criminal cases
Our firm provides comprehensive legal defense for defendants and professional representation for victims throughout various stages of criminal proceedings, including detention visits, police questioning, investigations, and trials. We have extensive experience handling a wide range of cases, such as violations of the Banking Act, Anti-Money Laundering Act, drug-related offenses, fraud, breach of trust, embezzlement, document forgery, defamation, assault, unlawful detention, theft, impairment of creditor’s rights, computer-related crimes, sexual offenses, and juvenile cases.
Contact Us
Party A, having fallen victim to an online romance scam, was misled into transferring funds at the instruction of the fraudster. To raise the required amount, Party A borrowed money from relatives and friends, thereby incurring heavy debt. In an urgent attempt to cover the losses through borrowing to repay debt, Party A responded to a loan advertisement received via SMS. Party A contacted Party B through Line to inquire about a loan. Party B falsely represented himself as an employee of SinoPac Bank and demanded that Party A provide proof of financial capacity and pay 10% of the loan amount as a “loan financial review fee” to demonstrate repayment ability. The circumstances resembled an ordinary loan application process.
Given that Party A had only one prior experience with loan applications, although there may have been signs of irregularities, the pressing financial need compelled Party A to trust the process. Believing the representations, Party A transferred funds under labels such as “loan financial review fee,” which further aggravated his financial distress. Party A had no knowledge of the individuals involved, who may have been members of a fraud syndicate, and merely worried that amounts remitted for “loan financial review fees” or “notary fees” might not be recoverable.
Party A maintained that his sole motive for providing a financial account was to “recover the money lost to fraud,” and he never possessed any intent—whether certain or reckless—to commit a crime. Indeed, prior to remitting the funds, Party A expressed doubts and questioned Party B: “Are you sure this isn’t a scam?”, “Why can’t you provide the account first?”, “This feels a bit scary,” and “Let me ask again—are you sure this isn’t a fraud group?” These statements indicate that Party A’s concerns stemmed from doubts about the necessity of remitting funds as part of the financial review procedure. Ultimately, under urgent financial pressure and after deliberation, Party A chose to believe the counterparty and transferred the funds.
At trial, the first-instance court convicted Party A under general money laundering charges, sentencing him to five months’ imprisonment and imposing an additional fine of NT$120,000. The second-instance court upheld the original judgment.
Upon appeal by this firm, the Supreme Court issued the following ruling:
The original judgment is set aside and remanded to the Taiwan High Court.
Relevant Legal Provisions:
Criminal Code, Article 30(1) (first part)
Criminal Code, Article 339
Anti-Money Laundering Act (prior to amendment), Article 2
Anti-Money Laundering Act (prior to amendment), Article 14