Relevant Legal Provision

Article 339-4, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code：A person who commits the offense of fraud under Article 339 under any of the following circumstances shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than one year but not more than seven years, and may also be fined up to NT$1 million: (2) The offense is committed jointly by threemore persons.

Article 19, Paragraph 1 of the Money Laundering Control Act：A person who engages in any money laundering activity specified in Article 2 shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than three years but not more than ten years, and shall also be fined up to NT$100 million. If the propertyfinancial benefits involved in the money laundering are worth less than NT$100 million, the offender shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than six months but not more than five years, and shall also be fined up to NT$50 million.

Facts and Reasons

The client in this case met an individual online who claimed to be a livestream host. The individual used revealing photographs to develop a closer relationship with the client and invited the client to join an investment platform, claiming that purchasing cryptocurrency with a credit card could help the individual earn endorsement fees. Believing these claims, the client gradually invested funds. Later, the individual claimed that the platform account had been locked and demanded additional payments for deposits, security deposits, and other fees. The client ultimately suffered substantial financial losses from the scam.

During this process, the client provided their bank account information as instructed by the individual. Funds were subsequently transferred into the account, and the client followed instructions to use the funds to purchase cryptocurrency. Unexpectedly, the individuals who transferred the funds were actually victims of the same fraud syndicate, having been deceived through a fraudulent investment scheme. As a result, the police suspected the client of providing a bank account and transferring funds, allegedly committing aggravated fraud involving threemore persons and money laundering. The case was referred to the District Prosecutors Office for investigation.

Prosecutor's Disposition

The investigation into the defendant's alleged fraud and other offenses has been concluded, and it was determined that a non-prosecution disposition should be issued.

The victims transferred money into the defendant's account after being defrauded, and the defendant used the funds to purchase cryptocurrency as instructed. These facts were supported by the defendant's statements, conversation records provided by the victims, transfer records, and bank account transaction statements. However, such evidence could only establish that the victims had indeed been defrauded and had transferred funds. It was insufficient to establish that the defendant had personally engaged in fraudulent conducthad shared criminal intentparticipated in the commission of the offenses with those who actually defrauded the victims.

Furthermore, the defendant had also been deceived by the fraud syndicate and had invested a substantial amount of money. Relevant remittance records and conversation records supported these facts, sufficiently establishing that the defendant had invested funds as a result of the deception and, under a mistaken belief, provided financial account information to the fraud syndicate.

Furthermore, the defendant had also been deceived by the fraud syndicate and had invested a substantial amount of money. Relevant remittance records and conversation records supported these facts, sufficiently establishing that the defendant had invested funds as a result of the deception and, under a mistaken belief, provided financial account information to the fraud syndicate.

After realizing the deception, the defendant immediately went to a police station to file a criminal complaint and proactively contacted bank personnel to prevent others from becoming victims. Fraudulent schemes continue to evolve, and it is not uncommon for fraud syndicates to use romance scams and investment scams to induce victims to invest money, provide bank accounts, and allow those accounts to be used as tools for withdrawing fraud proceeds. It is difficult to expect ordinary members of the public to thoroughly investigate every detail and remain constantly vigilant.

In this case, the possibility could not be ruled out that the defendant had been deceived while using the internet and unknowingly exploited as an intermediary for transferring fraudulent funds. Therefore, the mere fact that the defendant had objectively used funds transferred by victims into the bank account to purchase cryptocurrency was insufficient to establish that the defendant had jointly committed fraud and money laundering with the fraud syndicate. Accordingly, the evidence was deemed insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and a non-prosecution disposition was issued.

(Some details of the case have been adjusted, deleted,modified to protect the rights and interests of the client.)