回店家購物網站/

 

 

Case Background

In the criminal judgments No. 114-Jin-Su-Zi-1333 and No. 1350, rendered on June 12, 2026, the Taoyuan District Court in Taiwan presented significant legal insights regarding the asset confiscation system under the Criminal Code. The judgments involve a case where the defendant was accused of fraud, specifically for acting as an "in-person courier" (cash collector) who collected funds from the victims and handed them over to others. In these rulings, the court conducted an in-depth analysis of the application of the confiscation system, which holds great guiding significance for judicial practice. Chian Sheng International Law Firm introduces this analysis to provide you with an overview of the core substance of these landmark judgments.

 

I. Case Overview

Defendant’s Identity and Role

The defendant was accused of joining a criminal organization that allegedly employed fraudulent methods, serving as an "in-person courier" (cash collector). An "in-person courier" refers to the personnel in an alleged fraudulent organization responsible for directly collecting cash from victims. Such personnel are typically at the bottom of the organization's hierarchy and interact directly with victims, but have limited knowledge regarding the overall operations and the flow of funds.
 

Specific Alleged Conduct

The defendant was accused of executing fraud and money laundering in two distinct cases:

■ Case 1: The defendant was accused of collecting NT$2.12 million in cash from Victim A. Members of the alleged fraudulent organization first deceived Victim A by falsely claiming that they could profit from investing in the equity of an unlisted company. Following the instructions of the organization's leader, the defendant allegedly collected NT$2.12 million in cash from Victim A at a specific location in Taoyuan City, and immediately handed the funds over to other alleged members of the organization.

 

■ Case 2: The defendant was accused of collecting NT$700,000 in cash from Victim B. Members of the alleged fraudulent organization falsely claimed to Victim B that they could invest in gold futures, thereby defrauding Victim B. The defendant allegedly collected NT$700,000 in cash from the victim at a 7-Eleven convenience store, and likewise immediately transferred the funds up the chain.
 

Verdict and Sentence

The court found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to 3 years and 2 months of fixed-term imprisonment. Regarding the confiscation portion, the court only ordered the clawback of the personal criminal proceeds actually obtained by the defendant; it did not decree confiscation or clawback for the funds that had already been transferred to others.
 

II. Basic Principles of the Confiscation System

Before analyzing this judgment in depth, it is necessary to understand the basic principles underlying the asset confiscation system.

What is Confiscation?

Confiscation is a criminal law sanction whereby the court, in accordance with legal provisions, transfers specific property owned or controlled by a perpetrator to state ownership. The purpose of confiscation is to deprive perpetrators of the illicit benefits obtained through criminal activities and to prevent them from utilizing criminal proceeds to facilitate further criminal conduct.
 

Legal Basis for Confiscation

Pursuant to Articles 38 and 38-1 of the Criminal Code, the objects of confiscation include:

■ Criminal Proceeds: Money or property obtained directly or indirectly through criminal activities, such as funds acquired from fraudulent offenses.

 

■ Contraband / Instruments of Crime: Items used in or produced by a crime, such as forged identity cards or falsified documents used for fraud.
 

Distinction Between Confiscation and Clawback (Substitution of Value)

■ Confiscation : Refers to the confiscation applied to existing criminal proceeds or instruments of crime that have already been seized.

 

■ Clawback / Collection of Value : Refers to instances where criminal proceeds have been destroyed, lost, or cannot be seized; the court orders the defendant to pay an amount equivalent to the value of said criminal proceeds.

 

III. Core Legal Insights of the Taoyuan District Court

The most significant contribution of this judgment lies in its profound discourse on the analytical framework of the confiscation system. The court raised a pivotal question: Against whom should confiscation be decreed?
 

Insight 1: Determination of the Subject of Confiscation

The court explicitly pointed out that the key to confiscation is determining who holds ownership or de facto power of disposal over the property to be confiscated at the time the court renders its judgment.

Pursuant to Article 38-3, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code, the subject of confiscation must be the entity that holds ownership or de facto power of disposal over the target property "at the time of adjudication." Only by decreeing confiscation against such a subject can the legal effect of transferring the ownership or other rights of the target property to the State be achieved.

This insight appears straightforward, but it practically alters the past approach of many courts. Previously, many courts would decree confiscation against a defendant and then reduce or exempt it based on "regulatory adjustments against undue hardship" (However, according to this judgment, if the defendant no longer owns or controls the property when the court renders its judgment, no confiscation should be decreed against the defendant in the first place.
 

Insight 2: Separate Confiscation in Cases Involving Co-offenders

In cases involving co-offenders, criminal proceeds usually involve multiple participants. The court noted that these should be handled separately based on the actual ownership or power of disposal held by each co-offender.

If the internal distribution of criminal proceeds among the co-offenders is clear, confiscation or clawback should be decreed separately under the specific offense and sentence of each member, corresponding to the independent ownership or independent de facto power of disposal actually held by each member.

For instance, if the alleged leader of a fraud ring obtained NT$500,000 while the courier obtained NT$100,000, confiscation should be decreed against them separately for NT$500,000 and NT$100,000, respectively.
 

Insight 3: Joint Confiscation

If multiple co-offenders retain joint ownership or joint power of disposal over criminal proceeds, and it is difficult to distinguish their respective shares, joint confiscation should be decreed against them.

Under such circumstances, if there are other co-offenders who do not possess joint ownership or joint de facto power of disposal, joint confiscation or clawback must not be decreed against them.
 

Insight 4: Special Issues in Courier Cases

This judgment specifically addresses the issue of confiscation regarding couriers in fraud and money laundering cases. This is the most innovative part of the ruling.

In past judicial practice, many courts would order a courier to face clawback for funds already handed over to others. The courts' reasoning was that although the courier had lost ownership or power of disposal, the financial burden could be reduced or exempted via "regulatory adjustments against undue hardship."

However, this judgment holds that such practice conflicts with legal provisions. If the courier has already lost ownership or power of disposal, clawback should simply not be decreed against the courier. Confiscation or clawback should instead be ordered against the other individuals who actually hold ownership or power of disposal.

➟ The court pointed out that "whether to decree clawback against a courier cannot be generalized" and that courts must "first clarify the correct analytical framework regarding confiscation."
 

IV. The Correct Procedure for Confiscation Review

According to this judgment, courts should adhere to the following procedure when decreeing confiscation:

■ Step 1: Identify the Target of Confiscation 
First, the court must determine which properties constitute criminal proceeds or instruments of crime.

■ Step 2: Determine the Owner or Controller 
Next, based on the evidence in the case file, the court must ascertain who holds ownership or de facto power of disposal over these properties at the time the judgment is rendered.

■ Step 3: Evaluate Fulfillment of Confiscation Conditions 
Third, the court needs to judge whether decreeing confiscation against said owner or controller complies with the provisions of the Criminal Code.

■ Step 4: Determine the Method of Confiscation 
Finally, the court must decide whether to decree confiscation against a single individual or to decree joint confiscation against multiple individuals.
 

V. Specific Application in the Present Case

Let us examine how the court applied these principles to the case at hand:
 

Personal Criminal Proceeds Actually Obtained by the Defendant

■ In Case 1, the defendant collected NT$2.12 million from Victim A, but stated that he only actually received NT$3,000 for himself, while the remaining funds were immediately handed over to others.

The court deemed that this NT$3,000 constituted the personal criminal proceeds actually obtained by the defendant, which concurrently served as the property involved in money laundering. Since the money was not seized and could easily become unidentifiable due to commingling—making confiscation of the original property impossible—the court legally ordered a clawback of its value, namely NT$3,000.

 

■ In Case 2, the defendant collected NT$700,000 from Victim B and actually obtained NT$4,000. However, because the defendant had already paid NT$4,000 to Victim B as mediation settlement funds, there was no longer any part that had not been actually and legally returned to the victim that required a decree of confiscation or clawback.
 

Funds Already Transferred to Others

Regarding the funds that the defendant had already handed over to others, the court did not decree confiscation or clawback.

The court's reasoning was as follows:

■ First, the defendant no longer held ownership or de facto power of disposal over these funds, as they had already been transferred to others.

■ Second, the identities of the current owners or controllers of these funds remain unknown. Because the identities of the recipients are unidentified, it is impossible to determine who currently owns or controls these funds.

■ Third, it is impossible to ascertain the current location or ownership of these funds post-transfer. Since they were not seized, their present whereabouts cannot be determined.
 

➟ Therefore, in accordance with legal provisions, the court should not order a clawback of these funds against the defendant, nor is it appropriate to determine in this case whether to decree confiscation or clawback against any subjects other than the defendant.

 

VI. Significance of the Judgment

This judgment carries the following major implications for the confiscation system:

■ Significance 1: Protection of Innocent Third Parties 
By emphasizing the importance of ownership or power of disposal, this judgment prevents unjust confiscation from being levied against individuals who have already lost ownership or control. In fraud and money laundering cases, couriers are often exploited by others and frequently lack knowledge regarding the final destination of the proceeds. This ruling protects such individuals from facing unfair clawback.

■ Significance 2: Ensuring Legal Rationality 
By requiring courts to evaluate ownership or control before decreeing confiscation, this judgment ensures the rationality and fairness of confiscation decisions. Courts can no longer decree confiscation against someone who has lost ownership or control simply by relying on "regulatory adjustments against undue hardship."

■ Significance 3: Increasing Legal Predictability 
By establishing a clear review procedure, this judgment enhances the predictability of confiscation decisions. Defendants and their defense attorneys can more clearly anticipate how courts will decree confiscation.

■ Significance 4: Improving the Criminal Justice System 
This judgment reflects the continuous refinement of the criminal justice system. It demonstrates that the Supreme Court and district courts are constantly reflecting on how to better balance the fight against crime with the protection of human rights.
 

VII. Practical Insights

This judgment offers the following practical insights for defense attorneys and defendants:

■ Insight 1: Keep Abreast of Legal Provisions on Confiscation 
Confiscation is a significant legal consequence in criminal cases. Defendants should promptly understand the legal provisions surrounding confiscation, particularly the latest insights presented in this judgment.

■ Insight 2: Gather Evidence of Ownership or Power of Disposal 
In confiscation cases, evidence regarding ownership or power of disposal is paramount. Defendants should collect all evidence capable of proving whether they retain ownership or control over the criminal proceeds, such as bank account records, transfer receipts, and witness testimonies.

■ Insight 3: Formulate Robust Legal Arguments 
In confiscation matters, defendants should put forward strong legal arguments based on the insights of this judgment. For instance, if a defendant has already lost ownership or power of disposal, they should argue that confiscation or clawback should not be decreed against them.

■ Insight 4: Seek Assistance from Professional Lawyers 
Confiscation cases involve complex legal issues. Defendants should seek help from professional attorneys to better comprehend the regulations and effectively defend themselves.
 

VIII. Professional Services of Chien Sheng International Law Firm

If you are involved in a confiscation case or have any questions regarding this judgment, Chian Sheng International Law Firm can provide you with the following professional services:

■ Service 1: Legal Consultation on Confiscation 
We can analyze the legal provisions of confiscation for you in detail, especially the latest insights presented in this judgment. We will provide tailored legal advice based on your specific circumstances.

■ Service 2: Evidence Collection and Analysis 
We can assist you in gathering evidence regarding ownership or power of disposal and conduct a meticulous analysis. We will ensure your evidence effectively supports your claims.

■ Service 3: Legal Argumentation and Defense 
We can prepare compelling legal arguments for you and deliver an effective defense in court. We will utilize the legal insights from this judgment to strive for the best possible outcome on your behalf.

■ Service 4: Legal Representation in Confiscation Cases 
We can represent you across all facets of a confiscation case, including the court of first instance, the court of second instance, and retrials.
 

IX. Conclusion

The Taoyuan District Court’s criminal judgments No. 114-Jin-Su-Zi-1333 and No. 1350 offer paramount legal insights into the asset confiscation system. They underscore the critical importance of ownership or de facto power of disposal in confiscation and establish a clear, structured review procedure.

The core insight of this judgment is that confiscation should target the person who holds ownership or de facto power of disposal over the criminal proceeds, rather than simply targeting the defendant by default.

For individuals accused of being couriers in fraud and money laundering cases, this judgment provides vital protection. If a courier has already lost ownership or power of disposal, clawback should not be decreed against them.

If you are facing a confiscation case or have queries about this milestone ruling, please feel free to contact Chian Sheng International Law Firm at any time. We are dedicated to providing you with professional legal consultation and representation services to help safeguard your lawful rights and interests. In this complex legal world, Chien Sheng International Law Firm walks by your side.

 

 

 

Chien Sheng International Law Firm

 

LINE Online Legal Consultation: @lawuicc001 (Click to consult)

Welcome to call to schedule a meeting: 03-3150-034

Multiple payment methods available: Cash, Credit Card, Bank Transfer

 

Facebook: Chien Sheng International Law Firm

Instagram: chien.sheng_