Practitioner Interviews: How Police View Dummy Account Cases

We refer to police officers as "the caretakers of the people" because they are always on the frontlines handling the public's most direct concerns and serving at the forefront of crime prevention. However, numerous individuals who have lodged complaints with the Judicial Reform Foundation regarding mule accounts have claimed that the police refused to accept their crime reports, thereby causing them to miss the crucial window for preserving evidence and even squandering opportunities to dismantle fraud syndicates. By conducting interviews with police officers, we gained insights into their perspectives on mule account holders and further uncovered certain "unwritten rules" that may have long existed within the police force. These unwritten rules lead police officers to differentiate between what they deem "genuine victims" (ordinary citizens who were defrauded of money) and "perpetrators disguised as victims" (providers of mule accounts), and on this basis decide whether or not to formally accept crime reports filed by citizens. This unwritten practice has consistently remained an unyielding fetter hindering relations between the police and the public.

Question 1: If a citizen comes to the police station stating

Unmasking the Gatekeepers: How Informal Police Practices Disenfranchise Mule Account Victims and Undermine Fraud Investigations

We refer to police officers as the protectors of the people because they are always on the front line addressing the public's most direct concerns, serving as the vanguard of crime prevention. However, many mule account holders who have filed complaints with the Judicial Reform Foundation claim that the police have refused to accept their case reports, thereby causing them to miss the opportunity to preserve evidence and even costing law enforcement the chance to bust fraud syndicates. By interviewing police officers, we gained insight into their views on mule account holders and uncovered certain "unspoken rules" that may have existed within the police force for years. These unspoken rules lead police officers to distinguish between what they deem "genuine victims" (ordinary citizens who were defrauded of money) and "perpetrators disguised as victims" (mule account providers), deciding whether or not to accept a report on this basis. This unspoken practice has long remained an unbreakable barrier in police-public relations.

Question 1: If a citizen goes to a police station stating that they were scammed by a fraud syndicate into wiring money to an account, and both the money and the fraudster have disappeared, how do the police generally handle their request to file a report?

According to police accounts, the general procedure for processing a fraud report begins with taking a statement (an interrogation record). The police then ask the reporting party to provide ATM transaction receipts, account details, and other relevant evidence. Based on these materials, the police investigate the beneficiary account of the transferred funds and contact the bank to request an immediate account freeze. Once the statement is completed, a three-part incident report receipt is issued to finalize the reporting procedure. Some individuals are fortunate enough to have the mule account frozen before the fraud syndicate withdraws the money, though this rarely happens. After receiving the notification from the police, the bank sends back a "Financial Institution Crime Prevention Notification Form" confirming that the account has been designated as an alert account.

Next, the police identify the holder of the mule account and summon them to provide an explanation. Officers interrogate the individual about how the account was used and whether they are a member of the fraud syndicate, aiming to trace the operation up the chain. However, because most mule account holders are homeless individuals, tracing higher-level syndicates through them is exceedingly difficult. Consequently, these account providers are usually prosecuted merely as accomplices to fraud offenses under the Criminal Code of the Republic of China. Moreover, unless the defrauded amount is exceptionally large (such as tens of millions of dollars), public prosecutors generally will not intervene directly in the investigation.

Question 2: If a citizen goes to a police station stating that their bank account was obtained through fraud or fraudulently used by a scam syndicate as a mule account and wishes to report it, how do the police generally handle it?

Regarding this issue, some officers stated that they follow standard reporting procedures and accept the citizen's report. However, other officers indicated that they do not necessarily accept such reports. They first question the individual in detail regarding the circumstances under which the account was obtained or misused. If they suspect the reporting party is filing the report merely to evade criminal liability, they will not issue a three-part incident report receipt. Furthermore, if an investigation confirms that the report was filed to avoid criminal liability, the reporting party will be referred to the District Prosecutors Office on charges related to filing a false police report under the Criminal Code of the Republic of China.

The officer who mentioned that reports are not always accepted stated that, based on his experience, individuals claiming their accounts were scammed away are usually financially disadvantaged, such as the unemployed, homeless, manual laborers, and taxi drivers. These individuals might routinely open two to three bank accounts specifically to sell them, generally for around NT$2,000 to NT$3,000 per account. Furthermore, the vast majority of those claiming their accounts were misappropriated after being lost are lying; the most likely scenario is that they voluntarily sold the accounts. These individuals often claim they set their account passwords to their national identification card numbers or dates of birth. However, because the police have no way of knowing the actual passwords, they cannot verify whether these statements are genuine.

Question 3: Following Question 2, if the police refuse to accept reports because they presume certain mule account reporters actually sold their accounts, what criteria do they use to make this determination?

Interviewed officers stated that there are generally no set standards when investigating such cases; determinations are primarily based on personal experience and the contents of the report. For instance, officers check whether the reporting party has a prior criminal record to determine whether to suspect them of being part of a fraud syndicate. Furthermore, based on investigative experience, physical appearance is also taken as a reference point. They believe that appearance reflects one's inner mind—if a person harbors ill intentions daily, their facial expressions and demeanor will inevitably look distinct.

Question 4: Does the decision to accept a report from a mule account holder have any connection to internal police performance evaluations?

Some officers stated that accepting a case does not affect performance score points and is fundamentally unrelated to the performance evaluation system. However, other interviewed officers noted that when case volumes become overwhelming, superior officers face performance pressure. Under such circumstances, instances of refusing to accept reports—commonly known as case suppression—may occur.

Question 5: If a mule account reporter wishes to review surveillance footage to prove their innocence, what procedures can they follow?

Officers stated that if a reporting party requests to review surveillance footage, the police can allow them to view the footage on-site, but cannot provide a copy. Standard surveillance footage is retained for 30 days. If the party or their attorney requires a backup copy, a formal application must be submitted. One method is to apply to the public prosecutor; another is to fill out an application form at the police precinct for submission up the chain of command. If approved, the prosecutor will issue an official directive instructing the police to provide the footage to the applicant. Interviewed officers added that surveillance footage can sometimes help determine the location of the fraud and the identity of the person who collected the money. If a vehicle license plate number is captured, further investigation can be conducted using that information.

Question 6: In response to rampant fraud syndicate activities, what preventive measures have the police implemented?

Officers stated that although police conduct awareness outreach with banks, there are no statutory provisions mandating specific protocols. In practice, banks pay special attention to individuals withdrawing amounts of NT$300,000 or more, as well as elderly individuals making withdrawals. If any abnormality is detected, the bank notifies the police, who then conduct proactive inquiries to prevent fraud. The total amount defrauded annually has decreased significantly. However, some elderly individuals are so heavily manipulated by fraud syndicates that they refuse to trust even the police. Highly educated individuals are also defrauded and actually face a higher probability of falling victim, though generally not in the form of having their accounts compromised.