Legal Services Special Project "Dummy Account Cases" Course Reflection: Wang Yü-an

Reflections on Interviewing Clients

Dazzling goods, splendid storefronts, crowded crowds, and overlapping conversations—for someone like me who loves hustle and bustle and prosperity, I should have been overjoyed and enjoying everything. However, on that sun-drenched day, I found myself unable to reveal even a single smile. Sitting next to my talkative good friend, I could not find words to say. The entire shopping street felt like a fast-forwarded black-and-white movie, and I could only lower my head and purse my lips tightly, recalling the process of how the client described being defrauded during the previous interview. From initially expressing acceptance of reality to later failing to hold back and slamming the table to complain, his indignant eyes and helpless tone were deeply engraved in my heart. The interview questions I had prepared in advance were replaced by waves of sympathy. Although I knew I should face the interviewee more rationally, I was well aware that my emotions had been affected at that moment, making it impossible to neutrally analyze whether the client's statements were credible.

One sentence left a deep impression on me. I still remember the client telling me this: "I am also a victim, except that what was stolen from me was my bank account, not money. Why should I be locked up? The fraud ring is still at large and enjoying themselves, while I have to be sentenced by the court and pay compensation. Is this fair?" Disappointment in the court and the injustice of the judgment were plainly visible on his face. At that moment, my mood was somewhat complicated; the remaining meager trust in the state's judiciary was severely struck, and my aversion to the sinister nature of society increased by another fraction. The arduous plight of the economically disadvantaged made me sigh. To me, an ordinary, peaceful, and carefree life is a happiness envied and yearned for by so many, bringing an unspeakable shame to myself, who was often dissatisfied and constantly complaining in the past.

In dummy account cases, the circumstances of how each client was deceived vary, the channels for receiving fraudulent information are numerous, and the tactics of fraud rings are bizarre and constantly evolving with advancements in technology. The only constant reason why fraud rings succeed is that they exploit clients' urgency for money, greed, and fear of loss—a phenomenon I observed after examining the issue of dummy accounts. During my participation, I once thought clients should bear partial responsibility for such mentalities; after all, having long been immersed in moral concepts, the ingrained notion that "had it not been for human desire for money, how could one have ended up in such a plight" persists. This is also one of the reasons why courts attribute responsibility to clients. But is this idea correct? Even if a client is greedy for money, does that mean the law can establish their criminal culpability based on this? Can one simply conclude that a person will commit a criminal act based on their desire for money? The courts seem to have subtly misinterpreted something. Every time an interview with a client ended, I harbored a bit more doubt regarding current judicial practice.

Reflections on Interviewing Prosecutors

Every time I finished interviewing a client, my mood would become extremely gloomy. Although before taking this course I knew that current practices still required revision and were highly controversial, and I was mentally prepared to hear clients' grievances and even emotional words, when they recounted everything they experienced after being indicted, as a third-party interviewer, I could not help but feel a sense of injustice for the clients. I harbored deep doubts regarding prosecutors' investigative methods and standards for determining whether a crime had been committed. By a stroke of fortune, I was able to interact with a prosecutor, hoping to use this opportunity to completely dispel the doubts in my mind. Thus, after the conversation, I discovered that prosecutors harbor an extremely contradictory psychology toward clients, and the root cause stems from the collapse of the entire judicial system.

Prosecutors are categorized into investigative and court-attending roles based on their duties, and each prosecutor is assigned about 70 to 80 cases per month. In order to efficiently utilize time and cooperate with colleagues, the prosecutor whom a client faces during a court hearing is usually different from the one in charge of the investigation. When clients want to prove their innocence to the prosecutor, the prosecutor ultimately only responds with "as stated in the indictment." Naturally, clients feel dissatisfied, but aren't they equally helpless toward the prosecutor who has no involvement in the investigation? To uphold the principle of unitary prosecution, even if the court-attending prosecutor believes the client's statements, they are constrained by pressure from superiors such as the investigative prosecutor and chief prosecutor, and will appeal after the court finds the client not guilty. Especially when there is a points system within the prosecution, if a prosecutor indicts someone and the court finds them not guilty, and the prosecutor chooses not to appeal, points will be deducted from that prosecutor. Although points are unrelated to salary, this invisible pressure forces prosecutors to engage in litigation acts disadvantageous to clients. Prosecutors may even determine whether a client is innocent based on empirical rules. Having long been answered with the same statements in similar cases—from initially remaining skeptical to later realizing they were being fooled—they gradually grew disappointed with human nature. In the eyes of prosecutors, clients are undoubtedly pawns trained by fraud rings, and even how to exculpate oneself is guided by legal professionals, with no exceptions.

With dummy account crimes so rampant, who on earth should we condemn? Banks with low account-opening thresholds? Ignorant account providers? Police and prosecutors with passive investigative attitudes? Courts with perfunctory and unreasonable adjudications? Or the judicial system full of chaos? This became an even deeper question after sharing an unappetizing afternoon tea with the prosecutor.