Practitioner Interview: How Prosecutors View Dummy Account Cases

After the police conclude their investigation of relevant evidence, providers of dummy accounts are referred to the district prosecutors office on charges of aiding and abetting fraud. At the office, prosecutors summon the dummy account providers as defendants and, after weighing the evidence and the defendants' statements, decide whether to indict them. In many dummy account cases received by the JRF, many complainants state that prosecutors indicted them without investigating any evidence whatsoever, and that they often received a "Motion for Summary Judgment" without understanding the situation, followed shortly by a guilty verdict without even holding a court hearing.

How on earth do prosecutors decide whether to indict or not indict in a dummy account case? Do they investigate exculpatory evidence for the defendant? And do they inform the defendant what a "summary judgment procedure" is? From the interviews, we learn that prosecutors do not rely on other investigative methods, but rather judge whether to indict primarily on "whether the defendant is lying." Furthermore, defendants must continuously and actively tell prosecutors what evidence needs to be investigated for prosecutors to be more likely to investigate it. Moreover, prosecutors will not proactively inform defendants of the regulations regarding summary sentencing, but will directly file motions according to the law.

Many members of the public do not understand this and assume that prosecutors will investigate everything thoroughly for them and then clear their names. In reality, all of these factors easily lead citizens—who lack legal assistance, are stepping into a courtroom for the first time, and do not know how to interact with judicial personnel—to unwittingly walk down the path to a guilty verdict...

Question 1: How do prosecutors decide whether to indict a dummy account provider?

According to the interviewed prosecutors, depending on the individual prosecutor handling the case, attitudes toward handling dummy account cases can be roughly divided into three types. The first is a lenient attitude: indicting simply upon the fact that the defendant handed over an account. The second is an eclectic attitude: deciding whether to indict based on the circumstances of the individual case; for example, if the defendant is young, their lack of social experience may be taken into consideration, resulting in a decision not to prosecute or a suspension of prosecution. The third is a strict attitude: requiring direct evidence to prove that the defendant had subjective intent before indicting. Most prosecutors generally adopt the second attitude in deciding whether to indict.

Specifically, how do prosecutors determine whether a dummy account provider has the intent to aid fraud? They primarily look at whether the process by which the account handed over by the defendant was stolen or misappropriated is credible. Interviewed prosecutors pointed out that defendants mostly use loans, job hunting, or loss of the account as excuses. Therefore, they assess whether the defendant's statement is credible by asking about the location and time the account was handed over, or whether there is corroborating evidence. For instance, in cases where defendants claim their accounts were swindled away under the guise of job hunting, they verify whether the contact phone number at the time was reported for fraud, the timing of handing over the account, the number of contacts with the other party, and whether they can provide the original recruitment ad. In cases where defendants claim their accounts were swindled away under the guise of applying for a loan, they verify the defendant's financial data and whether the defendant applied for loans from other banks besides the scam syndicate. If a defendant cannot fully account for the process, their defense is usually not credited.

Question 2: In dummy account cases, do prosecutors investigate exculpatory evidence on behalf of the defendant?

The interviewed prosecutors stated that once the police refer a dummy account case to a prosecutor, the prosecutor will naturally fulfill their duty to investigate evidence for the defendant to support their stance on indictment or non-indictment. However, defendants themselves must also specify matters that can be investigated so that prosecutors can proceed with investigations in that direction and thereby judge the truth or falsity of the defendant's statements. For example, if defendants say they are in dire financial straits and need a loan, they cannot just say it verbally; they must present proof, such as applying to the National Taxation Bureau for a comprehensive household income tax list, lists of various income data, and a list of property attribution.

Question 3: In many dummy account cases, prosecutors file a motion for summary judgment. How is the general motion procedure conducted?

The interviewed prosecutors stated that if a defendant confesses or the evidence is sufficient, considering that these types of cases carry lighter sentences, they usually file a motion for summary judgment. However, because the statutory provisions (Article 449 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure) do not explicitly state that filing a motion for summary judgment requires notifying the defendant or soliciting their opinion, most prosecutors do not specifically notify or solicit the defendant's opinion when filing the motion. Nevertheless, interviewed prosecutors noted that because the written motion for summary judgment details the summary judgment procedure, defendants can still learn about the matters they should pay attention to regarding the relevant procedures.

Question 4: If a dummy account case is acquitted in the first instance, how do prosecutors decide whether to appeal?

The interviewed prosecutors stated that if an indictment results in an acquittal by the court, deciding not to appeal requires the consent of the investigating prosecutor, the chief prosecutor, and the chief prosecutor of the office. However, obtaining the consent of these individuals is very difficult, because in such cases there are usually no new pieces of evidence in court; prosecutors and judges are making judgments based on the exact same case files and evidence, differing only in the results of their discretionary evaluation of evidence. Therefore, based on a consistent adherence to their stance, prosecutors will mostly file an appeal.

Question 5: Is indicting or not indicting in dummy account cases related to a prosecutor's performance metrics?

The interviewed prosecutors stated that the decisions made by prosecutors to indict or not to indict do not currently pose performance metric issues. However, if a prosecutor's decision to indict or not to indict differs from the court's final judgment result—meaning the prosecutor's judgment was incorrect—points will be deducted. In other words, a high acquittal rate after indictment will affect their score. As for non-prosecution dispositions, they help prosecutors avoid point deductions resulting from incorrect judgments. The interviewed prosecutors stated that prosecutors no longer face pressure regarding performance metrics and will now investigate case-related evidence more carefully to make decisions on whether to indict.