Do Mule Account Cases Always Lead to Prosecution in Taiwan? Key Strategies for Seeking Non-Prosecution
商品圖像
-
商品資訊
目錄
- 1. A Mule Account Investigation Does Not Automatically Mean Prosecution
- 2. What Can a Prosecutor Decide After the Investigation?
- 3. What Criminal Liability Can Arise From Providing an Account?
- 4. Key to Non-Prosecution: Proving What You Knew When the Account Was Provided
- 5. Did You Actually Transfer Control of the Account?
- 6. Compensation, Multiple Accounts, and Prior Administrative Warnings
- 7. Did You Withdraw or Transfer the Victim’s Money?
- 8. Evidence That May Help Support a Non-Prosecution Argument
- 9. What Should You Do After Receiving a Police Notice?
- 10. Frequently Asked Questions
- 11. How Chien Sheng International Law Firm Can Assist
When a bank account is flagged or the account holder receives a police notice or prosecutor’s summons, one of the first questions is: “Will I definitely be prosecuted for providing a mule account?”
➡︎ The answer is no.
The fact that an account was used by another person, received fraud proceeds, or became the subject of a police investigation does not automatically mean that prosecutors will file charges.
Under Articles 154 and 161 of Taiwan’s Code of Criminal Procedure, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution bears the burden of proving the alleged criminal conduct.
In a mule account investigation, prosecutors must therefore examine how and why the account was provided, what information was handed over, what the account holder knew at the time, and whether the person later participated in withdrawals, transfers, or other financial transactions.
For this reason, the investigation stage can be critical for presenting evidence and seeking a non-prosecution disposition.
1. A Mule Account Investigation Does Not Automatically Mean Prosecution
“Mule account” is a commonly used term rather than a single statutory offense. An account holder may be investigated because:
■ the account received money from fraud victims;
■ the account was officially flagged;
■ an ATM card, bankbook, password, or online banking credentials were provided to another person;
■ compensation was promised or received;
■ multiple accounts were provided; or
■ the account holder withdrew, transferred, or delivered money at another person’s direction.
These circumstances may justify an investigation, but they do not by themselves prove criminal liability.
Some account holders were themselves deceived through fake job offers, loan scams, online relationships, or payment arrangements.
If the evidence supports that the defendant was genuinely deceived and did not know or foresee that the account would be used for fraud, there may be grounds to argue that the required criminal intent is absent.
2. What Can a Prosecutor Decide After the Investigation?
Under Article 252, Subparagraph 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prosecutors shall issue a non-prosecution disposition where there is insufficient suspicion of an offense.
➡︎ For example, non-prosecution may be argued where the evidence cannot establish that the defendant knowingly provided the account for criminal use, transferred control of the account, or participated in withdrawals or transfers.
Article 253 also allows prosecutors, in qualifying cases, to issue a discretionary non-prosecution disposition after considering the factors listed in Article 57 of the Criminal Code.
This differs from insufficient-evidence non-prosecution. The former involves prosecutorial discretion based on the circumstances of the offense and the defendant, while the latter is based on insufficient evidence of criminal liability.
Under Article 253-1, prosecutors may grant deferred prosecution for eligible offenses where they consider it appropriate.
Conditions may include compensation, payment of a specified amount, an apology, legal education, community service, or compliance with other requirements.
Deferred prosecution is not an acquittal. Failure to comply with the conditions may result in revocation and further prosecution.
If prosecutors believe the evidence is sufficient, they may indict the defendant and send the case to court.
This is why evidence supporting a non-prosecution argument should generally be organized during the investigation rather than for the first time after indictment.
3. What Criminal Liability Can Arise From Providing an Account?
Article 22 of Taiwan’s Money Laundering Control Act generally prohibits providing a financial account, virtual asset account, or third-party payment account for another person’s use without legitimate justification.
Ordinary commercial or financial practices, trust relationships between relatives or friends, and other legitimate reasons may fall outside the prohibition.
Providing an account without legitimate justification may initially result in an administrative warning. Criminal liability may arise in circumstances such as providing accounts for compensation, providing three or more accounts or account numbers, or committing another violation within the statutory period after a prior warning.
Older materials may refer to this rule as Article 15-2. It was later renumbered as Article 22.
➡︎ If prosecutors believe that the defendant knew or foresaw that the account would be used by scammers and nevertheless provided it to facilitate the fraud, they may pursue aiding fraud charges under Article 30 of the Criminal Code.
However, the fact that scammers eventually used the account does not automatically prove that the account holder had criminal intent when the account was provided.
➡︎ If the defendant knowingly provided an account for receiving or transferring criminal proceeds, aiding money laundering may also be alleged.
Where the defendant personally withdrew, transferred, delivered, or otherwise handled criminal proceeds, prosecutors may argue that the defendant directly participated in money laundering.
The distinction between merely providing an account and actively participating in the movement of criminal proceeds is therefore important.
4. Key to Non-Prosecution: Proving What You Knew When the Account Was Provided
One of the most important issues is the defendant’s knowledge and intent at the time the account was provided.
Simply stating “I was scammed” is usually not enough. The explanation should be supported by evidence showing how the defendant was approached and why the arrangement appeared legitimate.
Relevant evidence may include:
■ job, loan, or online advertisements;
■ complete chat and call records;
■ the other party’s claimed identity or company;
■ explanations given for requesting the account;
■ whether the defendant believed the account was needed for salary, loan verification, or another legitimate purpose;
■ whether an ATM card, bankbook, PIN, online banking credentials, or verification codes were provided;
■ attempts to verify the other party’s identity; and
■ actions taken after suspicious activity was discovered.
A complete timeline can help prosecutors determine whether the defendant knowingly assisted a criminal operation or was instead deceived into providing account information.
Objective records are generally more persuasive than a bare denial made after the account has already been flagged.
5. Did You Actually Transfer Control of the Account?
Another important issue under Article 22 is whether the defendant actually provided the account “for another person’s use.”
Providing an account number for someone to deposit salary or make a legitimate payment may be different from handing over an ATM card, PIN, online banking login, authentication device, or verification code that allows another person to control the account.
The investigation should therefore determine:
■ exactly what information or items were provided;
■ whether another person could independently withdraw or transfer money;
■ whether the defendant retained control of the account;
■ whether the defendant personally operated the account; and
■ how many accounts were actually provided.
Providing only an account number does not automatically eliminate legal risk, but it should not be treated as factually identical to transferring full control of an account.
6. Compensation, Multiple Accounts, and Prior Administrative Warnings
When Article 22 is involved, investigators may focus on three circumstances that can increase criminal exposure.
1. Compensation
Compensation may include money, commissions, bonuses, loan benefits, referral fees, or other advantages.Even if no payment was ultimately received, prosecutors may examine whether the parties had already agreed that an account would be provided in exchange for a benefit.
2. Three or More Accounts
The defense should verify the exact number and type of accounts allegedly provided, when they were provided, and whether they were actually transferred for another person’s use.
3. Repeat Conduct After a Warning
If prosecutors or police rely on a prior administrative warning, the warning disposition, proof of service, date of service, and timing of the alleged new conduct should be reviewed carefully.
7. Did You Withdraw or Transfer the Victim’s Money?
Money appearing in an account does not automatically prove that the account holder personally handled it.
Bank records should be reviewed transaction by transaction to determine:
■ when the victim’s money entered the account;
■ who withdrew or transferred it;
■ whether ATM surveillance footage exists;
■ who possessed the ATM card;
■ what device or location was used for online banking;
■ whether the defendant received instructions;
■ whether the defendant received compensation; and
■ whether the defendant knew the money was connected to fraud.
A person who was deceived into providing an account but never handled the proceeds may present a materially different case from someone who repeatedly withdrew cash and delivered it to members of a fraud ring.
If the defendant did make withdrawals or transfers, those transactions should be explained accurately rather than denied when objective banking evidence exists.
8. Evidence That May Help Support a Non-Prosecution Argument
Mule account cases arising from job, loan, romance, or payment scams often depend on many pieces of evidence rather than one document.
Useful materials may include:
■ original advertisements and links;
■ LINE, Messenger, Telegram, or other chat records;
■ phone numbers, email addresses, and social media accounts;
■ company or platform information provided by the other party;
■ interview, loan application, contract, and delivery records;
■ call histories;
■ bank transaction records;
■ records showing why the account was requested;
■ communications requesting return of an ATM card or termination of account access;
■ reports to the bank, police, or anti-fraud authorities; and
■ notices showing when the account became flagged or restricted.
Preserve complete conversations rather than selecting only favorable screenshots. The full record may better demonstrate how trust was established and when the defendant first realized that something was wrong.
9. What Should You Do After Receiving a Police Notice?
➡︎ First, confirm your procedural status and the stage of the case. A notice may identify you as a witness, related person, suspect, or defendant.
➡︎ Next, prepare a chronological timeline covering the advertisement or initial contact, communications, account information provided, suspicious transactions, account restrictions, and any report made to the bank or police.
Do not guess when answering questions. If you do not remember a date, amount, identity, or conversation, say that you are uncertain rather than inventing details.
Before signing a police or prosecutor interview record, confirm that it accurately describes:
■ what account information was provided;
■ why it was provided;
■ whether compensation was involved;
■ what the defendant knew about the other party;
■ whether any ATM card or password was transferred; and
■ whether the defendant withdrew or transferred money.
A defendant also has the right to retain defense counsel and exercise the right to remain silent in accordance with Taiwan’s criminal procedure.
10. Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: Does a flagged account mean I will definitely be prosecuted?
No. A flagged account may trigger investigation or banking restrictions, but prosecutors must still determine whether the evidence establishes a criminal offense and the required intent.
Q2: Can I receive non-prosecution if I was tricked by a fake job or loan?
Possibly. The key issue is whether the evidence supports that you genuinely did not know or foresee that the account would be used for criminal purposes.
Q3: Does providing only one account mean I cannot be prosecuted?
No. The number of accounts is relevant to Article 22, but aiding fraud or money laundering allegations must be analyzed separately.
Q4: What if I never withdrew any of the victim’s money?
That can be an important fact. The defense should verify who actually controlled the account and handled each transaction. However, lack of withdrawal does not automatically resolve every possible charge.
Q5: Does non-prosecution automatically remove all bank restrictions?
Not necessarily. A criminal non-prosecution disposition, an administrative warning, and a flagged-account restriction may arise under different procedures. Each must be addressed separately.
Q6: What if I have already been indicted?
Indictment does not mean conviction. The prosecution must still prove the offense in court, and the defense may challenge criminal intent, account control, financial transactions, admissibility of evidence, the applicable charge, and sentencing issues.
11. How Chien Sheng International Law Firm Can Assist
The investigation stage can be particularly important in a mule account case because this is when evidence supporting lack of criminal intent, deception, account control, and lack of participation in criminal proceeds can be presented to prosecutors.
Chien Sheng International Law Firm can assist clients facing police questioning, prosecutor investigations, flagged accounts, administrative warnings, aiding fraud allegations, and money laundering investigations.
Depending on the case, legal assistance may include:
■ analyzing potential liability under Article 22 of the Money Laundering Control Act;
■ reviewing aiding fraud, aggravated fraud, and money laundering allegations;
■ reconstructing job, loan, romance, or other scam scenarios;
■ reviewing advertisements, chats, calls, delivery records, and banking transactions;
■ determining what account information and control were actually transferred;
■ tracing individual deposits, withdrawals, and transfers;
■ preparing for police and prosecutor questioning;
■ submitting written defense arguments and requesting investigation of favorable evidence;
■ seeking non-prosecution for insufficient evidence or other favorable dispositions;
■ handling administrative appeals involving account warnings and financial restrictions; and
■ continuing the defense at trial if an indictment has already been filed.
For legal consultation, prepare any police notices, prosecutor’s summonses, administrative warning dispositions, bank notices, complete communications, advertisements, account statements, and police reports.
A Mule Account Case Does Not Automatically Lead to Prosecution
Being investigated for a mule account does not mean that prosecution is inevitable, and being indicted does not automatically mean that the defendant will be convicted.
During the investigation, the most important issues usually include what the defendant knew when the account was provided, whether control of the account was actually transferred, whether compensation or multiple accounts were involved, whether the defendant handled criminal proceeds, and whether objective evidence supports a job, loan, romance, or other scam explanation.
The earlier these facts and records are organized, the better the defense can address the prosecution’s theory before the investigation is concluded.
This article is provided by Chien Sheng International Law Firm for general legal information concerning mule accounts, non-prosecution during criminal investigations, account provision, administrative warnings, aiding fraud, and money laundering cases in Taiwan.※ Whether a particular case results in non-prosecution, deferred prosecution, acquittal, cancellation of an administrative warning, removal of account restrictions, or another outcome depends on the applicable law, date of conduct, manner in which the account was provided, the defendant’s knowledge and intent, number of accounts, financial records, and complete evidentiary record.This article does not guarantee any particular legal result and does not replace individualized legal advice from a qualified attorney.
This reduces both medical risks and potential legal exposure.
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
