謙聖國際法律事務所

1. What Is a Police Warning Order Under Taiwan's Money Laundering Control Act?

A police warning order is an administrative disposition issued by a competent police authority when a person's conduct is found to violate Taiwan's statutory restrictions on providing financial accounts or certain payment-related accounts to others.

It is different from a criminal conviction. However, it can have serious consequences for banking access and may become relevant if the person subsequently violates the same legal restrictions.

---

1.1 Legal Basis Under Article 22

Article 22, Paragraph 1 of Taiwan's Money Laundering Control Act generally prohibits a person from handing over or providing certain accounts to another person for use without a legally recognized justification. The provision covers financial accounts opened in the person's own name or another person's name, as well as accounts associated with virtual asset service providers and third-party payment service providers.

Under Article 22, Paragraph 2, violations may result in an administrative warning issued by the competent municipal, county, or city police authority. A warning may also be imposed where a further violation occurs more than five years after an earlier warning.

➙The purpose of these restrictions is to reduce the availability of accounts that may be used to receive, transfer, or conceal proceeds of unlawful activity. However, the authorities must still examine whether the statutory requirements for issuing a warning have been satisfied.

---

1.2 When Is Providing a Bank Account Legally Permitted?

Not every instance of allowing another person to use a financial account violates Article 22.

The law recognizes exceptions where providing an account is consistent with ordinary commercial or financial transaction practices, arises from a relationship of trust between relatives or friends, or is supported by another legitimate reason. For example, a person may allow a trusted family member to use an account for a genuine family-related purpose. Whether the arrangement falls within a statutory exception depends on the actual circumstances. Likewise, a person who provides banking information after being deceived by a fraudulent job advertisement or loan intermediary may have grounds to challenge a warning order.

Nevertheless, being deceived does not automatically establish that every statutory exception applies. The authorities may examine the explanation given to the account holder, the nature of the arrangement, the relationship between the parties, and the supporting evidence. A successful challenge generally requires a clear explanation of why the account was provided and why the warning order was legally unjustified.

---

1.3 Police Warning Orders Versus Flagged Bank Accounts

A police warning order and a flagged bank account are not the same legal measure.

A warning order under Article 22 is an administrative disposition concerning the unlawful provision of an account. It may trigger restrictions on the person's financial services. A flagged bank account, commonly called a warning account or 警示帳戶 in Taiwan, generally refers to an account reported to a financial institution by a court, prosecutor, or judicial police authority in connection with a criminal investigation.

The legal grounds, procedures, and requirements for removing these restrictions are different. A person may be affected by both measures, but revoking an administrative warning order does not necessarily remove a separate criminal-investigation-related account flag.

➙Before seeking relief, it is essential to identify which restriction has been imposed and which authority is responsible.

 

2. What Happens After You Receive a Police Warning Order?

A police warning order may affect ordinary banking activities, electronic payment services, and access to financial accounts. Under the regulations governing account restrictions associated with Article 22, certain measures generally remain effective for five years from the date of the warning disposition.

---

2.1 Bank Transfers, Withdrawals, and Online Banking Restrictions

Financial institutions may be required to apply restrictions to accounts associated with a person who has received a warning order.

Depending on the applicable regulatory provisions and account type, these restrictions may include daily transfer and cash withdrawal limits of NT$10,000 each, restrictions on internet banking, and limitations on certain counter transactions. Electronic payment services may also be subject to restrictions, including daily limits of NT$10,000 for specified domestic and international small-value remittances and monthly limits of NT$30,000 for certain payment collection and disbursement services.

These measures can create practical difficulties for people who rely on electronic banking to receive wages, pay rent, manage family expenses, or conduct business. The exact restrictions should be confirmed with the relevant financial institution and the regulations applicable to the account.

---

2.2 Five-Year Restrictions on Financial Services

The regulatory measures associated with an Article 22 warning generally operate for five years from the date the warning is issued. During this period, banks and other regulated service providers may restrict existing accounts, refuse certain transactions, or decline new account applications where the applicable legal conditions are satisfied.

Virtual asset service providers and third-party payment service providers may also apply relevant restrictions. If another qualifying violation occurs during the restriction period, the applicable rules may result in an additional period of restrictions.The effects are therefore not necessarily limited to the particular account originally provided to another person.

🚨For this reason, challenging an unlawful warning order may be important even when the related criminal investigation has already concluded.

---

2.3 When Can Account Provision Become a Criminal Offense?

Article 22, Paragraph 3 provides criminal penalties for certain violations involving additional statutory circumstances.

These include providing an account in exchange for agreed or received compensation, providing a total of three or more covered accounts, or committing another violation within five years after a qualifying warning disposition. Where the statutory requirements are established, the penalty may include imprisonment for up to three years, detention, or a fine of up to NT$1 million, either separately or in combination as permitted by law.

⚠️Importantly, a subsequent violation is not the only circumstance that may result in criminal liability.

Receiving compensation or providing three or more accounts may independently trigger the criminal provisions when the statutory elements are satisfied. Separate charges involving aiding fraud or money laundering may also arise depending on the defendant's conduct and criminal intent.

➙An administrative warning should therefore not be mistaken for a criminal conviction, but its consequences should not be underestimated.

 

3. How Can You Appeal a Police Warning Order Within 30 Days?

A person who disagrees with a police warning order may challenge it through Taiwan's administrative appeal system. The ordinary deadline is particularly important because missing it can significantly narrow the available legal remedies.

---

3.1 Filing an Administrative Appeal

Under Article 14 of Taiwan's Administrative Appeal Act, an administrative appeal generally must be filed within 30 days, calculated according to the applicable statutory rules following service of the administrative disposition. In an ordinary domestic case, the period generally begins on the day after service.

The appeal is generally submitted through the police authority that issued the warning and directed to the competent administrative appeal authority. The submission should identify the challenged disposition, explain why it is unlawful or otherwise subject to cancellation, and provide supporting evidence.

For example, the appellant may argue that providing the account fell within a statutory exception under Article 22, Paragraph 1. An effective appeal should focus on the actual purpose of the account arrangement rather than merely stating that the account holder did not intend to commit fraud.

Because administrative deadlines are strict, the service date and the instructions contained in the warning order should be checked immediately.

---

3.2 Evidence Supporting a Legitimate Reason for Providing an Account

The evidence required depends on how the person became involved.

Someone deceived by a fake job advertisement may preserve the recruitment post, employer communications, application records, and instructions concerning account access. A person misled by a loan intermediary may submit loan advertisements, application documents, conversations about credit verification, and records showing that the promised loan was never provided.

Where an account was given to a relative or romantic partner, relevant evidence may include communications, the nature of the relationship, the stated purpose of the arrangement, and the circumstances surrounding the account's use. For currency exchange disputes, transaction histories, exchange instructions, payment records, and communications with the exchange provider may be important.

💡The purpose is to reconstruct the circumstances that existed when the account was provided and establish whether the warning was legally justified. Evidence should be preserved accurately and in its original form whenever possible.

---

3.3 What Happens After an Administrative Appeal?

The competent administrative appeal authority reviews the challenged disposition and the legal and factual arguments presented. If the appeal is successful, the warning order may be revoked.The relevant financial institutions may then need to  update the associated restrictions in accordance with the applicable procedures.

However, cancellation of the warning does not automatically resolve every other account restriction, especially if a separate flagged-account designation remains in place. If the administrative appeal is unsuccessful, an eligible person may generally seek judicial review through an administrative lawsuit within two months after service of the appeal decision, subject to the applicable procedural rules.

➙Legal counsel may assess whether the dispute should proceed to administrative litigation and which arguments remain available.

 

4. Can You Revoke a Warning Order After the 30-Day Deadline?

Missing the ordinary administrative appeal deadline does not necessarily eliminate every possible remedy. Taiwan's Administrative Procedure Act provides mechanisms that may be relevant after an administrative disposition has become final.

However, these mechanisms have different legal requirements and should not be treated as substitutes for filing a timely appeal.

---

4.1 Revocation by the Original Authority Under Article 117

Article 117 of Taiwan's Administrative Procedure Act allows an unlawful administrative disposition to be revoked, in whole or in part, by the issuing authority or its superior authority, subject to statutory limitations. This authority may be exercised even after the ordinary legal remedy period has expired.

A person who believes that a police warning order was unlawfully issued may submit a request asking the original authority to review and revoke the disposition. For example, evidence may show that the account was provided under a genuine relationship of trust or for another legitimate reason recognized by Article 22. The request should identify the alleged legal error and provide materials supporting the conclusion that the warning was unlawful.

➙Importantly, Article 117 does not create an unrestricted right to demand revocation whenever a person disagrees with an administrative decision. The authority must evaluate the statutory requirements and the circumstances of the case.

---

4.2 Reopening Administrative Proceedings Under Article 128

Article 128 of the Administrative Procedure Act provides another possible remedy when specific statutory grounds exist after the ordinary remedy period has expired. These grounds may include qualifying new facts, newly discovered evidence, or other legally recognized circumstances capable of affecting the administrative disposition. An application must satisfy the relevant timing requirements.

Generally, it must be made within three months after the ordinary remedy period has expired, or, where the qualifying ground arises or becomes known later, within three months after that event or discovery. The statute also establishes an outer five-year limit calculated from the expiration of the ordinary remedy period.

Other statutory restrictions may apply, including where the applicant failed through gross negligence to raise the relevant grounds during earlier proceedings.

⚠️A request to reopen administrative proceedings must therefore identify the specific legal ground, explain its significance, and establish that the application is timely. Simply presenting the same arguments again does not automatically satisfy Article 128.

---

4.3 Does a Criminal Non-Prosecution Decision Help?

A criminal non-prosecution disposition may provide important evidence when challenging a police warning order.

For example, the prosecutor may have concluded that the available evidence did not establish the criminal intent required for aiding fraud or money laundering. That finding may be relevant to the circumstances surrounding the provision of the account. However, criminal liability and an administrative warning under Article 22 involve different legal requirements.

A non-prosecution decision does not automatically establish that the warning order was unlawful, nor does it automatically revoke the administrative disposition. The reasons for the non-prosecution decision must be examined carefully. Likewise, a later-issued non-prosecution decision is not automatically qualifying new evidence under Article 128. Its content, timing, and relationship to the statutory reopening requirements must be evaluated.

Depending on the circumstances, counsel may consider requesting revocation under Article 117 or seeking reopening under Article 128.

 

5. What Should You Do If Your Bank Account Is Restricted?

The first step is to identify the legal reason for the restriction. A person who assumes that every frozen account is subject to the same procedure may pursue the wrong remedy or miss an important deadline.

---

5.1 Confirm the Type of Account Restriction

Ask the financial institution whether the restriction is associated with an Article 22 police warning order, a flagged-account notification arising from a criminal investigation, or another regulatory or judicial measure. Obtain the relevant written notice where available.

If a police warning order has been issued, identify the issuing authority, date of service, disposition number, and stated reasons. If the account has separately been designated as a flagged account, the person may need to address the criminal-investigation-related notification through the competent authority.

➙The two procedures should be reviewed independently.

---

5.2 Preserve Evidence and Identify the Applicable Deadline

Once the legal basis is confirmed, preserve all documents concerning the account arrangement.

These may include:

• LINE conversations
• recruitment advertisements
• loan applications
• banking records
• transfer receipts
• police notices
• criminal case dispositions

Prepare a timeline showing when the account was provided, what the other party represented, when suspicious transactions occurred, and when the restriction was discovered. If the 30-day administrative appeal period remains open, prioritize preparing a timely appeal. If the period has expired, assess whether the facts support a request under Article 117 or Article 128.

➙A criminal non-prosecution disposition, newly discovered communications, or other evidence may be relevant, but the appropriate procedure depends on the legal grounds and applicable deadlines.

 

6. Successful Warning Order Revocation Cases in Taiwan

Chien Sheng International Law Firm has handled disputes involving administrative warning orders, alleged fraud, money laundering, and restricted bank accounts.

The following examples illustrate different circumstances in which the firm reports having assisted clients in obtaining favorable administrative outcomes. Each case depends on its own evidence and procedural history.

---

6.1 Accounts Provided to Romantic Partners or Family Members

Case 1: Account Provided to a Romantic Partner — Warning Revoked After the Appeal Deadline

A client allowed a romantic partner to use a bank account and subsequently became involved in a criminal investigation and received a police warning order. Although the ordinary administrative appeal period had expired, the firm's attorneys pursued review by the original authority and obtained revocation of the warning.

🔗Case details: https://www.chiensheng-law.com.tw/news/details.php?id=52761

Case 2: Account Provided to a Family Member — Criminal Non-Prosecution and Administrative Revocation

A client allowed a minor family member to use a bank account, which later became connected to a fraud investigation. The firm's attorneys report obtaining a non-prosecution disposition in the criminal matter and subsequently securing revocation of the administrative warning.

🔗Case details: https://www.chiensheng-law.com.tw/news/details.php?id=41799

These cases demonstrate why the relationship between the account holder and the recipient may be important when evaluating the statutory exceptions.However, family or romantic relationships do not automatically establish that a warning order must be revoked.

---

6.2 Fake Jobs, Investments, and Online Loan Scams

Case 3: Deceived by a Part-Time Job and Investment Arrangement

A client seeking additional income responded to an online part-time job opportunity and was deceived into providing a bank account.

After the client received an administrative warning, the firm's attorneys filed an administrative appeal and challenged the factual and legal basis for the disposition. The firm reports that the warning was successfully revoked.

🔗Case details: https://www.chiensheng-law.com.tw/news/details.php?id=68636

Case 4: Fake Online Loan Application — Warning Successfully Removed

A client searching for a low-interest loan provided banking information after communicating with a fraudulent loan intermediary. Instead of receiving the expected loan, the client faced account restrictions. With legal assistance, the client reportedly obtained removal of the warning status and restoration of normal banking access.

🔗Case details: https://www.chiensheng-law.com.tw/news/details.php?id=50406

These cases highlight the importance of preserving advertisements, messages, application records, and other materials showing how the account holder was deceived.

---

6.3 Currency Exchange Scams and Other Successful Appeals

Case 5: Online Currency Exchange and a Triangular Fraud Scheme

A client used an online currency exchange arrangement for work-related purposes but became involved in a triangular fraud scheme. The firm's attorneys reconstructed the transaction history and presented evidence concerning the legitimate purpose of the exchange. The firm reports that the warning order was successfully revoked.

🔗Case details: https://www.chiensheng-law.com.tw/news/details.php?id=50087

These examples illustrate why the appropriate legal remedy may differ depending on the account holder's circumstances, available evidence, and procedural deadlines.

⚠️Past case outcomes do not guarantee the same result in another matter.

 

7. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

A police warning order is an administrative disposition issued under Article 22 of Taiwan's Money Laundering Control Act for certain prohibited account-provision conduct. It is not a criminal conviction, but it may trigger significant financial restrictions.

No. An administrative warning does not automatically establish fraud, aiding fraud, or money laundering. Criminal charges require proof of their own statutory elements.

The account restrictions associated with an Article 22 warning generally operate for five years from the date of the warning disposition, subject to the applicable regulations and any further qualifying violations.

A person may challenge the disposition through an administrative appeal, generally within 30 days following service. Depending on the circumstances, revocation under Article 117 or reopening under Article 128 may also be considered after the ordinary appeal period.

An ordinary administrative appeal filed after the deadline may be inadmissible. However, certain cases may qualify for other procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act. These remedies have separate legal requirements.

Possibly. A non-prosecution decision may support a request for administrative review, but it does not automatically revoke the warning. The legal basis of the original disposition must be examined independently.

The circumstances of deception may support a challenge to the warning order. However, the authorities must evaluate whether the facts satisfy a statutory exception or otherwise demonstrate that the disposition was unlawful.

A police warning order is an administrative disposition under the Money Laundering Control Act. A flagged bank account generally results from a notification connected to a criminal investigation. The procedures for removing each restriction differ.

Yes. Under Article 22, providing a total of three or more covered accounts in violation of the statutory restriction may trigger criminal liability. Other circumstances, including receiving compensation or certain repeat violations, may also trigger criminal penalties.

Not necessarily. The relevant institutions must implement the applicable changes, and separate restrictions may remain in place. If the account is independently flagged in a criminal investigation, that designation may require a different procedure.

 

8. Conclusion

Receiving a police warning order under Taiwan's Money Laundering Control Act can create serious difficulties for everyday financial activities, including bank transfers, withdrawals, internet banking, and access to new financial services.

However, an administrative warning is not the same as a criminal conviction, and it does not necessarily mean that the account holder has no legal remedy. The most important first step is to identify the precise legal basis for the restriction and confirm whether the account is subject to an Article 22 warning, a separate flagged-account notification, or both. Where the warning order is disputed, an administrative appeal should generally be considered within the statutory 30-day period.

If that period has expired, Article 117 and Article 128 of the Administrative Procedure Act may provide alternative avenues in qualifying cases, although neither procedure guarantees revocation.

A later criminal non-prosecution decision may be relevant evidence, but the administrative warning must still be challenged according to its own legal requirements.

 

🧑🏻‍⚖️Chien Sheng International Law Firm assists clients in Taiwan with police warning order revocation, administrative appeals, restricted bank accounts, and related fraud or money laundering investigations.Preserving evidence, identifying the correct procedure, and acting within the applicable deadlines can make a substantial difference when seeking to challenge an administrative warning and restore financial access.

 

【CHIEN SHENG LAW FIRM】

• LINE Online Legal Consultation:：@lawuicc001（Click to Consult）
• Appointment by Phone:：(03)⠀3150-034
• Payment Methods: Cash｜Credit Card｜Bank Transfer

 

【Learn More】

• Facebook： 謙聖國際法律事務所
• Instagram：chien.sheng_