August 2017
The object of a money laundering act is limited to monetary or property interest obtained by others due to a material criminal act and does not include the monetary or property interest obtained by any material criminal act of the actor (Taiwan)
Angela Wu
The Supreme Court rendered the 104-Tai-Shang-3465 Criminal Decision of November 12, 2015 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that the object of a money laundering act is limited to monetary or property interest obtained by others due to a material criminal act and does not include the monetary or property interest obtained by any material criminal act of the actor.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the original trial court of this matter concluded as a result of its examination that the Defendant was guilty as charged since he had stored his criminal proceeds in violation of the Money Laundering Control Act. Dissatisfied, the Defendant filed this appeal.
According to this Decision, with respect to the money laundering offense under Article 11, Paragraph 2 and Article 2, Subparagraph 2 of the Money Laundering Control Act, the money laundering offense refers to an act that "conceals, accepts, transports, stores, intentionally buys, or acts as a broker to manage the monetary or property interests obtained from a material crime committed by others." The object of a money laundering act is limited to monetary or property interests obtained from a material crime committed by others and does not include the monetary or property interests obtained by the actor from his/her material crime.
It was further held in this Decision that according to the findings of facts and the explanation of reasons in the original decision for this matter with respect to the money jointly obtained by fraud, since the Defendant did not accept or store criminal proceeds of others, the provisions of the Money Laundering Control Act certainly did not apply.
The Supreme Court rendered the 104-Tai-Shang-3465 Criminal Decision of November 12, 2015 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that the object of a money laundering act is limited to monetary or property interest obtained by others due to a material criminal act and does not include the monetary or property interest obtained by any material criminal act of the actor.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the original trial court of this matter concluded as a result of its examination that the Defendant was guilty as charged since he had stored his criminal proceeds in violation of the Money Laundering Control Act. Dissatisfied, the Defendant filed this appeal.
According to this Decision, with respect to the money laundering offense under Article 11, Paragraph 2 and Article 2, Subparagraph 2 of the Money Laundering Control Act, the money laundering offense refers to an act that "conceals, accepts, transports, stores, intentionally buys, or acts as a broker to manage the monetary or property interests obtained from a material crime committed by others." The object of a money laundering act is limited to monetary or property interests obtained from a material crime committed by others and does not include the monetary or property interests obtained by the actor from his/her material crime.
It was further held in this Decision that according to the findings of facts and the explanation of reasons in the original decision for this matter with respect to the money jointly obtained by fraud, since the Defendant did not accept or store criminal proceeds of others, the provisions of the Money Laundering Control Act certainly did not apply.
