What to do if a nominee account is accused of fraud? Understand the risks of warning accounts, aiding and abetting fraud, and money laundering all at once.

When you receive a police notification that your account is involved in fraud, the first thing you should do is not rush to plead guilty.

When many people receive a call from the police, their first words are, "I was also scammed, why am I the defendant?" This is precisely the most common and dangerous aspect of nominee account cases. If your account has been used by victims to transfer fraudulent funds, or by fraud groups to transfer, withdraw, or receive money, the police and prosecutors will usually start their investigation by tracing the account holder. This doesn't necessarily mean you are guilty, but it means you have entered the criminal investigation process. A single wrong word or a missing piece of evidence can affect whether you are not prosecuted, granted deferred prosecution, prosecuted, or sentenced.

According to Article 30 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of China published in the National Legal Database, anyone who assists another in committing a crime is an accessory to a crime; Article 339 of the same law stipulates the crime of fraud. If an account is used to receive fraudulent funds, prosecutors may investigate it as "aiding and abetting fraud." If the funds are subsequently withdrawn, transferred out, used to purchase virtual currency, or transferred through third-party payment platforms, it may also involve the general money laundering offense under Article 19 of the Money Laundering Prevention Act, or the provision of accounts under Article 22.

Data verification is current as of June 17, 2026. In recent years, regulations and practices regarding nominee accounts have become significantly stricter, especially given the large volume of fraud cases and the rapid flow of funds. Simply stating "I don't know" is usually insufficient to close a case naturally. A truly effective defense strategy is to demonstrate to the prosecutor the complete context in which you delivered the account and to determine whether you genuinely had the intent to aid and abet fraud or money laundering.

In cases involving nominee accounts, three common roles are played: victim, accomplice, and perpetrator.

Simply being tricked into providing your account does not necessarily constitute a crime.

Some people hand over their debit cards, passwords, online banking account numbers, and even passbooks as instructed, under the guise of job hunting, loan applications, online dating, investment groups, home chores, canceling installment payments, or renting accounts. These people may also be victims of the scam, but the key to criminal cases is not whether you "feel like you've been scammed," but whether the evidence can prove that you did not foresee your account being used for fraud or money laundering at the time.

The Supreme Court's Criminal Judgment No. 5475 of 2012 pointed out that whether providing a financial account or debit card constitutes aiding and abetting fraud cannot be determined solely by the act of handing over the debit card. If the card was lost, coerced, or the victim was deceived due to momentary negligence, and the victim was unaware that the other party would use the account to commit fraud, it is still difficult to convict the perpetrator of aiding and abetting fraud. This insight is crucial for the defense of nominee accounts because it reminds investigative and judicial authorities that they must specifically determine subjective intent, rather than simply looking at whether the account was used.

If you knowingly take risks and still deliver the goods, you may be considered an accomplice to fraud or money laundering.

Article 13 of the Criminal Law stipulates that if a person is aware of a criminal act and intends to cause it to occur, it constitutes intent; if a person foresees that a criminal act will occur, and its occurrence does not contradict their original intention, it is also considered intent. The most frequently disputed issue in nominee account cases is whether you possess this kind of "uncertain intent".

For example, the other party may claim to be a loan company and ask you to send them your debit card and PIN, citing reasons such as "beautifying the account," "creating payroll records," "testing cash flow," or "packaging credit." Or they may say they'll receive payment simply for providing an account, without requiring any actual work. These situations are often considered highly unusual in legal practice. If you haven't verified the company, signed formal documents, or kept records of the other party's identity, and still receive payment or provide multiple accounts, the risk increases significantly.

The Supreme Court's Criminal Judgment No. 1075 of 2012 also emphasized that determining whether someone who provides an account has the intent to aid and abet fraud or money laundering should not be based solely on common sense or rules of experience. Instead, it should comprehensively consider factors such as the individual's age, level of education, social experience, the transaction context, the other party's rhetoric, the method of providing the account, whether consideration was received, and whether they could control the account. In other words, the focus of the defense should not be merely to proclaim innocence, but to compile all the information that can reconstruct the individual's judgment and the process of being deceived.

The risk is higher if you personally withdraw, transfer, or receive funds than if you simply hand over your account.

In some cases, it's not simply a matter of sending out debit cards. Instead, the account holder receives the money as instructed, then withdraws it and hands it over to someone else or transfers it to a designated account. In these situations, the police and prosecutors may not only consider you a nominee account holder, but also an agent, a money mule, or a link in a money laundering chain.

The Supreme Court's Criminal Ruling No. 3101 of 2019 (台台大字第3101号) provided important insights into whether providing a bank account debit card and PIN constitutes money laundering. A Judicial Yuan press release explained that simply providing an account debit card and PIN to a stranger does not automatically constitute principal offense of general money laundering; however, if the perpetrator subjectively knew that the account might be used to receive and withdraw specific proceeds of crime, and provided it with the intent to aid and abet, then they may be considered an accomplice to general money laundering. If you further withdraw, transfer, or deliver funds, the prosecution can more easily argue that you were aware of the financial disruption, and the criminal risk will be higher.

With the implementation of Section 22 of the Money Laundering Control Act, providing an account is no longer just a matter of "whether it will help fraud".

The account holder may first be warned, or may directly face criminal charges.

According to Section 22 of the Money Laundering Control Act, no one may deliver or provide to another person an account opened by themselves or another person with a financial institution, or an account opened with a virtual asset service or third-party payment service. However, this restriction does not apply if it is in accordance with general business or financial transaction practices, or based on a relationship of trust between relatives or friends, or other legitimate reasons.

Those who violate the aforementioned regulations will, in principle, be admonished by the police authorities of municipalities or county governments. However, if they agree to or receive consideration, deliver or provide more than three accounts, or commit the offense again within five years of being admonished, they may be sentenced to imprisonment for up to three years, detention, or a fine of up to NT$1 million, or both. This means that cases involving nominee accounts are no longer judged solely on the basis of aiding and abetting fraud and money laundering under criminal law, but also include an additional layer of scrutiny regarding the legality and legitimacy of the provided accounts.

A valid reason is not something you can decide yourself; it must be supported by evidence.

In practice, many people believe that simply saying "I'm lending to a friend," "I'm applying for a loan," or "I'm looking for a job" constitutes a legitimate reason. However, Section 22 of the Money Laundering Control Act requires reasons supported by objective evidence. For general commercial transactions, there should be a contract, invoice, reason for payment, information on the counterparty, and reasonable cash flow. If it is a relationship between relatives or friends, it is also necessary to explain why the account must be handed over, whether the scope of the transfer is reasonable, whether control is still maintained, and whether there are any unusual interests or circumstances to evade investigation.

The most dangerous excuses are those that disguise unreasonable behavior as "convenience." For example, handing over your debit card and PIN to a new acquaintance, claiming you're just asking them to collect payments; providing multiple accounts to unknown companies, claiming it's to increase loan limits; asking someone to use online banking and mobile verification, claiming you thought it was just document review. Without consistent evidence, these excuses are easily seen as attempts to shirk responsibility.

What are the consequences of an account warning? It's not just about not being able to withdraw money.

Once an account is flagged, both your life and credit will be affected.

Once an account is reported as a warning account, the most direct impact is restrictions on withdrawals, transfers, online banking, debit cards, and new account openings. According to the joint prevention mechanism for warning accounts filed with the Financial Supervisory Commission, financial institutions will cooperate with victims of fraud, police reports, and the joint prevention mechanism to handle suspected fraudulent funds and related accounts. In practice, warning accounts often have a cascading effect on payroll, credit card deductions, loan applications, rent payments, and daily income and expenses.

What's more complicated is that alerted accounts are usually not simply removed by explaining the situation to the bank. The bank will consider the original reporting agency, the case progress, police records, and relevant laws. If a criminal case is still under investigation, the bank usually won't immediately restore all functions just because you claim innocence. Therefore, once an account is listed as an alerted account, you should address both the criminal investigation and the financial account restrictions simultaneously, rather than simply appealing back and forth with the bank.

The key to removing a warning account is clarifying the reason for the notification.

If you have indeed been scammed or your account has been stolen, you should first identify which police agency or prosecutor's office reported it, and then compile a police report, chat logs, mailing information, account transaction details, non-prosecution decision, acquittal, or other documents sufficient to prove that there was no criminal intent. Only if the case has been dropped, an acquittal made, or it has been determined that the account was not used for criminal purposes, is there a better chance of having the alert or restriction status lifted.

However, it's important to note that even if a criminal case is ultimately dropped, banks may still impose restrictions or enhanced scrutiny on accounts for a certain period, in accordance with anti-money laundering and risk management regulations. Therefore, the handling strategy should not simply focus on "how many years it takes to remove a warning account," but rather consider the reason for the notification, the outcome of the case, whether there were any victimized funds, whether there were multiple accounts, whether the account had previously been warned, and whether the bank took measures such as warnings, derivative controls, suspension of functions, or account closure.

Before being summoned to the station, the most important thing to prepare is a timeline and evidence, not memorizing answers.

Explain clearly "why we need to submit our account information".

Police questioning typically involves asking when you handed over the account, to whom you gave it, how you contacted the person, what they said, whether you received payment, how many accounts you provided, whether you provided passwords, whether you provided online banking information, whether you sent debit cards, whether you knew about the victim's remittances, and whether you withdrew or transferred funds. These questions may seem trivial, but they are all aimed at determining whether you knew or could foresee that the account would be used criminally.

You should first prepare a clear timeline. This should include when you saw the advertisement or met the other party, what name and account they used, what reason they gave for requesting the account, why you believed them, when you sent or provided the information, when you noticed anything unusual, when you reported the loss or filed a police report, and whether you proactively contacted the bank or the 165 anti-fraud hotline. The more complete the timeline, the better the prosecutor will understand that you didn't fabricate a story after the fact.

Transform "I had no criminal intent" into verifiable evidence.

In criminal cases, simply stating your innocence is usually not enough. You need to save screenshots of conversations, LINE or Telegram records, job postings, loan advertisements, shipping receipts, tracking numbers, bank transaction details, police reports, lost or stolen documents, DS-165 forms, the other party's identification information, remittance or receipt notifications, text messages, emails, and social media pages.

If you've ever tried to stop the damage—for example, immediately reporting the account lost, notifying the bank, filing a police report, alerting the perpetrator, or requesting a halt to transactions—these records are also important. They demonstrate your response after noticing the anomaly, showing you didn't allow the fraudulent funds to continue flowing.

Do not plead guilty before clarifying the facts of the case.

Some people, when they go to the police station, just want to end things quickly. Hearing the police say, "Admitting is faster," or "Settling a settlement will solve everything," they immediately admit to aiding and abetting fraud or money laundering. This is dangerous. Because once you admit you knew your account might be used for illegal purposes, it becomes significantly more difficult to later claim you were scammed.

Of course, if the objective evidence is already very unfavorable, such as receiving payment, providing multiple accounts, or knowingly cooperating with withdrawals of funds from illegitimate sources, the case strategy may shift towards pleading guilty, seeking restitution, and striving for a reduced sentence or probation. However, this must be decided after a complete evaluation of the evidence, rather than hastily stating a position in the first statement.

Can cases involving nominee accounts be dropped or result in acquittal?

Yes, but the key is whether the prosecutor believes you did not intentionally help.

There is a possibility of no prosecution or acquittal in cases involving nominee accounts, but not every case is suitable for the same explanation. Prosecutors will consider whether the circumstances under which you provided the account were reasonable, whether the other party's words were sufficient to deceive an ordinary person, whether you conducted due diligence, whether you received payment, whether you provided multiple accounts, whether there were withdrawals or transfers, whether you took immediate action after discovering irregularities, and whether your statements were consistent.

If the case is a typical job-seeking, loan, or dating scam, and you have complete chat logs, did not receive any payment, did not personally withdraw money, did not provide your account multiple times, and immediately reported the incident or reported the loss after discovering the anomaly, you have a better chance of not being prosecuted. Conversely, if you provide more than three accounts, receive rent or payment, provide online banking and mobile phone verification, and withdraw funds as instructed, prosecutors will usually consider that you at least allowed the risk of crime to occur.

Reconciliation can be helpful, but it cannot replace a not guilty plea.

Fraud and money laundering-related crimes are usually not prosecuted on complaint; the case is not automatically closed simply because the victim withdraws the complaint. Settlement or compensation can reduce the victim's harm and help with deferred prosecution, sentencing, probation, or civil damages, but it cannot directly prove that you did not have criminal intent.

If your primary claim is that you were also a victim, you must be extremely cautious with your settlement strategy. Admitting liability too early might be misinterpreted as admitting legal responsibility for the defrauded funds; completely refusing to communicate might encourage the victim to continue pursuing legal action. The correct approach is to differentiate between criminal intent, civil liability, moral assistance, and litigation strategy, avoiding steer the case in the wrong direction with a simple "I'll pay" or "I won't pay."

The lawyer advises: After receiving notification of a nominee account, proceed in this order.

First, stop the bleeding; then, organize the evidence; finally, formulate a statement-taking strategy.

1. Immediately check the account status, inquire with the bank whether there have been any warnings, any unexplained transactions, or any outstanding funds, and, depending on the circumstances, report the loss of the debit card, suspend online banking, change the password, or apply for transaction details.

Second, if you are also a victim of fraud, you should report the crime to the police as soon as possible and keep a record of the report. Don't just say "I was scammed", but provide the other party's account, conversations, advertisements, phone number, mailing address, transfer information and shipping slips.

Third, before being questioned by the police, prepare a complete timeline and list of evidence. Do not answer key dates, amounts, number of accounts, or statements based on memory, as ambiguity or contradictions in the statement may be interpreted by the prosecutor as an attempt to evade responsibility.

Fourth, if there are already victims who have remitted or withdrawn funds, or if there are multiple victims, an assessment should be made as soon as possible as to whether a lawyer is needed to accompany the suspect during police questioning or investigative hearings. Cases involving nominee accounts often involve victims in different regions, different police stations, and district prosecutors' offices, and the cases can spread; one cannot rely solely on the first notification.

Fifth, if you have received an indictment or court summons, you should re-examine the facts of the indictment, the time of the victim's remittance, the time of account transfer, the destination of the funds, the evidence the prosecution used to establish intent, and whether there are any uninvestigated details of the fraud. During the trial stage, it is still possible to strive for acquittal, a narrower charge, a reduced sentence, probation, or a reduction in the risk of civil damages, but this requires more precise evidence presentation.

How Fidelity Law Firm Assists with Nominee Accounts and Fraud Cases

The pressure of nominee account cases comes not only from potential criminal charges, but also from frozen accounts, impacted work and salary, victim claims, misunderstandings with family, and future credit restrictions. When handling such cases, Fidelity Law Firm first clarifies whether you are a simple victim, a potential accomplice, or already being investigated by prosecutors as a money launderer or money mule. Based on the different levels of risk, they then plan strategies for police questioning, investigative hearings, settlement negotiations, evidence submission, and court defense.

If you have already received a police notice, a subpoena from the district attorney's office, an indictment, or your account has suddenly been placed on alert, it is advisable not to wait until the day before the court hearing to gather information. The sooner you complete the timeline, conversation records, and financial transaction evidence, the greater the chance of leading the case towards a decision not to prosecute, a narrower charge, or a more favorable outcome.

Frequently Asked Questions

Will using nominee accounts always result in criminal charges?

Not necessarily. The prosecutor must prove that when you handed over or provided the account, you subjectively knew or foresaw that the account would be used for fraud or money laundering, yet still allowed the outcome to occur. If you can provide evidence such as being scammed in a job application, loan application, or dating, losing your account, having it stolen, or being coerced, there is still room to fight for non-prosecution or acquittal.

Can an account be removed from the alert list?

You can try to confirm the reason with the original reporting agency, the police station handling the case, and the bank, and submit the police report, non-prosecution order, judgment, settlement, or other materials sufficient to prove that the account has not been used illegally. Whether the case is closed still depends on the progress of the case, the opinion of the reporting agency, and the results of the bank's review in accordance with regulations.

I simply mailed my debit card to a loan company, so why am I being sued for fraud?

Fraudulent groups often use tactics such as "loan packaging of cash flow," "beautifying accounts," and "collecting salaries on behalf of clients" to obtain accounts. Judicial practice will examine whether you have verified the other party's identity, whether you have received payment, whether you have provided passwords or online banking information, whether you have control over the account, and whether there were any unusual warning signs at the time, to determine whether there is any uncertain intent to aid and abet fraud or money laundering.

Can a case involving nominee accounts be dropped once the victim reaches a settlement?

Fraud and money laundering-related crimes are usually not prosecuted on a case-by-case basis; a settlement does not equate to withdrawing the charge or automatically dropping the prosecution. However, settlements, compensations, refunds, and statements that one received nothing may affect prosecutorial decisions, court sentencing, probation, and the risk of victims seeking recourse.

What should I prepare before receiving a notification from the police station?

First, preserve all chat logs, advertising pages, remittance or mailing receipts, police reports, account transaction details, and records of your attempts to prevent further damage. Don't just say "I was scammed too"; instead, clearly outline the timeline, the other party's script, why you believed them, when you noticed anything unusual, and your immediate actions.