The Potential Judicial Odyssey in Dummy Account Cases

Many people hand over their bank accounts and passwords due to reasons such as job hunting, loans, or trust in friends and relatives; or they keep their passbooks and passwords together for convenience, only to accidentally lose them one day. Many also assume that since there is little to no money left in their accounts, it does not matter even if they hand them over or lose them. However, if these accounts are used by fraud syndicates as dummy accounts to trick people into depositing money and then withdrawing it all, the problem becomes severe! As long as the victims who deposited money into the accounts report the case, the owner or provider of the dummy account is very likely to be referred and convicted as an "accomplice to fraud," and may even face civil claims for compensation from the victims of the remittances.

To help the public understand how courts view such situations under criminal law if their accounts are used by fraud syndicates as dummy accounts, and what they might experience during the investigation or trial process, a series of Q&As is designed below:

What on earth is an "accomplice to fraud"?

When it comes to the "crime of fraud," most people probably understand it. Take the common online shopping fraud as an example: Hsiao-Chang bought a Japanese book online for NT$2,000 and paid for it via ATM transfer. Later, he received a call stating that his transfer settings were incorrect, resulting in a fixed deduction of NT$2,000 every month, and instructing him to go to the ATM to reset it. Because the procedure was somewhat complicated, he needed to operate the ATM while listening to the explanation. Hsiao-Chang rushed to the ATM, followed the instructions on the phone, and unknowingly transferred the remaining NT$25,000 in his account. From this, we can see that the swindler on the other end of the phone who tricked Hsiao-Chang into transferring the money and caused Hsiao-Chang a loss of NT$25,000 committed the crime of fraud.

But what is an "accomplice to fraud"? An "accomplice to fraud" refers to someone who, although not personally committing the act of swindling people out of their money, assists the swindler, enabling them to smoothly defraud money. For example, Hsiao-Wang provided his bank account and password to a swindler; the swindler tricked Hsiao-Chang into depositing money into Hsiao-Wang's account and then sent someone to take the money away. Here, Hsiao-Wang's act of providing the account may constitute an "accomplice offense."

Why am I referred and convicted as an "accomplice to fraud" when my account was actually swindled away or lost?

At this point, Hsiao-Wang might protest. Hsiao-Wang would say that he did not intentionally provide his account and password to the swindler, and that he was also deceived, so why was he referred for prosecution? Hsiao-Wang laments that he provided his account and password because of job hunting. The other party asked him to provide a bank account and password to verify his credit, and even specifically admonished him to withdraw the money first before giving them the account and password to prevent heavy losses from accidental loss. He felt that the person seemed reliable, which is why he handed over the account and password; he had no idea the other party was a fraud syndicate! He was also a victim, so how could he be an "accomplice to fraud"?

There are primarily two reasons why a person whose account is swindled away or lost gets treated as an "accomplice to fraud":

1. The court expands the connotation of "intent" under criminal law using a concept called "oblique intent" (dolus eventualis).
   Generally speaking, "intent" means "doing something knowing full well what one is doing." For example, if Hsiao-Wang clearly knew that providing his account would lead to it being used by a fraud syndicate as an account for fraudulent remittances, this is the most typical case of an "accomplice to fraud." In contrast, "oblique intent" leans more toward an "indifferent attitude," meaning that Hsiao-Wang handed over such important items as his account and password, and once handed over, these items are very likely to be used for fraud. However, if the court characterizes Hsiao-Wang this way, Hsiao-Wang would certainly feel aggrieved, saying: "I wasn't indifferent; I simply never imagined my account would be used to scam people! I only handed over my account because I was deceived..."
   Hsiao-Wang has a point. Even adopting the concept of "oblique intent," being deceived should not count as having "oblique intent," right? Doesn't the most typical scenario of an accomplice to fraud possessing "oblique intent" look like this: selling one's own account while knowing full well that it is highly likely to be used for various illegal purposes, yet remaining completely indifferent and selling it anyway.
   The reason Hsiao-Wang was deceived yet deemed by the court to subjectively possess "oblique intent" is because the court excessively expands the definition of "oblique intent," stretching it close to the concept of "negligence." In other words, the court believes that the government has extensively advocated for vigilance against fraud syndicates, and the people have an obligation to properly safeguard their accounts. Therefore, regardless of the reason for handing over or losing the account, and its subsequent use by a fraud syndicate, it indicates that you guarded your account carelessly, thereby establishing you as an accomplice to fraud.
   
2. When adjudicating cases, judges infer the defendant's subjective state of mind based on their own life experiences. According to a judge's life experiences, it is very difficult for them to imagine that the defendant was genuinely deceived or lost their account.
   Objectively speaking, dummy account cases involve accounts being used by fraud syndicates, so the crux of the matter actually lies in the defendant's subjective awareness. Such subjective awareness is inherently difficult to observe or prove directly, and must often be inferred through various indirect evidence or circumstances. In such situations, judges easily apply their own life experiences or imagine the state of a rational person to infer the defendant's subjective awareness. For instance, a judge might speculate that Hsiao-Wang had prior job-seeking experience, during which previous employers did not ask him to surrender bank accounts or passwords. During this job search, however, the employer asked him to hand over his bank account and password; furthermore, given the prevalence of fraud syndicates nowadays, Hsiao-Wang should have noticed that something was amiss. The judge further infers that although Hsiao-Wang noticed something fishy, out of desperation to find a job after being unemployed for three years, he adopted a "give it a try" attitude and handed over the account: "Even if the other party might be a fraud syndicate and the account might be used as a dummy account, if they really aren't a fraud syndicate, I'll have a job!". The judge believes that this kind of subjective awareness—knowing the risk yet trying one's luck—is an attitude of indifference toward the occurrence of danger, fulfilling the elements of "oblique intent." As for Hsiao-Wang's claim that he never thought the other party was a fraud syndicate, it is merely exculpatory rhetoric after the fact.
   Nevertheless, it must be said that if a judge reasons in this manner, there is a possibility of violating the principle of "in dubio pro reo" (when in doubt, rule in favor of the accused). Because if a judge merely relies on the facts that Hsiao-Wang had prior work experience, was unemployed for three years, and handed over his account to conclude that Hsiao-Wang knowingly took the risk and tried his luck, the intermediate inference is entirely filled with personal life experiences and social imagination, rendering the evidence severely insufficient. One could equally argue that Hsiao-Wang, having been unemployed for three years and desperate for a job, simply didn't think that much about it. Then how can it be proven that Hsiao-Wang's subjective state was knowing the risk and trying his luck rather than being deceived?
   

What is the current general processing procedure and status of dummy account cases in judicial practice?

In current practice, dummy account cases are often disposed of very simply, with little investigation conducted. Please do not hold too much expectation that prosecutors or judges will proactively and actively help investigate evidence favorable to you to clear your name.

If the prosecutor chooses to believe that your account was deceived or lost and determines that the evidence against you is insufficient, you will receive a non-prosecution disposition. However, a non-prosecution disposition may also be remanded for reinvestigation upon a motion for reconsideration by the accuser. The prosecutor conducting the reinvestigation may issue another non-prosecution disposition or an indictment—either is possible.

If the prosecutor believes you are suspected of aiding and abetting fraud, you will be indicted. There are two approaches in this scenario: one is the standard indictment and trial procedure, in which case you will receive an "indictment"; the other is applying for summary judgment proceedings, in which case you will receive a "motion for summary judgment." Summary procedure is a highly streamlined criminal litigation process. While general criminal litigation incorporates numerous procedural requirements to safeguard the defendant's right to a fair trial, summary judgments omit these procedures for the sake of rapid case disposition—such as bypassing court hearings altogether. Moreover, if a judge intends to render an acquittal, they cannot use a summary judgment; they must switch to standard trial procedures. Therefore, if you intend to maintain your innocence, pay attention to the top of the document you receive: check whether it says "Indictment" or "Motion for Summary Judgment." If it says "Indictment," it is a standard trial procedure, and you can safely wait for the court summon; if it says "Motion for Summary Judgment," you must take heed and promptly apply for a court hearing. As for how to apply, if you have retained a lawyer, have them handle it for you; if you do not have a lawyer, please inquire at the litigation counseling division or service center of any local court.

During the litigation, you are also very likely to encounter prosecutors or judges urging you to plead guilty or reach a settlement with the victims. Some people mistakenly believe that settling with the victims allows them to withdraw the complaint, thereby ending the case, but this is not true. Fraud is an offense subject to non-public prosecution (an offense prosecutable ex officio), and the litigation cannot be terminated simply through the victim's withdrawal of the complaint. The key to pleading guilty or reaching a settlement actually lies in striving for "probation." Probation means that if you do not commit another crime within the period prescribed by the court, the "punishment" declared in the judgment, such as a three-month prison sentence, does not need to be served. Given the extremely high probability of being convicted of aiding and abetting fraud in dummy account cases—where presenting various evidence of innocence may not necessarily be accepted by the court, and asserting innocence requires spending a lot of time going through court proceedings—many people choose to cooperate with the persuasion of prosecutors or judges by pleading guilty and settling.

Generally speaking, the final judgment outcome in dummy account cases mostly imposes a prison sentence of six months or less, or detention, which may be commutable to a fine. Fines are usually calculated at NT$1,000 per day; for instance, if sentenced to three months in prison commutable to a fine at NT$1,000 per day, you would have to pay NT$90,000. If the sentence is commutable to a fine but you cannot afford to pay it, you can try applying to substitute it with community service.

If I lose the lawsuit, will I get a "criminal record"?

Many citizens worry that losing a lawsuit will leave a "criminal record," which would be disadvantageous for job hunting. This primarily involves applying for a "Police Criminal Record Certificate" (often referred to as a "good citizen certificate"). According to the Act Governing Issuance of Police Criminal Record Certificates, if probation is not revoked, no record will appear. Additionally, for convictions of aiding and abetting fraud, the sentences are usually commutable to fines or community service. As long as the fine or community service has been fully executed and no sentence of imprisonment or heavier punishment is imposed within five years, no criminal record will appear on the "Police Criminal Record Certificate."}<

However, regardless of guilt or innocence, and whether probation is granted or not, relevant records will remain in the "Prior Conviction/Record Table" (前案紀錄表). This "Prior Conviction/Record Table" can basically be queried internally by law enforcement agencies and cannot be erased.

Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that following a criminal conviction, unless the remitting victim chooses not to seek compensation, the provider of the dummy account may face a civil suit附帶民事訴訟 (incidental civil action) filed by the victim to recover the defrauded amount. This results in the dummy account provider not only being convicted criminally but also having to pay financial compensation.