, before sending any documents. Service of documents can be executed by marshals or postal carriers,[12] though in practice, service is generally carried out by postal carriers via registered mail.[13]
There are several ways to fulfill the requirements of service. If the person to be served is not present at the registered address when the document is being served, the postal carrier may hand the document to cohabitants at the location, such as family members, employees, or security guards.[14] This is known as “supplementary service.” If there are no cohabitants available to receive and forward the documents to defendants, postal carriers may deposit the documents with local authorities, typically at a police station, and attach two notices at the location, one on the front gate and the other on the mailbox.[15] In this case, service is deemed complete ten days after the deposit.[16] This service method is known as “service by deposit.” If the recipient refuses to accept the document without reasonable grounds, the postal carrier may leave the document at the location.[17] This method is known as “service by leaving,” which is also considered valid service. In certain exceptional circumstances, such as when the person to be served does not have a registered address, temporary residence, office, or place of business, when the location cannot be served via postal service, or when the location to be served is outside the court’s jurisdiction, service can be carried out through constructive means.[18] These methods include posting the document on the bulletin board outside the courthouse or the prosecutor’s office or publishing the document in a newspaper, among others.[19] This service takes effect thirty days after it is executed.[20] This is known as “constructive service,”[21] or more specifically, “service by posting” or “service by publication.”[22]
Taiwan’s criminal legal system, as well as its civil legal system, service of documents is clearly focused on the location, in particular the registered address, rather than the individual. Taiwan’s emphasis on the registered address in its service of documents is based on the presumption that everyone resides at their registered address. However, a recent census reveals that approximately thirty percent of Taiwan’s population does not live at their registered address.[23] Most of these individuals now reside at different addresses, often rental properties, due to educational, employment, or family obligations.[24] As a result, it is easy for them to miss important documents which are instead delivered to their registered address. Even for those residing at the registered address, they may easily miss the documents when they are away for work, especially for those who are indigent and don’t have any employees or security guards. In some cases, registered addresses are outdated as the resident has become homeless.
C. A Misplaced Focus
It is a fundamental misfocus for Taiwan’s criminal legal system to prioritize serving documents to locations rather than individuals, because some defendants are served in law but not in fact. This misfocus can lead to significant issues, such as defendants missing court dates or failing to respond to legal actions, which can have severe repercussions on their cases.
The negative impact on indigent defendants is particularly concerning. These individuals often lack stable housing and change their residence frequently, making them less likely to update their registered address regularly. As a result, they are more likely to miss critical legal documents, leading to missed court appearances and default judgments. This can exacerbate their legal troubles and perpetuate a cycle of disadvantage. Furthermore, the reliance on registered addresses does not account for the realities of modern living, where people frequently move for work, education, or family reasons. A more flexible and individualized approach to service of documents could help mitigate these issues and ensure that all defendants, regardless of their socioeconomic status, have a fair opportunity to respond to legal proceedings.
Moreover, the emphasis on location over the individual can undermine the principle of fair notice, which is a cornerstone of due process. Defendants who are unaware of legal actions against them are deprived of the opportunity to defend themselves, which can result in unjust outcomes. Ensuring that all parties receive proper notice is essential for maintaining the integrity of the legal system and upholding the rights of individuals. The following discussion will examine the negative impact of Taiwan’s service procedure on indigent defendants, highlighting the need for a more individualized approach to ensure that all parties receive proper notice and can participate fully in the legal process.
III. Relocation: Risk of Being Arrested, Wanted, and Jailed
Defendants who miss a summons sent to their registered address may face a variety of consequences in Taiwan’s criminal legal system, including arrest, being declared wanted, default judgment, and losing the chance to appeal. This process disproportionately affects indigent and homeless individuals, whose outdated registered addresses prevent them from receiving legal documents. Additionally, a policing strategy incentivized by performance evaluations and rewards has led officers to delay arrests until suspects are officially wanted, allowing them to earn higher credits. This has resulted in a cycle where defendants unknowingly become fugitives, further complicating their legal situation. When arrested, homeless defendants are often denied bail due to their perceived flight risk, leaving them with little choice but to either plead guilty in hopes of a more lenient sentence or endure prolonged detention.
Moreover, Taiwan’s criminal justice system permits courts to render default judgments under certain conditions, even if the defendant is absent. Ex parte judgments, summary judgments, and appellate court decisions may all convict the defendant in their absence. Since court rulings are still sent to registered addresses, defendants may remain unaware of their convictions until they face imminent imprisonment. Without the opportunity to appeal, many indigent defendants find themselves trapped in a legal system that prioritizes procedural efficiency over fairness. This cycle of missed notices, arrest, detention, and conviction disproportionately harms marginalized individuals, reinforcing systemic disadvantages and making it even harder for them to escape legal and financial instability.
A. Arrest
A summons, whether issued by a prosecutor[25] or the police,[26] is served via postal carriers to the defendant’s registered address. The delivery of documents is carried out through ordinary service, supplementary service, service by deposit, service by leaving, or constructive service. If the defendant fails to appear at the location specified in the summons, whether at a police station or the prosecutor’s office, they may be subject to arrest.
Unlike in the United States, where issuing an arrest warrant falls under the court’s authority, prosecutors in Taiwan may issue arrest warrants if the defendant fails to appear at the location designated in the summons.[27] If a defendant misses the summons—regardless of whether they are away for work, education, or other reasons, reside at a different location instead of their registered address, or are even homeless with an outdated registered address—prosecutors may issue warrants for their arrest if they fail to appear.
The issuance of arrest warrants by prosecutors in such cases can exacerbate the challenges faced by defendants, resulting in a cycle of escalating legal consequences where the initial failure to receive a summons leads to arrest, further complicating the individual’s situation. This can lead to unintended consequences, where individuals who are not intentionally evading legal proceedings find themselves facing arrest simply because they did not receive the summons. The reliance on the registered address for serving documents does not account for the mobility and varied living situations of many individuals, particularly those who are indigent or transient.
B. Wanted
John Doe had been wanted by the police three times.[28] It is easy to become wanted in Taiwan’s criminal legal system: a wanted notice may be issued if the authorities cannot locate the suspect, either because the suspect has absconded or gone into hiding.[29] Similar to arrest warrants, both courts and the prosecutor’s office in Taiwan may issue wanted notices.[30] Unlike arrest warrants, however, which authorize only designated officers to make an arrest, any police officer may arrest a suspect who is wanted.[31] Therefore, a wanted notice has broader effects than an arrest warrant.
Arresting a fugitive carries higher credits and rewards for police officers than arresting a suspect who is not wanted. Improving and evaluating law enforcement performance is a perennial issue of importance in Taiwan[32] and other countries.[33] To encourage police officers to apprehend fugitives more diligently and effectively,[34] the National Police Agency, Taiwan’s highest law enforcement authority, has published guidelines outlining standard procedures for fugitive arrests and establishing a performance evaluation scheme[35] and an incentive and disciplinary system for officers who either succeed or fail to apprehend fugitives.[36] Under this scheme, it is expected that police officers will strive to arrest fugitives found in their patrol areas.
The performance evaluation scheme and the incentive and disciplinary system, however, have brought about unintended consequences. For the police, it is now rational to let suspects go, wait for wanted notices to be issued, and then arrest them as fugitives in order to earn higher credits for performance and receive rewards. For example, a news report in 2024 has uncovered that hundreds of homeless people around Taipei Main Station had become wanted due to suspicions of fraud after selling their dummy bank accounts to fraud rings. They only became aware of their wanted status when they were stopped by the police.[37] The report reveals that social welfare authorities did know where those homeless people were, and social workers frequently visited them to ensure that they were safe and to offer them temporary jobs.[38] In some cases, it is not that the police cannot locate the suspects; rather, the police don’t want to find them until they are deemed fugitives.
As a result, it has become common for a homeless suspect to miss a summons sent to their registered address, despite no longer living there; an arrest warrant is then issued, but the police do not enforce it diligently; a wanted notice is then circulated, and the suspect is notified of the wanted status when stopped and arrested by the police. This explains why John Doe had been wanted three times. Even though he was homeless, he was employed, so it would not have been difficult for the police to find him if they had decided to arrest him. However, the police apparently failed to locate him three times, and as a result, he was wanted three times. This can be attributed to a policing strategy aimed at earning higher credits and rewards by targeting suspects who are indigent.
C. Detention
When a wanted suspect is arrested and brought to the prosecutor’s office, the next step is to determine whether they should be jailed in a detention center. In Taiwan, only courts have the authority to decide whether a defendant should be detained before trial.[39] One key criterion for detention is the risk of abscondence, which can be based on past attempts to flee or the likelihood that the defendant may do so in the future.[40] Homeless defendants are often deemed likely to abscond. Many have been declared wanted simply because they failed to appear in court after not receiving legal documents sent to their registered address.[41] Although their absence may not be intentional, the legal system interprets it as evidence that they are likely to flee. In reality, the police often allow them to remain wanted for some time before eventually arresting them, as discussed above. This pattern creates a record that portrays homeless defendants as repeat absconders, reinforcing the justification for pretrial detention. Furthermore, homelessness itself is viewed as a sign that a person lacks stable ties to the community, increasing the court’s concern that they may fail to appear in future proceedings.[42]
In some cases, judges may grant bail, allowing a defendant to remain free while awaiting trial. However, for homeless defendants, bail is rarely a real option. Most are too poor to afford the bond set by the court, and unlike other defendants, they often have no family members, relatives, or friends who can pay on their behalf. Their lack of financial resources is often the very reason they are homeless in the first place.[43] Without the ability to post bail, these defendants are left with a difficult choice: plead guilty in hopes of a more lenient sentence and immediate release, or plead not guilty and face prolonged detention. This dynamic places indigent defendants at a severe disadvantage. Pleading guilty may result in a conviction that could have been avoided if they had legal representation and the ability to contest the charges. However, remaining in detention while awaiting trial can lead to job loss, further instability, and an increased likelihood of future legal troubles. The system, rather than offering them a fair chance to defend themselves, pressures them into decisions driven by their financial situation rather than their actual guilt or innocence.
D. Conviction
In principle, the court should not enter a judgment if the defendant is not present during the trial.[44] This rule provides a general procedural safeguard for indigent defendants who fail to appear in court regardless of any reasons. There are some exceptions, however, which allow the court to bypass this requirement. One such exception is that even if the service of process has been executed and the defendant fails to show up in court, the court may still render a judgment if the punishment imposed is relatively lenient, such as short-term imprisonment of less than sixty days,[45] a fine, a guilty verdict without punishment,[46] or even an acquittal. This type of judgment is known as an “ex parte judgment.”[47]
Another exception is judgment rendered through summary procedures, commonly known as a “summary judgment.”[48] Summary judgment allows courts to leave out all the procedural requirements of a regular trial and directly issue a decision. Defendants are not required to appear in court during summary proceedings. To issue a summary judgment, which has to result in a guilty verdict, the evidence presented before the court must be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt.[49] Additionally, the scope of sentence imposed on the defendant is limited to probation, imprisonment convertible to a fine or community service,[50] or a fine.[51]
The third exception is judgment rendered by the court of second instance, namely the Taiwan High Court and its branch courts, in appellate cases.[52] In such circumstances, if service of process has been properly effectuated and the defendant fails to appear in court, the court may proceed to enter a decision in the defendant’s absence.
These three exceptions grant courts broad discretion to issue decisions without the presence of defendants, which is why they are commonly known as “default judgments.” Through default judgments, courts may enter a guilty verdict without the defendant’s awareness. Court decisions are still sent to the registered address, even if the defendants no longer reside there, and such service remains legally valid. As a result, the defendant does not receive the judgment in person, misses the deadline to file an appeal, and the conviction becomes final. This ultimately means that the defendant is now facing imminent imprisonment, with all the attendant consequences for their personal and professional life.
IV. Dislocation: Disrupted Life Path
After a conviction becomes final, the defendant’s life is severely disrupted. The prosecutor issues a summons for the convict to appear and proceed with their sentence. While this process is straightforward for most, indigent convicts often miss these notices due to unstable living conditions. As a result, they face arrest warrants and wanted notices, further entangling them in the legal system. This cycle continues even after conviction, making it harder for them to comply with legal procedures. The case at the beginning of this article illustrates how a single missed notice can trigger repeated legal consequences, leaving indigent individuals in a continuous struggle with the justice system.
For those sentenced to fines instead of imprisonment, financial hardship creates another barrier. Although installment payments are generally allowed, convicts who have been wanted are ineligible, forcing them to pay in full or serve their prison sentences. This policy disproportionately affects indigent convicts, who lack financial support and are more likely to be declared wanted due to missed legal notices. Even if they manage to pay, the financial strain can have lasting effects, pushing them further into poverty. Without external help, many are left with no choice but imprisonment, demonstrating how the legal system punishes individuals not only for their crimes but also for their economic status, where the ability to pay determines one’s freedom.
A. A Vicious Cycle
After a conviction becomes final, the prosecutor is responsible for administering the sentence. Typically, the prosecutor handling the case issues a summons, instructing the convict to appear at the prosecutor’s office on a specified date. Upon arrival, the convict may request a commutation of their prison sentence to a fine, if the law allows. If the sentence is not eligible for commutation, or if the prosecutor denies the request, the convict is taken into custody and sent to prison.[53]
For many convicts, this process is straightforward. They receive the summons, appear as instructed, and either pay a fine or begin serving their sentence. However, for indigent convicts, the process is far more complicated. The same cycle of summons, arrest warrants, and wanted notices that played out before their conviction often repeats itself after the conviction. As discussed earlier, legal documents are routinely sent to the convict’s registered address unless they take steps to notify the authorities of a different residence. Indigent individuals, especially those who are homeless or frequently move between temporary residences, may not receive these documents at all. When they fail to appear as ordered, the prosecutor issues an arrest warrant, which can escalate to a wanted notice if they remain unaccounted for.
During the sentence execution phase, this process continues in much the same way. Indigent convicts who miss the prosecutor’s summons are treated as though they are deliberately evading their sentence. This leads to repeated legal actions against them, further entangling them in the system. A single missed notice can set off a chain reaction of legal consequences, ultimately making it even harder for indigent individuals to move forward with their lives.[54]
B. Imprisonment Because of Poverty
Convictions through the first two types of default judgment, namely ex parte judgment and summary judgment, typically result in relatively light sentences with limited penalties. For example, John Doe was sentenced to three months in prison.[55] This sentence was eligible for commutation to a fine of NTD 90,000, calculated at a rate of NTD 1,000 per day of imprisonment.[56] However, as previously noted, most indigent defendants cannot afford bail bonds and lack financial support from family or friends. The same difficulty emerges when they are faced with the choice of paying a fine or being imprisoned. The story illustrates this reality: the convict’s employer and colleagues ultimately paid the fine to prevent him from going to prison.[57]
The process, however, was not straightforward. Convicts are generally allowed to request installment payments for fines, whether the fine substitutes for a prison sentence or was originally imposed by the court.[58] This option provides some financial relief, as it allows convicts to pay in smaller amounts over time rather than in a single lump sum. However, installment payments are not granted in all cases. According to the Manual for the Execution of Penalties, published by the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office, a convict who has been declared wanted and is later brought to the prosecutor’s office is ineligible for installment payments.[59] The justification for this policy is that individuals who have evaded legal procedures should not be given additional leniency. However, as previously discussed, indigent defendants often become wanted not because they are deliberately evading the law but because they miss legal notices due to their unstable living situations.
This rule disproportionately affects indigent convicts, who are more likely to miss summonses and, as a result, become wanted. Without financial resources or support, they are left with no alternative but to serve their prison sentences. Unlike those who are granted the ability to pay in installment or have the means to pay lump-sum fines, indigent convicts face incarceration simply because they lack money, rather than because their offenses warrant imprisonment. This system creates a cycle where poverty leads to criminal penalties that further entrench individuals in hardship.
Moreover, even if indigent convicts manage to pay their fines, the financial burden can have lasting effects. People already barely surviving on low wages may have to borrow money, deplete savings, or forgo essential expenses such as rent, food, or medical care. In some cases, they may lose their jobs while trying to secure funds, worsening their already precarious economic conditions. The imposition of a fine, therefore, can not only result in imprisonment but can also lead to long-term financial instability, making it even harder for individuals to avoid legal troubles in the future. If an indigent convict is fortunate enough to have someone willing to pay on their behalf, they might escape prison. However, most do not have such support. Without external help, their fate is predetermined: they will be incarcerated, uprooting their lives and diminishing their chances of escaping poverty. The legal system, in effect, punishes individuals not just for their offenses but for their economic status, creating an unequal system where wealth determines freedom. In other words, the process in itself can be a type of punishment for indigent convicts. The following part will explore potential solutions to improve the service of documents in Taiwan’s legal system from a comparative perspective.
V. Reflections from a Comparative Perspective
Unlike the service of documents in Taiwan’s criminal legal system, which places the focus on the place rather than the person, service of documents in the U.S. criminal legal system takes both the person and location into consideration. In the U.S., service of documents is carried out by U.S. marshals and their deputies,[60] who either deliver a copy of the document, such as subpoenas, summonses, judgments, indictments, or informations,[61] to the defendant in person (known as “personal service”),[62] or leave a copy at the defendant’s residence or mail it to the defendant’s last known address (known as “residence service”).[63] Therefore, personal service is as critical as residence service is in the United States.
Personal service in Taiwan, however, is rather limited. Only within the court premises can a court clerk deliver the document to the person to be served.[64] This restriction significantly limits the flexibility and effectiveness of personal service in Taiwan’s criminal legal system. Moreover, when delivering the document through mail, U.S. marshals are required to send it to the “last known address,” ensuring that the document reaches the most recent location known to be associated with the defendant. In contrast, courts and prosecutors in Taiwan send their documents to the “registered address” unless the addressee proves otherwise. This means that the burden of ensuring the correct address falls on the addressee, who must inform the courts and prosecutors if their registered address is not current.
The difference between the “last known address” in the U.S. and the “registered address” in Taiwan reveals a fundamental disparity in the approach to document service. In the U.S., it is the court’s responsibility to ascertain the most recent address of the defendant, thereby ensuring that the service of documents is as accurate and effective as possible. This approach places the onus on the criminal legal system to maintain up-to-date information about the defendant’s whereabouts. Conversely, in Taiwan, the burden is placed on the person being served to provide the correct address, which can lead to inefficiency and injustice in the service process.
Even though both countries allow residence service, the difference between “last known address” and “registered address” highlights not only Taiwan’s misfocus on place when serving documents, but also the unreasonable burden placed on the person being served. This discrepancy underscores the need for Taiwan’s criminal legal system to consider adopting practices that prioritize the accuracy and effectiveness of document service, similar to those employed in the United States, to ensure that legal processes are carried out smoothly and justly.
VI. Conclusion
While Taiwan’s current system for serving legal documents and issuing arrest warrants is based on established principles and practices, it falls short in addressing the needs of a significant portion of the population, especially marginalized groups. By prioritizing location over the individual, the system fails to ensure that all defendants receive proper notice, leading to potential injustices and inefficiencies. This approach overlooks the potential benefits of a personal service model, which would assist in maintaining fairness and effectiveness in the criminal legal process.
A more individualized approach which prioritizes service in person or to the last known address could help mitigate these issues and ensure that the legal system serves all individuals fairly and effectively. Refocusing on the person rather than the place would address current shortcomings and reduce the procedural burdens that often act as a form of punishment for indigent defendants. By recognizing that “process is the punishment,”[65] the legal system can better manage and serve its population, ensuring that justice is both accessible and equitable.
* Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Criminology, National Taipei University (mhlin83@gmail.com).
[1] For the details of the story, see Lin Liqing, Stopping the Execution with a Large Amount of Money, Facebook, Mar. 11, 2023 (https://www.facebook.com/liqingl3/videos/235252105612692/).
[2] Household Registration Act art. 4 (Taiwan) (https://perma.cc/5AE2-ULYT).
[3] Id. art. 3, § 3 (“One person cannot be registered in two households.”).
[4] Id. art. 4 (“Household registration as used herein shall mean the following registrations: . . . 3. Registrations of movement: (1) Moving-out registration, (2) Moving-in registration, and (3) Address alteration registration.”).
[5] Civil Code art. 20, § 1 (Taiwan) (“A person who resides in a place with the intention of remaining there permanently, upon presence of supporting fact, is to establish his domicile at that place.”) (https://perma.cc/R3E3-Y79T).
[6] Id. § 2 (“Every person has at all times one domicile, and no person has more than one domicile at a time.”).
[7] See, e.g., Tai-Shang No. 1373 Civil Judgment, 2011 (Supreme Court of Taiwan); Tai-Kang No. 313 Civil Ruling, 2020 (Supreme Court of Taiwan).
[8] Code of Criminal Procedure art. 55, § 1 (Taiwan) (“An accused, private prosecutor, complainant, party to a supplementary civil action, agent, defense attorney, assistant, or victim of the case, shall, for the purpose of service, give his domicile, residence or office address to the court or public prosecutor.”) (https://perma.cc/ZUY3-8XSX).
[9] Id. art. 62.
[10] Code of Civil Procedure art. 136, § 1 (Taiwan) (“Service shall be effectuated in the domicile or residence, office or place of business of the person to be served.”) (https://perma.cc/L4UB-PRK5).
[11] See Tai-Shang No. 1373 Civil Judgment & Tai-Kang No. 313 Civil Ruling.
[12] See Code of Criminal Procedure art. 61 (Taiwan). Similarly, in civil cases, service of process is administered by court clerks and carried out by execution personnel or post carriers. See Code of Civil Procedure arts. 123 & 124 (Taiwan).
[13] See generally Implementation Measures for the Service of Criminal Summons by Postal Carriers (2020) (Taiwan).
[14] Code of Civil Procedure art. 137 (Taiwan) (“When the person to be served cannot be found in his/her domicile/residence, office, or place of business, service may be effectuated by leaving the paper with his/her housemate or employee of suitable age and discretion.”).
[15] Id. art. 138, § 1 (Taiwan) (“Where service cannot be effectuated in accordance with the provisions of the two preceding Articles, it may be effectuated by depositing the paper with the autonomous agency or police department at the place where the service shall be effectuated. In such cases, two copies of notice of service shall be made with one copy posted on the front gate of the domicile or residence, office, place of business, or employment place of the person to be served and the other copy placed in the mailbox or any other appropriate location of the place of service.”).
[16] Id. § 2 (“Service by deposit shall take effect ten days from the day of the deposit.”).
[17] Id. art. 139, § 1 (“Where the person to be served refuses to receive service without legal grounds, service will be effectuated by leaving the paper at the place of service.”).
[18] Code of Criminal Procedure art. 59 (Taiwan) (“Service may be made on an accused, private prosecutor, complainant, or party to a supplementary civil action by publication under one of the following circumstances: (1) The domicile, residence, office, and location are unknown; (2) Service is made by registered mail, but such mail cannot be delivered; (3) Residence is in a place outside the jurisdiction, and no other method of service can be found.”).
[19] Id. art. 60, § 1 (“Service by publication shall be executed by a clerk, with the relevant permission of a court, the Prosecutor General, a chief prosecutor, or a public prosecutor, in addition to posting the document to be served or its abbreviated copy on the bulletin board of the court, by publishing the said document in a newspaper or by giving notification or publishing it by other appropriate methods.”).
[20] Id. § 2 (“The service by publication specified in the preceding paragraph shall be effective thirty days after the last publication in a newspaper, notification or publication of the document concerned.”).
[21] See, e.g., 12 Okla. Stat. § 1148.5A (2024).
[22] For further information on service by publication, see Darrell L. Sutton & Samuel M. Lyon, Service by Publication: A Modern Alternative, 73 Mercer L. Rev. 965 (2022).
[23] The Directorate General of Budget, Accounting, and Statistics of the Executive Yuan, The Preliminary Analysis of the 2020 Population and Housing Census and Statistics 8-9 (2021) (https://perma.cc/G32R-3ANE).
[24] Id. at 8.
[25] Code of Criminal Procedure art. 71, § 4 (Taiwan) (“A summons shall be signed by a public prosecutor during the investigation stage or by a presiding or commissioned judge during the trial stage.”).
[26] The official name of the document issued by the police to summon a suspect is “notice.” See id. art. 71-1, § 1 (“A judicial police officer or judicial policeman, for the necessity of investigating a suspect’s involvement in a crime and collecting relevant evidence, may call by a notice the suspect to appear for interrogation.”).
[27] Id. art. 75 (“An accused, who without good reason fails to appear after he has been legally summoned, may be arrested with a warrant.”); id. art. 77, § 3 (“The provisions of sections III and IV of Article 71 shall apply mutatis mutandis to an arrest warrant.”).
[28] See supra note 1.
[29] Code of Criminal Procedure art. 84 (Taiwan) (“If an accused has absconded or is in hiding, a circular order may be issued for his arrest.”).
[30] Id. art. 85, § 3 (“A circular order shall be signed by the Prosecutor General or a chief prosecutor during the investigation stage and by the president of a court during the trial stage.”).
[31] Id. art. 87, § 1 (“After notice has been given of the issuance of a circular order or it has been published, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer may arrest the accused with or without a warrant.”).
[32] See, e.g., Xie Qingyan & Weng Cuifang, A Study on the Performance Evaluation Methods of Police Agencies in Taiwan: A Case Study of the Criminal Investigation Bureau, 23 Cent. Police U. J. Policing 31 (2023).
[33] See, e.g., Jon M. Shane, Performance Management in Police Agencies: A Conceptual Framework, 33 Policing: Int’l J. Police Strategies & Mgmt. 6 (2010).
[34] Guidelines for Police Agencies on Apprehending Fugitives, rule 1 (Taiwan) (“The National Police Agency of the Ministry of the Interior has established the Guidelines to ensure that police agencies diligently and continuously apprehend fugitives, uphold the dignity of the law, and maintain public order.”).
[35] Id. rules 33-34.
[36] Id. rules 35-47.
[37] Chen Zhaowen et al., Exclusive: Exploited by Fraud Rings: Over 100 Homeless Individuals at Taipei Main Station Become Wanted Criminals, Yahoo News (May 30, 2024) (https://ynews.page.link/A7Ltf).
[38] See id.
[39] Code of Criminal Procedure art. 101, § 1 (Taiwan) (“If the suspicion of the accused committed a crime becomes significant after the interrogation by a judge, and one of the following conditions applies, and as a result, it will be very difficult to prosecute, or try the case, or execute a sentence without a retention order, the accused shall be detained.”); id. art. 102, §§ 1 (“A writ of detention is necessary to detain an accused.”) & 4 (“A writ of detention shall be signed by a judge.”).
[40] Id. art. 101, § 1 (“The accused has absconded, or if there are sufficient facts to support the concern of his/her absconding.”).
[41] Abscondence is also a criterion for the issuance of a wanted notice. See supra note 29.
[42] See supra note 1.
[43] See id.
[44] Code of Criminal Procedure art. 281, § 1 (Taiwan) (“If an accused fails to appear in court on the trial date, the trial may not proceed unless otherwise specially provided.”).
[45] Criminal Code art. 33(4) (Taiwan) (defining “principal punishments” to include “[s]hort-term imprisonment of more than one day but less than 60 days.”) (https://perma.cc/6KFQ-4GHQ).
[46] It is known as “conviction while remitting the punishment.” See Code of Criminal Procedure art. 306 (Taiwan) (“If a court considers that it should impose detention or a fine or pronounce a judgment of ‘Remission of Punishment’ or ‘Not Guilty,’ and if an accused, without good reason, fails to appear in court after having been legally summoned, judgment may be given without waiting for his statement.”).
[47] See id.
[48] Id. art. 449, § 1 (“The first instance court may decide on a sentence using summary procedures upon the prosecutor’s request without going through regular proceedings, if the court finds that the defendant’s confession, as provided during the investigation, or other existing evidence, is sufficient to determine the defendant’s guilt.”). On the introduction of summary procedures, see Margaret K. Lewis, Taiwan’s New Adversarial System and the Overlooked Challenge of Efficiency-Driven Reforms, 49 Va. J. Int’l L. 651, 670-71 (2009); Kai-Ping Su, Criminal Court Reform in Taiwan: A Case of Fragmented Reform in a Not Fragmented Court System, 27 Wash. Int’l L.J. 203, 208-09 (2017); Mao-hong Lin, Trial and Error: A Comparative Perspective on the Lay Participation in Criminal Trials and Appellate Review of Errors in Taiwan, 33 Ind. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 93, 100-01 (2023).
[49] See sources cited supra note 48; see also Code of Criminal Procedure art. 449, § 2 (Taiwan) (“As in the case of preceding paragraph, if the prosecutor has begun the prosecution following regular proceedings, but the court then decides that summary procedures are appropriate for the sentencing phase of the trial after the defendant confesses the crime, summary procedures may then be adopted without implementing full trial proceedings.”).
[50] To qualify for this punishment, the offense committed by the defendant must carry a maximum sentence of up to five years’ imprisonment, and the defendant must be sentenced to no more than six months of imprisonment. See Criminal Code art. 41, § 1 (Taiwan) (“In an offense that carries a maximum principal punishment of not more than five years’ imprisonment, if the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for not more than six months or short-term imprisonment, the punishment may be commuted to a fine at a daily rate of NTD one thousand, two thousand or three thousand.”).
[51] Code of Criminal Procedure art. 449, § 3 (Taiwan) (“The pronounced criminal sanction, as determined in accordance with the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs, is limited to probation, fixed-term imprisonment that is convertible to a fine or community service, detention, or a fine.”).
[52] Id. art. 371 (“Where a defendant default without due reasons after having been legally summoned, a judgment may be made without his/her statement.”).
[53] See Q & A for Common Questions About Sentence Execution, Taiwan Taipei District Prosecutors Office (https://perma.cc/6CVF-FUQC).
[54] See supra note 1.
[55] Id.
[56] See Criminal Code art. 41, § 1 (Taiwan).
[57] See supra note 1.
[58] See generally Guidelines for Prosecutors on Handling Installment Payments of Fines by Convicts (1994) (Taiwan).
[59] Taiwan High Prosecutors Office, Manual for the Execution of Penalties 94 (2018).
[60] Fed. R. Crim. P. § 4(c)(1).
[61] Id. § 9(c)(1).
[62] Id. § 4(c)(3)(B)(i).
[63] Id. § 4(c)(3)(B)(ii).
[64] Code of Civil Procedure art. 126 (Taiwan) (“Service is deemed effectuated when the court clerk delivers the paper to be served to the person in the courthouse.”).
[65] See Malcolm M. Feeley, The Process Is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court (1979).
Suggested Citation: Mao-hong Lin, Location, Relocation, and Dislocation: Sanctioning the Poor Through Document Service in Taiwan’s Criminal Legal System, 2 Mod. Crim. L. Rev. 44 (2025).