"Where there is a dispute, they shall be kept until the dispute is resolved." That is the last sentence of Article 36 of Taiwan's Regulations Governing Futures Commission Merchants (期貨商管理規則) (in translation). "They" are two kinds of record: recordings of orders taken by phone, and the archived content of order tickets sent by computer system or other equipment. Without a dispute, the minimum is one year.
It reads like housekeeping. On the night an app freezes, or a cancel that the screen accepted shows up as a fill, it becomes the most useful line in the rulebook. What reached the exchange, and when, is the whole argument. The broker holds that record.
The cancel that did not stick
Cancels are the cleanest test. Article 37 of the same regulations lets a customer notify the broker to cancel an order at any time before it is filled, and it requires the broker to execute orders by the order method or time sequence. The app shows "cancelled" a few seconds before the market turns, yet the monthly statement later lists the order as filled (an invented example). Did the cancel reach the broker before the fill?
Each answer leads somewhere different. If the cancel came in first and the broker's system never passed it on, the fill points to a failure on the broker's side. If the fill came first, the order was already done, and what is left to argue is whether the false "cancelled" message led the customer into further losses. Either way the sequence sits in the broker's files, in the records the regulations require it to keep to prove each order (Article 33(3)) and in the archived transmissions of Article 36.
Once fault is shown, Civil Code Article 216 measures the loss: the loss actually suffered plus lost profit, which includes profit that could be expected in the ordinary course. Article 217 cuts the other way. A court may reduce or deny the award where the injured party's own fault contributed to the damage or made it larger, and new trades placed on a display already known to be wrong invite exactly that argument.
Screenshots on one side, trade reports on the other
Your own evidence is whatever was captured that night. Screenshots that show the device clock. Push notifications and emails about fills. A note of each call to the broker, including the ones that never connected.
The broker's paper trail is set by regulation. After each fill it prepares a trade report (買賣報告書) listing, among other items, the account, trade date, exchange, contract and quantity, price, buy or sell, opening or offsetting, and margin and fees (Regulations Governing Futures Commission Merchants, Article 39). Before the 5th of the following month it fills in a monthly statement of every fill and the month's profit and loss, sends one copy to the customer and keeps the other for two years (Article 52).
Questions to the broker belong in writing. The same regulations bar a broker from leaving a customer's inquiry about a transaction without the necessary answer and handling where that harms the customer's interests (Article 55, item 8). A phone call that nobody answers leaves little behind; an email has a date on it.
Liability under the account agreement
Liability starts with the contract. A broker must sign an account agreement (受託契約) with the customer before accepting any order (Regulations Governing Futures Commission Merchants, Article 30). A cancel that the system failed to pass on is performance gone wrong, and under Civil Code Article 227 incomplete performance attributable to the debtor lets the creditor claim damages, including losses beyond the defective performance itself. The broker answers for its own intentional and negligent acts (Article 220) and, unless the parties agreed otherwise, for the fault of the agents or persons it uses to perform (Article 224).
There may also be a second route, through the Civil Code's rules on commission agency. A broker trades in its own name, for the customer's account and for a fee, which resembles what Civil Code Article 576 calls a commission agency (行紀). If a court treats the account that way, the rules on mandate apply (Article 577): a paid mandatary owes the care of a prudent manager (Article 535) and compensates losses caused by its negligence (Article 544). Statute imposes the same standard on financial firms in any case. Article 7(3) of the Financial Consumer Protection Act (金融消費者保護法) requires the care of a prudent manager whenever a financial product or service is provided.
Nationality is not part of the test. The Act protects any "financial consumer," meaning anyone who receives a financial product or service, with two exclusions: professional investment institutions, and individuals or entities that meet set wealth or expertise thresholds (Financial Consumer Protection Act, Article 4).
The outage clause
Electronic-trading terms may include a clause about system failures. Whatever it says, two Civil Code provisions set its outer limit. Liability for intent or gross negligence cannot be waived in advance (Civil Code Article 222). A standard-form term that removes or reduces the drafter's liability is void to the extent it is obviously unfair in the circumstances (Article 247-1). On top of those, the Financial Consumer Protection Act voids obviously unfair terms and reads doubtful ones in the consumer's favor (Article 7(2)).
What an Ombudsman decision is worth
The Financial Ombudsman Institution (金融消費評議中心) can decide a claim, but a broker is bound only within limits. A firm that agreed in advance in writing, or stated in its contracts or other documents that it accepts the Act's dispute procedure, must accept decisions up to a set amount; when a decision goes higher, the firm is still bound if the customer agrees to cut the award down to that amount (Financial Consumer Protection Act, Article 29(2)). The Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) notice of March 18, 2022 puts the amount at NT$1.2 million for a listed group of products and services and NT$120,000 for everything else (FSC notice). Brokerage of exchange-listed futures is not on the list.
Getting a decision takes a complaint to the broker first. The broker has 30 days from receiving it. Within 60 days after its answer, or after the 30 days run out without one, the customer may apply (Financial Consumer Protection Act, Article 13(2)). Applications with no prior complaint, filed while the broker is still handling the complaint and its 30 days have not run out, or filed late are refused (Article 24(2)). An accepted decision can be sent to court for approval within 90 days, and once approved it has the same effect as a final civil judgment (Article 30 of the same Act).
Mediation at the Securities and Futures Investors Protection Center (SFIPC) is the other out-of-court option, compared in When a Taiwan Brokerage Employee Trades Your Account.
Regulatory penalties run on their own track. A futures broker that breaches the Regulations Governing Futures Commission Merchants, which are issued under Article 56(5) of the Futures Trading Act, can be fined NT$120,000 to NT$2.4 million and ordered to fix the problem (Futures Trading Act, Article 119(1)(ii)). A securities firm that fails to implement its internal controls faces NT$300,000 to NT$6 million (Securities and Exchange Act, Article 178-1(1)(iv)). Neither article provides for any payment to customers, so a fine leaves a customer's claim where it was.
Limitation periods against a one-year record
Every limitation period that could apply outlasts the broker's minimum retention period. The shortest belongs to punitive damages. If a court finds that the broker broke the Financial Consumer Protection Act itself, for instance its duty of care, it may add punitive damages of up to the amount of the loss for negligence and up to three times for intent, and that claim expires two years after the customer learns of the grounds and five years after they arose (Financial Consumer Protection Act, Article 11-3). Whether an outage amounts to such a violation is open to argument. Ordinary damages last longer. Contract claims generally have 15 years (Civil Code Article 125), and a tort claim expires two years after the injured party learns of the damage and who is liable, and in any case ten years after the act (Civil Code Article 197).
Order logs, by contrast, need only be kept for one year unless there is a dispute. A claim raised for the first time in year three may arrive after the broker was free to discard them.
Compared with a US brokerage account
In the US, a FINRA member firm must keep a written business continuity plan with procedures for an emergency or significant business disruption. It must also disclose to customers how that plan addresses the possibility of a future significant business disruption, at a minimum in writing at account opening, on its website and by mail on request (FINRA Rule 4370(a), (e)). That disclosure looks ahead. The Taiwan provisions discussed here look back: they fix which records a broker keeps and sends, which is what a customer needs once the disruption has happened. Account hacking by an outsider raises different questions, covered in Hacked Forex Account, Broker Overseas, Home in Taipei.
What a Taiwan lawyer can handle
Which forum fits depends on the size of the loss and the clock. An Ombudsman decision binds a broker that accepted the procedure in advance only up to NT$120,000 for this kind of brokerage, SFIPC mediation is the other out-of-court route, and a court is not held to that figure. A Taiwan lawyer can make that call with you, weigh any outage clause against Civil Code Articles 222 and 247-1, and handle the Chinese-language side, from the complaint and the request for the Article 33 and 36 records to the filings that follow (civil litigation and damages). Consultations with an English-speaking lawyer in Taipei are available at wei@hoveringlaw.com.tw. Hovering International Law Firm (昊鼎國際法律事務所), Taipei office: 7F-2, No. 35, Sec. 1, Chengde Rd., Datong Dist., Taipei 103 (103臺北市大同區承德路一段35號7樓之2).
For a disputed night session, the date on the first written complaint may matter more than any other. Until a dispute exists, Article 36 guarantees one year of order logs; a dated complaint is the clearest proof that one exists, and from then on the logs have to stay until it is resolved.
Sources
Checked October 28, 2026.
- Regulations Governing Futures Commission Merchants (期貨商管理規則), Articles 30, 33, 36, 37, 39, 52, 55
- Futures Trading Act (期貨交易法), Articles 56, 119
- Securities and Exchange Act (證券交易法), Article 178-1
- Civil Code (民法), Articles 125, 197, 216, 217, 220, 222, 224, 227, 247-1, 535, 544, 576, 577
- Financial Consumer Protection Act (金融消費者保護法), Articles 4, 7, 11-3, 13, 24, 29, 30
- Financial Supervisory Commission, notice of March 18, 2022 on the amount firms must accept in Ombudsman decisions (金管法字第11101915421號; in Chinese)
- FINRA Rule 4370, Business Continuity Plans and Emergency Contact Information
Frequently Asked Questions
- My futures app said my cancel went through, but the order was filled anyway. Who bears the loss?
- That turns on which reached the broker first. A customer may notify the broker to cancel an order until it is filled (Regulations Governing Futures Commission Merchants, Article 37). If the cancel came first and the broker's system failed to pass it on, the broker can be liable under the account agreement and the Civil Code for incomplete performance and its own negligence (Civil Code Articles 220 and 227). If the fill came first, the argument shifts to whether the wrong cancel message led you into further losses. The broker's archived order transmissions, which it must keep under Article 36 of the same regulations, are where the sequence can be checked.
- How long must a Taiwan futures broker keep my order records, and does a dispute change that?
- Recordings of phone orders and the archived content of orders sent by computer system must be kept for at least one year, and where there is a dispute, until it is resolved (Regulations Governing Futures Commission Merchants, Article 36). The broker must also keep records proving each order (Article 33(3)) and keep its copy of each monthly statement for two years (Article 52). It may not leave your inquiry about a transaction without the necessary answer and handling where that harms your interests (Article 55, item 8).
- How long do I have to bring a claim?
- The tightest window is on the Ombudsman route: 60 days after the firm's answer to your complaint, or after its 30-day deadline passes (Financial Consumer Protection Act, Article 13(2)). A lawsuit allows longer. Contract claims are generally subject to the 15-year period of Civil Code Article 125, and a tort claim expires two years after you learn of the damage and the liable party, and in any case ten years after the act (Civil Code Article 197). If the broker is found to have violated the Financial Consumer Protection Act, a court may also award punitive damages; that punitive claim expires two years after you learn of the grounds, or five years after they arose (Article 11-3(2) of the same Act).
This article provides general information and is not legal advice on any individual matter.
