Despite all the efforts of prosecutors and police to crack down on scam cases, these crimes continue to proliferate.
However, in the past five years, fewer than 1 percent of those convicted of fraud were sentenced to three years or more in prison, while more than 40 percent were sentenced to less than six months. It gives people an impression that engaging in fraud is low-cost and high-yield, which inevitably tempts some to push their luck. Should the judges be blamed for this?
The offense of fraud regulated in Paragraph 1, Article 339 of the Criminal Code is punishable by up to only five years of imprisonment.
However, with the rampant fraud syndicates in Taiwan, when the Criminal Code was amended in 2014, Paragraph 1 of Article 339-4 was added, increasing the punishment for certain kinds of fraud to imprisonment of one to seven years applicable to cases that have three or more accomplices, use broadcast TV, electronic communication, Internet or other media, and are committed in the name of a government agency or public official without authorization.
Last year, those who used AI-generated images to commit fraud were included in these categories of fraud to catch up with technological advances in criminal practices.
However, the penalty of one to seven years’ imprisonment does leave room for judicial discretion, which basically makes harsher punishment impossible. By the time prosecutors start the investigation, the criminal masterminds behind the fraud might have already fled, or had even long been controlling everything from overseas. As a result, the prosecutors can target only the money mules and dummy accounts, making it difficult to root out the criminal groups.
Money mules, and dummy accounts in particular, are at the bottom of the criminal structure, mostly as accessories to the fraud. So, it is impossible to sentence them to the same punishment as those behind criminal offenses.
These accessories might themselves be victims. For example, someone might become a dummy-account provider due to a job search trap, an investment scam or an urgent need for money, etc. It is doubtful whether people in cases like these can all be charged with indefinite intent to aid a fraud.
This would also lead to the fact that even if a judge finds that there is intent to aid a fraud, it is impossible to impose a harsher sentence of three years or more in prison. Therefore, it is unfair to say that the judge passed a lenient sentence.
If harsher punishment for fraud is desired, it is necessary to provide statutory sentencing provisions with different severity based on the offender’s status in the criminal organization and the amount of benefits gained from fraud, so that the severity of punishment is commensurate with the seriousness of the crime.
However, if you cannot hunt down and prosecute the criminal masterminds, amending the law like this would only serve to comfort yourself. Therefore, to solve such problems, in addition to increasing international cooperation in criminal matters, it is necessary to revive the draft technological investigation act that the Ministry of Justice backed down from a few years ago due to strong backlash.
If this legislative proposal is to be brought up again, a fair balance between crime prevention and human rights protection is needed to avoid the criticism of becoming Big Brother — using mass surveillance and abusing state power — which was why the bill was rejected last time.
Wu Ching-chin is a professor and chair of Aletheia University’s Department of Law.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath