法人犯罪之緩起訴比較研究

Abstract

我國刑事訴訟法自2002年2月8日修法通過，開始施行緩起訴制度，迄今各種配套措施均已完備，但由於我國目前仍以法律規定有處罰法人者，始能處罰法人，因此，檢察官對於法人諭知緩起訴處分時，常見緩起訴之條件僅有支付緩起訴處分金，難達到預防再犯之目的。反觀美國承認法人有行為能力、犯罪能力，故美國檢察官對於法人犯罪，在運用與我國有類似理念的美國Non-Prosecution Agreement制度時，除了要求法人繳納高額的賠償金以外，還會列出其他條件要求法人履行，來換取檢察官不予追訴。 我國刑事訴訟法第253條之2第1項第8款檢察官諭知緩起訴處分的條件中，有預防再犯所為之必要命令，此款在目前不變動法人是否有犯罪能力的見解時，可在對法人諭知緩起訴處分時適當的運用，並參考美國Non-Prosecution Agreement之內容，要求法人制定合法、適當的內部規定及流程，並與檢察機關充分配合調查不法，以預防再犯為首要目的。因此，本文研究綜合文獻分析法及訪談實務上之執法者，以了解目前我國實務上緩起訴運用情形、美國的運作方式及執法者對於有處罰法人之規定時，在我國是否適合諭知支付處分金以外之條件等意見，並提出可能遭遇之問題及建議方向，提供我國是否推展對法人緩起訴諭知條件之參考。

The Deferred Prosecution in Taiwan is regulated in the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure promulgated in February 8, 2002. After 14 years of practice, complementary measures have been quite completed. Pursuant to laws, since the penalty imposed on a legal person is only fine, prosecutors can only consider fine as the legal person’s Deferred Prosecution condition. However, fine alone cannot prevent a legal person from future wrongdoings. In contrast, while recognizing the ability for a legal person to commit a crime, the Non-Prosecution Agreement in the United States allows district attorneys to choose among multiple conditions, but not only fine, for a legal person to trade for a Non-Prosecution decision. Pursuant to Article 253- 2 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Taiwan, prosecutors may choose to give a legal person an order to prevent his recommitment of crime. In this article, this clause can be used in Taiwan serving the same purpose of the Non-Prosecution agreement in the United States as to request the legal person to regulate company’s internal rules and necessary standard procedures or to cooperate with Prosecutors office for further investigation. In this way, the crime-prevention purpose of the Deferred Prosecution can be served. This thesis applies literature analysis method and field interviews with law enforcement officers. The topics are the current appliance of the Deferred Prosecution in Taiwan, the practice in the United States, and the opinions from law enforcement officers regarding Deferred Prosecution conditions other than fine. In addition, this paper intends to raise possible problems and suggestions as the reference for further practice of the Deferred Prosecution in Taiwan.