August 2026
Supreme Court Clarifies the Standard for Determining Confessions in Cases Involving the Offense of Providing Bank Accounts Without Justification (Taiwan)
Since 2023, Taiwan has gradually strengthened its anti-money laundering measures to disrupt the flow of funds used in fraudulent activities. Our firm previously introduced the relevant regulations governing the offenses for delivering or providing accounts without justifiable reasons
［1］
(the “Offense of Providing Bank Accounts Without Justification”) under Article 22 of the current Money Laundering Control Act. In addition, to encourage offenders to confess and plead guilty, thereby providing an opportunity for rehabilitation while promoting judicial economy, Paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the Money Laundering Control Act provides for a reduction in sentence where an offender confesses throughout the investigation and all stages of trial and, where the offender has obtained any proceeds, voluntarily surrenders all such proceeds. Recently, the Supreme Court issued a judgment concerning the determination of a confession in a case involving the Offense of Providing Bank Accounts Without Justification, further clarifying the application of the foregoing provision on sentence reduction based on confession.
1. Supreme Court Criminal Judgment No. 114-Tai-Fei-83 (the “Judgment”)
(1) Facts of the Case
I. The Defendant provided four bank accounts to others for use. During both the police inquiry and the investigation, the Defendant admitted that he had provided the accounts and explained the reasons for and circumstances surrounding such provision. However, the Defendant claimed that he did not know that providing the accounts could constitute aiding a crime and stated that he had been “deceived” into providing the accounts.
II. The lower court held that, for a confession to be established, the defendant must not only admit the objective facts of the offense but must also make statements concerning his mental state, such as intent, negligence, knowledge, and purpose. In this case, although the Defendant admitted the objective fact that he had provided the accounts, with respect to the subjective aspect of the offense, he merely stated that he did not know that providing the accounts for others to use for unlawful purposes constituted an act of aiding a crime, and did not make any statements concerning intent, negligence, knowledge or other such matters. The lower court therefore determined that the Defendant had not confessed to the subjective elements of the offense and did not satisfy the requirements for sentence reduction based on confession under Paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the Money Laundering Control Act.
III. The Supreme Court held that the lower court’s judgment involved an improper application of law, and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the lower court. The principal reasons are summarized below.
(2) Key Points of the Judgment
I. A confession should be determined based on the criminal facts
The Supreme Court stated that whether a defendant satisfies the requirements for a confession should be determined based on the substantive content of the defendant’s statements, specifically whether the statements constitute an “admission or affirmation of all or the principal parts of the criminal facts.” In determining what constitutes the “principal parts of the criminal facts,” the court should consider various relevant factors, including the degree of harm associated with the criminal facts that the defendant has and has not disclosed, whether they involve offenses with different constituent elements, whether the defendant is raising a factual defense or merely asserting a legal ground for excluding liability, and whether the statements are helpful to the discovery of the offense.
II. Legislative purpose of the Offense of Providing Bank Accounts Without Justification and its application to sentence reduction based on confession
i. The addition of the Offense of Providing Bank Accounts Without Justification under Article 22 of the Money Laundering Control Act was intended to address cases in judicial practice where the subjective intent of persons providing bank accounts was often difficult to prove, making it impossible to establish the offenses of aiding money laundering or fraud. The offense was therefore introduced by legislation to regulate acts that circumvent anti-money laundering measures and to close gaps in criminal liability. Accordingly, the Offense of Providing Bank Accounts Without Justification applies where there is insufficient evidence to establish that the person providing the accounts has committed offenses such as aiding fraud or money laundering.
ii. In this case, although the Defendant stated, “I did not know that providing my bank accounts or debit cards to others for unlawful purposes constituted an act of aiding a crime,” the Supreme Court held that the Defendant was effectively denying the offenses of aiding fraud and money laundering, rather than denying the facts constituting the Offense of Providing Bank Accounts Without Justification. Further, the Defendant’s claim that he had provided the accounts because he had been “deceived” likewise did not amount to an assertion that he had a justifiable reason for doing so. The lower court, however, relied on the Defendant’s failure to make statements concerning intent, negligence, knowledge, or other such matters relating to the Offense of Providing Bank Accounts Without Justification to conclude that he had not confessed to the subjective elements of the offense. The Supreme Court held that such determination constituted an improper application of law.
2. Conclusion
Under this Judgment, in cases involving the Offense of Providing Bank Accounts Without Justification, where a defendant has affirmatively admitted the principal criminal facts concerning the provision of bank accounts, the defendant’s denial that the conduct constituted aiding fraud or money laundering, together with a claim that he was deceived, does not necessarily preclude a finding that the defendant has confessed and may still satisfy the requirements for sentence reduction based on confession. Whether the reason given by the defendant for providing the accounts constitutes a “justifiable reason” should be further investigated and determined by the court based on the specific circumstances of the case.
Our firm will continue to follow how lower courts address the determination of confessions in similar cases and the subsequent development of relevant judicial practice.
［1］ Please refer to our previous article, “ New Enforcement Alert: Severe Consequences for Providing Dummy Accounts in Taiwan from March 1, 2024! ”
1. Supreme Court Criminal Judgment No. 114-Tai-Fei-83 (the “Judgment”)
(1) Facts of the Case
I. The Defendant provided four bank accounts to others for use. During both the police inquiry and the investigation, the Defendant admitted that he had provided the accounts and explained the reasons for and circumstances surrounding such provision. However, the Defendant claimed that he did not know that providing the accounts could constitute aiding a crime and stated that he had been “deceived” into providing the accounts.
II. The lower court held that, for a confession to be established, the defendant must not only admit the objective facts of the offense but must also make statements concerning his mental state, such as intent, negligence, knowledge, and purpose. In this case, although the Defendant admitted the objective fact that he had provided the accounts, with respect to the subjective aspect of the offense, he merely stated that he did not know that providing the accounts for others to use for unlawful purposes constituted an act of aiding a crime, and did not make any statements concerning intent, negligence, knowledge or other such matters. The lower court therefore determined that the Defendant had not confessed to the subjective elements of the offense and did not satisfy the requirements for sentence reduction based on confession under Paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the Money Laundering Control Act.
III. The Supreme Court held that the lower court’s judgment involved an improper application of law, and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the lower court. The principal reasons are summarized below.
(2) Key Points of the Judgment
I. A confession should be determined based on the criminal facts
The Supreme Court stated that whether a defendant satisfies the requirements for a confession should be determined based on the substantive content of the defendant’s statements, specifically whether the statements constitute an “admission or affirmation of all or the principal parts of the criminal facts.” In determining what constitutes the “principal parts of the criminal facts,” the court should consider various relevant factors, including the degree of harm associated with the criminal facts that the defendant has and has not disclosed, whether they involve offenses with different constituent elements, whether the defendant is raising a factual defense or merely asserting a legal ground for excluding liability, and whether the statements are helpful to the discovery of the offense.
II. Legislative purpose of the Offense of Providing Bank Accounts Without Justification and its application to sentence reduction based on confession
i. The addition of the Offense of Providing Bank Accounts Without Justification under Article 22 of the Money Laundering Control Act was intended to address cases in judicial practice where the subjective intent of persons providing bank accounts was often difficult to prove, making it impossible to establish the offenses of aiding money laundering or fraud. The offense was therefore introduced by legislation to regulate acts that circumvent anti-money laundering measures and to close gaps in criminal liability. Accordingly, the Offense of Providing Bank Accounts Without Justification applies where there is insufficient evidence to establish that the person providing the accounts has committed offenses such as aiding fraud or money laundering.
ii. In this case, although the Defendant stated, “I did not know that providing my bank accounts or debit cards to others for unlawful purposes constituted an act of aiding a crime,” the Supreme Court held that the Defendant was effectively denying the offenses of aiding fraud and money laundering, rather than denying the facts constituting the Offense of Providing Bank Accounts Without Justification. Further, the Defendant’s claim that he had provided the accounts because he had been “deceived” likewise did not amount to an assertion that he had a justifiable reason for doing so. The lower court, however, relied on the Defendant’s failure to make statements concerning intent, negligence, knowledge, or other such matters relating to the Offense of Providing Bank Accounts Without Justification to conclude that he had not confessed to the subjective elements of the offense. The Supreme Court held that such determination constituted an improper application of law.
2. Conclusion
Under this Judgment, in cases involving the Offense of Providing Bank Accounts Without Justification, where a defendant has affirmatively admitted the principal criminal facts concerning the provision of bank accounts, the defendant’s denial that the conduct constituted aiding fraud or money laundering, together with a claim that he was deceived, does not necessarily preclude a finding that the defendant has confessed and may still satisfy the requirements for sentence reduction based on confession. Whether the reason given by the defendant for providing the accounts constitutes a “justifiable reason” should be further investigated and determined by the court based on the specific circumstances of the case.
Our firm will continue to follow how lower courts address the determination of confessions in similar cases and the subsequent development of relevant judicial practice.
［1］ Please refer to our previous article, “ New Enforcement Alert: Severe Consequences for Providing Dummy Accounts in Taiwan from March 1, 2024! ”
