| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣海洋大學 === 海洋法律研究所 === 99 === Abstract
In recent years financial institutions have become numerous, as living standards have been elevated, people have more chances to use financial accounts. At the same time, since the application process is fast and easy, everyone has multiple financial accounts. Furthermore, in recent years there have been more telephone fraud cases, in which the criminal groups used dummy accounts, dummy mobile phones, ATMs, or the internet to obtain illegal income. They also use human weaknesses of greed, ignorance, and negligence in various ways to engage in fraud, resulting in massive social costs, and defrauding people of their life savings. Thus, the problem of dummy accounts has certainly become more serious and awaits resolution. Also, since this new form of telephone fraud takes on an abettor structure unlike that of traditional crime, since it is unlikely for traditional crimes to involve inadvertent abettors, and it is also not likely for there to be intermediaries, but the legal components are the same, and doubts arise from the attempt to apply law. In practice, in order to stop the fraud crimes and prevent the spread of dummy accounts, the crime of being “abettors” is used to punish those who provide accounts, and the ultimate crime of the abetted (the principal offender) (usually referring to the kind of fraud perpetrated by the fraud groups on the victim) is used to determine the crime of the providers of dummy accounts. This usually neglects to discover whether the account provider knows what the principal offender will do with the account, and whether there was subjective intentional concrete understanding? This view which seems to establish people as “abettors” may conform to the views of the general public and of the victims, but may violate the constitutional reasons for abettors and may overlook the subordinate concepts, which may result in using gross negligence to deduce that providers of dummy accounts may not have been subjectively intentional. Thus, if only the final crime of the principal offender is used to conversely deduce the crime of the providers of dummy accounts, the punishment of abettors are connected to extremely uncertain factors after the fact, and this seems to violate the principle of “no penalty without a law.”
This paper combines academic discourse and refers to related legislative examples in foreign countries, which can be used to propose visionary suggestions for the direction of legislation, in hopes of reducing controversy through applying criminal legal theory to serve as a reference for future legislation. It is important to note that this paper does not assert that providers of dummy accounts should not be criminally responsible or are not guilty, but that the concrete facts in individual cases should be used in accordance to the establishment elements of abettors in criminal law to determine whether account providers can be established as abettors. Decisions should not be overly fast, cursory, and rough, and “account providers can be established as abettors” should not be used as an invariable conclusion or mantra for memory!
|
|---|
