Are the Highly Educated Always Guilty? The Tragedy of Straw Account Holders: Interviews with Defendants in Straw Account Cases (Part 4)

On a chilly afternoon, the JRF meeting room welcomed a guest. He wore a simple, plain, and old jacket with a cautious expression. Under the watchful eyes of everyone in the room, he pulled out a chair and sat down. Looking like an ordinary middle-aged man, it was really hard to associate him with a vicious criminal like a fraudster. He is Tung Yin-ming. Without a single court hearing in the first instance, he was swiftly convicted through summary proceedings. Firmly believing that he had committed no crime, Yin-ming knocked on the door of the JRF, hoping to find here the justice that the court could not give him. Recalling the events of the past year and the torment he had suffered, he took a sip of water and began to tell his story.

A Religious Life, Faith, and Work

Graduating from the Department of Chinese Literature and having always had a keen interest in Buddhist practice, he later obtained a master's degree from a graduate institute of religion. Yin-ming's life before the age of 39 was almost entirely devoted to spiritual practice and supporting the Dharma. Because of his fondness for practice, most of the jobs Yin-ming took were as a night shift security guard. He felt that in the dead of night, he could read books and practice his methods while working. Moreover, after saving up some money, he could temporarily leave work to participate in intensive meditation retreats (Da Qi and Hu Qi). He had campaigned and fundraised for the construction of Dharma Drum University, and even donated a significant portion of his parents' inheritance.

However, later on, his family's financial situation deteriorated, and Yin-ming began to think that he still needed to have some savings to survive in this world, so he started trying out some investment and financial management. He took out loans of several hundred thousand NT dollars each from Hua Nan Bank and Chinatrust. Unfortunately, his investments failed, leading to debt and plunging his life into even greater distress.

Mistaking a Trap for a Lifeline: The Scam Group

One afternoon, Yin-ming accidentally received a call from a woman named Ms. Chang Ch'ien-ju. She claimed to work for Chü-sheng Agency Center and said she could lend him money through youth entrepreneurship loans. For Yin-ming, whose credit limit was already maxed out at the time, this seemed like a beacon of light guiding him out of his predicament. Ms. Chang told Yin-ming that Chü-sheng Agency Center was willing to charge a lower agency fee and would send a lawyer to help write a loan proposal. To successfully apply for the loan, Ms. Chang asked Yin-ming to provide copies of his passbook, ID card, and National Health Insurance card, and to mail them together with his debit card and PIN to a Mr. "Hsu Chien-sheng," saying this was how they would create capital flow and beautify the account's transaction history.

Anomalies Appear, the Storm Hits

Three days after Yin-ming handed over his account and PIN, Hua Nan Bank called to inform him of abnormal capital flows within his account. Thinking he was in the process of applying for a loan and that everything should be fine, Yin-ming did not think much of it. However, the next morning, Hua Nan Bank sent another text message stating that there was abnormal capital flow in his account. Feeling that something was amiss, Yin-ming called Ms. Chang, who told him that this situation was reasonable. That afternoon, Hua Nan Bank called yet again to report abnormal capital flow in his account. In response, Yin-ming called Ms. Chang once more, but this time she said that perhaps the scriveners had misused his personal data, and she didn't know what to do either. It was then that Yin-ming truly panicked...

The Police's Apathetic Attitude

After hanging up the phone, Yin-ming rushed to the police station to report the crime. However, faced with the anxious Yin-ming, the police replied: Because no victim had come forward to report a crime yet, he could not file a report, and suggested that he first report his debit card as lost with the bank.

At his wit's end, Yin-ming remembered his good friend, a Dharma brother surnamed Ch'en whom he had met while volunteering at Dharma Drum Mountain. He called Brother Ch'en to ask what he should do. Brother Ch'en introduced him to a Deputy Precinct Chief Wang serving in the police force. Deputy Precinct Chief Wang advised Yin-ming to quickly report his debit card as lost, check with the bank again to confirm whether he was indeed being scammed, and provide all evidentiary data to the police so they could track down the fraud syndicate.

The next day, Yin-ming went to the bank to inquire about the details. The bank teller informed him that a fraud victim had already filed a report, so his account had been designated as a warning account, and he could no longer report it as lost. Just then, a patrolling police officer happened to arrive and asked Yin-ming to accompany him back to make a statement. However, the statement Yin-ming gave was no longer a crime-reporting statement; it had become a police interrogation statement for a criminal suspect...

First Instance: Does a Highly Educated Person Handing Over an Account and PIN Equal "Intent to Defraud"?

After completing the police and prosecutorial interrogations, Yin-ming still thought the police and prosecutors would help him catch the real fraud syndicate. To his surprise, what he received instead was a motion for summary judgment. Clueless about the situation, Yin-ming soon received a summary judgment ruling. This summary judgment deemed that Yin-ming had committed the offense of aiding fraud, sentencing him to 3 months of imprisonment with the option of a fine in lieu of imprisonment. The court asserted that Yin-ming possessed a high level of education and obviously possessed a high degree of intellectual capability; furthermore, Yin-ming's claim that he blindly believed the abnormal explanations of a stranger and rashly handed over his important credit data clearly ran counter to common experience. To Yin-ming, such a judgment was undoubtedly an unbearable blow.

Second Instance: No Intent to Defraud, but Still Must Bear Criminal Liability Due to Social Responsibility?

After an initial interview with Yin-ming, the JRF full-time staff decided to assist him in applying for a Legal Aid Foundation (LAF) pro bono lawyer. Given Yin-ming's financial situation, he naturally passed the LAF's means test, and thus Yin-ming finally had a lawyer to defend him.

To monitor the court and urge it to seriously try Yin-ming's case, we conducted courtroom observations for every hearing. And indeed, we saw the effects of courtroom observation: the first time we all filed into the public gallery, the bailiff asked who we were, and the court clerk confusedly asked why a row of students was sitting at the back of the courtroom. After the LAF lawyer introduced us as students from Chung Yuan Christian University's legal practicum class, the bailiff and clerk showed looks of sudden realization. The judge glanced at us and said nothing more, but listened with great patience throughout the entire hearing as Yin-ming and the LAF lawyer explained the course of events. Meanwhile, the prosecutor also adjusted the facts of the indictment: he no longer argued that Yin-ming foresaw at the time of handing over the account that it would be used by a fraud syndicate; instead, he emphasized that after discovering he had been scammed, Yin-ming did indeed make various diligent remedial efforts and his post-offense attitude was relatively good, but his act of rashly handing over his account still warranted criminal punishment.

The prosecutor looked at Yin-ming, turned back to look at us, and imposingly put forward his so-called "social responsibility theory." The prosecutor stated that a very important reason why fraud syndicates are rampant in Taiwan is the endless supply of straw accounts. Therefore, account holders bear the social responsibility of properly safeguarding their accounts, because once they rashly hand over an account, they create a risk to the financial order. "There are simply too many people in society like you who rashly hand over their accounts and PINs, which makes it so difficult for our police and prosecutors to track down the core members of the fraud syndicates!" The prosecutor reprimanded Yin-ming. The prosecutor also "earnestly" emphasized that criminal law possesses the functions of reformation and deterrence: "If you can properly safeguard your account and PIN after receiving a criminal conviction, then this criminal conviction is meaningful!"

Conclusion: Expecting the Prosecutors and Courts to Return to the Essence of Criminal Law

In textbooks, we read about the "presumption of innocence," and that to render a guilty verdict, one must do so "beyond a reasonable doubt." Yet upon seeing Yin-ming's first-instance guilty verdict, we saw no meticulous reasoning or step-by-step logical deduction from evidence as to why Yin-ming subjectively foresaw that handing over his account and PIN would result in it being used by a fraud syndicate. We only saw the judge reasoning that because Yin-ming possessed a high education, he possessed high intellect, and obviously must have realized that handing over the account and PIN would lead to its use by a fraud syndicate, rendering all his defenses contrary to common experience. However, if one simply took a little more time to understand Yin-ming's life experiences, one would find that alongside his high education, his life had been simple due to his religious background, and his trusting nature toward others was very strong. To issue a guilty verdict without considering or understanding these aspects of Yin-ming's life—can this guilty verdict truly be said to have met the judge's mental satisfaction standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in procedural terms? Or was there a presumption of guilt in the judge's mind from the very beginning, and Yin-ming's defense simply failed to bring the judge's state of mind to the certainty of an acquittal?

In textbooks, we read about the "ultima ratio principle of criminal law," meaning that criminal law is the most severe, coercive, and painful means among all laws, and unless there are no other alternatives to prevent socially unacceptable behavior, the criminal law should be invoked as little as possible. Regarding Yin-ming, the prosecutor pointed out the "social responsibility theory" perspective implicit in the identification of aiding fraud, indicating that sentencing him was meant to reform and deter him, but is this truly necessary? We found that for Yin-ming, being entangled in a lawsuit because of being scammed is in itself embarrassing and dishonorable; and seeing others' money taken away by the fraud syndicate because he himself was scammed filled Yin-ming's heart with profound guilt. What left a deep impression on us was that at the end of the preparatory proceedings, Mr. Teng suddenly said to the judge in court: "I swear here that if I make it big in the future, I will definitely return the money to those deceived victims to make up for my wrongdoing. I am sorry to those four victims!" Expanding the concept of dolus eventualis (conditional intent) in criminal law to encompass the rash handover of accounts, in order to punish a group of people who are likewise victims—does this truly comply with the principles and fundamentals of criminal law?

We certainly understand that under limited resources, it is difficult for the police and prosecutors to crack down on the fraud syndicates behind every case. However, rather than bravely admitting its own limitations, the judiciary instead imposes culpability onto these straw account holders, while never considering that they might precisely be the most helpless group of people in society. Does this ultimately manifest the prestige of the judiciary, or its incompetence?