Does Giving Someone Your Account Constitute a Crime? The Key Issue of “Control” Under Article 22 of Taiwan’s Money Laundering Control Act
商品圖像
-
商品資訊
目錄
In modern society, people may allow others to use their bank accounts or virtual asset accounts for many different reasons. Family members may share an account for convenience, friends may temporarily use each other’s accounts for transactions, or one party in a business relationship may allow another party to use an account for a particular purpose.
However, many people do not realize that conduct that appears ordinary in daily life may, under certain circumstances, legal risks under Taiwan’s Money Laundering Control Act.
The key legal question is this: What kind of account-sharing conduct actually violates the Money Laundering Control Act?
Is merely telling another person your bank account number enough to constitute an offense? Or must you actually transfer control over the account to that person?
Chien Sheng International Law Firm explains this important distinction below.
1 What Article 22 of the Money Laundering Control Act Provides
Article 22, Paragraph 1 of the Money Laundering Control Act provides that a person may not deliver or provide to another person for use:
■ an account opened with a financial institution in that person’s own name or another person’s name;
■ a virtual asset account; or
■ an account opened with a third-party payment service provider.
However, this prohibition does not apply where the conduct is consistent with ordinary commercial or financial practices, is based on a relationship of trust between family members or friends, or is otherwise supported by a legitimate reason.
Although the statutory language appears straightforward, the meaning of “deliver” or “provide” raises an important legal question.
Does simply giving another person an account number qualify as “providing” an account? Or must the other person actually be given the ability to operate and use the account?
Article 22, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 2 further provides criminal penalties where a person violates Paragraph 1 by delivering or providing a total of three or more accounts.
The offense may be punishable by imprisonment for up to three years, short-term imprisonment, and/or a fine of up to NT$1 million.
Accordingly, whether an account has truly been “delivered or provided” is not merely a technical issue. It may determine whether criminal liability arises.
2. The Legal Meaning of “Control”
To understand the meaning of the statute, it is important to consider its legislative history.
The legislative explanation states that “delivering or providing an account for another person’s use” refers to transferring control over the account to another person.
This explanation is critical because it clarifies that criminal liability does not arise merely because account information has been disclosed.
For an offense involving three or more financial accounts, an important element is that the person must actually transfer control over those accounts to another person.
This may include the ability to:
■ make deposits;
■ withdraw funds;
■ transfer money;
■ access online banking; or
■ otherwise independently conduct transactions through the account.
Accordingly, if a person merely provides an account number but retains the password, ATM card, online banking credentials, and actual decision-making authority over the account, this may be materially different from transferring control of the account itself.
3. How Courts Have Interpreted the Rule
The Taiwan Changhua District Court addressed this issue in Criminal Judgment No. 68 of 2024.
The court explained that, based on Article 22 of the Money Laundering Control Act and its legislative history, criminal liability under Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 2 requires the defendant to have transferred control over three or more financial accounts to another person.
This interpretation may provide an important defense in cases involving allegations of unlawful account provision.
➡︎ If a defendant can show that he or she merely disclosed account information but did not actually give another person the ability to independently control or operate the account, the statutory element of “delivery” or “provision” may not be satisfied.
The Difference Between Providing an Account Number and Transferring Control
The following examples help illustrate the distinction.
Example 1: Providing Only the Account Number
A gives B a bank account number but keeps the password, ATM card, and online banking credentials.
B cannot independently withdraw, transfer, or otherwise operate the account.
In this situation, A has not necessarily transferred control over the account to B. Accordingly, the conduct may not constitute the type of account delivery or provision contemplated by Article 22.
Example 2: Giving Another Person Full Access to the Account
A gives B the bank card, password, and other credentials necessary to use the account.
B is then able to freely deposit, withdraw, and transfer funds without A’s involvement.
In this situation, A has effectively transferred control over the account to B.
If this conduct involves three or more accounts and no statutory exception applies, criminal liability under Article 22, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 2 may arise.
Example 3: Shared Account Use Between Spouses
A and B are spouses who jointly manage a bank account. Both have access to the account and both are able to conduct transactions.
Where this arrangement is genuinely based on the relationship of trust between family members, it may fall within the statutory exception under Article 22, Paragraph 1.
4. Exceptions Based on Legitimate Reasons
Article 22, Paragraph 1 expressly provides that the prohibition does not apply where the conduct:
■ is consistent with ordinary commercial or financial practices;
■ is based on a relationship of trust between family members or friends; or
■ is supported by another legitimate reason.
This means that even where some degree of account control is transferred, the conduct does not automatically constitute a criminal offense.
1. Ordinary Commercial or Financial Practices
In certain legitimate business relationships, one party may authorize another person to use or manage an account for a defined business purpose.
Where such an arrangement is consistent with ordinary commercial or financial practices, the statutory exception may apply.
2. Trust Between Family Members or Friends
Family members or close friends may sometimes share account access because of an established relationship of trust.
Depending on the facts, such arrangements may fall within the express statutory exception.
3. Other Legitimate Reasons
The law also recognizes “other legitimate reasons” as an open-ended exception.
Whether a particular reason is legitimate depends on the specific facts, purpose of the arrangement, relationship between the parties, and how the account was actually used.
5. Practical Significance
In handling cases involving the Money Laundering Control Act, Chien Sheng International Law Firm has encountered situations in which defendants were accused of unlawfully providing accounts even though they had not actually transferred control over them.
➡︎ For example, some individuals may have disclosed account information while continuing to retain the password, ATM card, and actual ability to authorize transactions.
In such cases, whether “control” was actually transferred may become a central issue in the defense.
This distinction can be extremely important.
If the defendant merely provided account information but retained actual control, counsel may argue that the statutory element of “delivery or provision” was not satisfied.
By contrast, where actual control was transferred, the defense may need to focus on whether the arrangement was based on a legitimate reason recognized by law.
1. Significance for Financial Institutions and Third-Party Payment Providers
Article 22 is relevant not only to individual account holders but also to financial institutions and third-party payment service providers.
These institutions need effective monitoring mechanisms to identify accounts potentially being used for money laundering or other criminal activity.
At the same time, determining whether an account has been unlawfully provided may require attention to who actually exercises control over the account, rather than merely who knows the account number.
2. Practical Advice for the Public
Chien Sheng International Law Firm recommends that individuals exercise caution when allowing others to access bank accounts or virtual asset accounts.
■ First, avoid transferring actual control of an account unless there is a clear and legitimate reason.
■ Second, where shared account access is necessary, keep records showing the legitimate purpose of the arrangement, such as family needs, authorized business use, or other lawful circumstances.
■ Third, if you are accused of violating Article 22 of the Money Laundering Control Act, seek legal assistance as early as possible. A lawyer can assess whether control over the account was actually transferred and whether any statutory exception applies.
6. Conclusion
Article 22 of Taiwan’s Money Laundering Control Act is intended to prevent financial and virtual asset accounts from being used for money laundering and other criminal activities.
The key issue, however, is not merely whether account information was shared. A central question is whether actual control over the account was transferred to another person.
Based on the legislative explanation and relevant court decisions, defendants facing account-provision allegations should carefully examine who retained the password, bank card, online banking access, transaction authority, and practical ability to operate the account.
Where control was never actually transferred, that distinction may become an important defense. Where control was transferred, the next question is whether the conduct falls within a statutory exception based on ordinary commercial practices, trust between family members or friends, or another legitimate reason.
If you or a family member is facing allegations under the Money Laundering Control Act involving bank accounts, virtual asset accounts, or alleged account transfers, Chien Sheng International Law Firm can assist in evaluating the evidence and developing an appropriate defense strategy.Our attorneys have extensive experience handling fraud and money laundering cases and can analyze whether the prosecution can actually establish a transfer of account control and whether any statutory exception applies.
Chien Sheng International Law Firm
LINE Online Legal Consultation: @lawuicc001 (Click to consult)
Welcome to call to schedule a meeting: 03-3150-034
Multiple payment methods available: Cash, Credit Card, Bank Transfer
Facebook: Chien Sheng International Law Firm
Instagram: chien.sheng_
-
商品Q&A
