On Saturday last week, following the uncovering of another alleged international telecommunications fraud ring, 32 Taiwanese suspects were deported from Malaysia to China. With international fraud cases expected to become more common, it is important to identify the source of the problems investigators face when handling such cases to effectively crack down on them.
The source of the problem lies with fraud legislation, which is insufficient in fighting the complexities of international telecommunication fraud rings. Simply getting the suspects deported to Taiwan without amending legislation is likely to result in lenient punishment and if criminals are not brought to justice, national prestige and justice would suffer.
International telecommunications fraud cases are prosecuted based on articles 339 and 339-4 of the Criminal Code (刑法), which causes practical problems in gathering evidence. According to the Criminal Code, a person is guilty of fraud when they are found responsible for deceiving someone into giving away their property. The definition implies a cause-and-effect relationship, but in most telecommunications fraud cases, collecting sufficient evidence to prove the connection is extremely difficult. For instance, while fraudsters in an international ring might be working in a server room abroad, the defrauded cash is usually picked up in Taiwan by someone using a UnionPay card. The exact relation between the suspects and the victims in China thus become very difficult to prove.
In several cases, the defrauded money was deposited in a dummy account and then picked up at an ATM by couriers in Taiwan using UnionPay cards mailed or brought back from China. The elaborate division of labor within the fraud ring prevented investigators from tracing the UnionPay card back to the victim to uncover more evidence.
While it is impossible to plug the loopholes using traditional fraud legislation, using the Money Laundering Control Act (洗錢防制法) might provide some useful ideas. Both those working in a telecommunications server room abroad and those picking up the money in Taiwan are involved in covering for illicitly obtained money, which makes it technically possible to treat them as money-laundering suspects. In that case, investigators need to prove the suspects’ involvement in laundering the money acquired from criminal activities.
Unfortunately, the act stipulates that a person is guilty of money laundering only when the money is obtained from a serious offense involving at least NT$5 million (US$154,263). Moreover, telecommunications fraud, as defined by Article 339-4 of the Criminal Code, is not a serious crime. This makes the act useless in fighting international telecommunication fraud.
However, if the act were amended — by changing the definition of “serious crimes” in Article 3 to include telecommunication fraud — it would solve the judiciary’s plight regarding international telecommunication fraud. It would be even better if Article 7 of the Criminal Code were amended to ensure that Taiwanese who commit money laundering and telecommunications fraud fall under Taiwan’s jurisdiction.
The act is too narrow and outdated. Legislators must amend the law by expanding the definition of money laundering. Prosecutors and judges would follow the spirit of the law and bring criminals to justice. Otherwise, little can be done to curb international telecommunication fraud.
The Ministry of Justice’s Department of Prosecutorial Affairs has already drafted a bill to amend the act. Hopefully, legislators will review it quickly.
If people are unwilling to see the real problem, which lies in the law, and simply want the ministry to ensure that fraud suspects are deported back to Taiwan, they are asking prosecutors to fight international telecommunications fraud suspects with an outdated law. That is no different from asking them to catch a plane with a car, or to chase a ferry by swimming.
Instead, the public should be calling on legislators to amend Article 3 of the act and Article 7 of the Criminal Code as soon as possible. It would not only help ensure that justice is served, but also improve the nation’s image.
Lin Ta is a prosecutor in the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under