The fraud syndicate made off with 4 million yuan, and the 17-year-old surveillance boy and his parents had to pay more than 3.43 million yuan

A fraud group stole 4 million, and the 17-year-old boy who was in charge of monitoring was unable to catch up, so his parents had to pay for it. Schematic diagram. (File photo)

A man surnamed Huang mistakenly believed in a fake investment scam on the Internet and successively paid 10.8 million yuan, of which 4 million yuan was handed over in person. When he paid in person, the driver of the fraud group actually stole the money and absconded. The 17-year-old boy named Lai who was responsible for monitoring could not catch up. Huang man filed a lawsuit for compensation. The first instance ruled that the boy surnamed Lai and his parents must jointly and severally compensate 4 million yuan. The victim refused to accept the appeal. The second-instance judge deducted the statute of limitations and settled the amount with his accomplices, and changed the verdict to joint compensation of more than 3.43 million yuan.

The verdict pointed out that in July 2023, a man surnamed Huang browsed an investment advertisement on Facebook, mistakenly believed the words of the fraud group, and successively delivered 10.8 million yuan; on August 16 of the same year, when Huang went to a supermarket in Chiayi to hand over 4 million in cash, a driver surnamed Yu took the money and escaped with the money. A young man surnamed Lai and his accomplices who were at the scene as a "monitor" discovered and drove to chase him, but they lost him due to unfamiliar road conditions.

Please read on...

Afterwards, Huang Man was unwilling to suffer losses and sued the boy named Lai and his parents for 10.8 million yuan. During the hearing in the Qiaotou District Court, the boy surnamed Lai argued that he was only visiting Chiayi at the invitation of a friend that day, and that he followed instructions throughout the process and did not know it was a fraud. Moreover, the 4 million yuan was absconded by the driver and had nothing to do with him.

The first-instance judge pointed out that after arriving in Chiayi, the boy surnamed Lai wandered around parking lots and supermarkets without attractions for more than an hour, and immediately drove to chase the driver when he saw the driver running away. His behavior was inconsistent with ordinary recreation. However, considering that the boy surnamed Lai only participated in the interview surveillance of the NT$4 million, there was no evidence that he led or participated in the remaining NT$6.8 million in fraud. Therefore, the boy surnamed Lai and his parents should jointly and severally pay NT$4 million in compensation for the NT$4 million.

The victim surnamed Huang appealed. During the trial at the Kaohsiung High Court, the second-instance judge upheld the first-instance judgment that the boy surnamed Lai and his parents were only responsible for the 4 million yuan they participated in, but recalculated the amount of compensation. The second-instance judge believed that there were 11 joint infringers in this case of 4 million yuan, and each person's share was more than 360,000 yuan. Huang Nan knew the identity of the driver surnamed You as early as May 2024 but did not file a civil lawsuit against You Nan within 2 years, causing the right to claim to have expired.

According to the joint and several debt provisions of the Civil Code, You Nan's share of more than 360,000 yuan should be deducted. In addition, the other two accomplices have paid off 100,000 yuan each (a total of 200,000 yuan) and should also be deducted from the compensation amount. Therefore, the judgment was changed that the young man surnamed Lai and his parents should jointly and severally compensate Huang Nan for more than 3.43 million yuan. The whole case can still be appealed.

☆The Liberty Times e-newsletter reminds you that the anti-fraud hotline: 165 and the crime reporting hotline: 110☆