Analysis of the Accusation of Telecom Fraud Assisting Withdrawees

Abstract

The main controversy over the characterization of telecom fraud assistance to fund withdrawals lies in whether it constitutes a helper of telecom fraud or a separate conviction and punishment for the crime of concealing or concealing criminal proceeds. The telecommunications fraud as-sistance discussed by the author specifically refers to the prior act of causing the victim to fall into a cognitive error and transferring funds to the prior act's bank card. Afterwards, the as-sisted person knowingly participates and colludes with the prior act to withdraw money from the bank card. Starting from the possibility of the establishment of an inherited accomplice, the author explores the theoretical basis for the establishment of an inherited accomplice and fur-ther derives the latest time point at which an inherited accomplice can be established. Through the analysis of the concept of "substantial end" in the theory of complicity in German criminal law, it is concluded that the time point of the establishment of the inheritance accomplice, espe-cially in the crime of fraud, cannot continue until the "substantial end" of the crime. This logic should be consistent, and the establishment of the completed crime of fraud should not be ex-tended to the "substantial end" of the crime to maintain theoretical coherence. Finally, the con-clusion of this article is that the act of assisting a person in withdrawing money through tele-communications fraud should be separately recognized as the crime of concealing, concealing criminal proceeds, and gains from criminal activities.