In order to emphasize Taiwan's autonomy, Taiwan endeavored to negotiate with China in seeking and obtaining personal jurisdiction towards Taiwanese cross-border fraud suspects in third-countries, based on the Agreement on Cross-Strait Joint Fight against Crime and Mutual Judicial Assistance. This paper starts with analysis on judgments regarding personal jurisdiction towards the cross-border fraud suspects, pointing out that this Agreement fails to deal with the issue of jurisdiction disputes such that the Agreement contains only outlined framework prescriptions, and thus is unconducive to truly solving the jurisdiction disputes, nor is it conducive to effective prosecution of cross-border cases. As a result, a great number of cases have led to lenient sentences due to lack of supporting evidence. This is inconsistent with the joint-fight against crime aimed for by the Agreement. Nor can severe punishment on fraud offenders that Taiwanese people long for be realized. In view of the fact that compromise and solution for present cross-strait jurisdiction disputes are the fundamental premise for domestic courts to acquire adjudicative power, and are the critical leading indicator in revealing whether the agreement for criminal mutual judicial assistance functions effectively, to date, Taiwan should take basis on the legal principle of international jurisdiction negotiation to establish a fundamental principle, concept of levels, and criterion of determination for negotiation of cross-strait jurisdiction so as to facilitate establishment of judicial jurisdiction promptly. Further, in case both parties cannot reach to a satisfactory agreement on negotiation of jurisdiction, as to how transfer of jurisdiction for criminal proceedings can take a role to achieve criminal mutual judicial assistance for punishment of crime and recovery of damage (legal interest) becomes another important issue of research for this paper.