論我國犯罪所得沒收法制與實證研究－與美國法制之比較

Abstract

美國財產沒收制度可追溯至英國普通法 (Common Law) 時期。在1789，英國國會制定法律，先授權國家得扣押並沒收違反關稅法者所有的船隻及貨物後，再更進一步擴張到從事海盜或非法買賣奴隸之行為人。 美國承繼英國普通法之後，又發展出更特殊的民事沒收制度。這套特殊民事沒收制度始於17、8世紀時，當時美國境內走私、海盜及奴隸非法交易案件逐漸頻繁，雖政府在國境內扣得行為人的財產，但因行為人往往滯留國外，國家無法取得刑事有罪判決，以致無法有效沒收。但為防止犯罪所使用之財物繼續遭人用於不法行為，及變賣扣押物以抵充政府必要支出，美國發展出以財物為相對人的民事(civil)沒收制度。待1970年代初期，美國為打擊與毒梟相關之犯罪行為（如販毒、賄賂、賭博、殺人、暴力討債等等），重心由單純之檢警偵查技巧轉向犯罪行為後端之洗錢行為，使美國沒收程序發展又更臻精進。 我國在刑法及各相關特別法律中（例如毒品危害防治條例第18條第1項及第19條）定有許多關於沒收規定，但這些規定仍依循傳統之從刑概念，未與時俱進；對於物的態度停留在實體原物；對所有權人停留在名義所有權人；對被告之概念，亦停留在與國家強權對抗之弱勢者。此外，又未適度將犯罪構成要件與沒收要件適度區分，以至於法院在舉證活動中無法適度分配由雙方個別負擔，導致沒收要件相較於外國立法例而言過於嚴苛。尤其近年陸續發生之經濟利得案件中，國家所能取回之犯罪所得金額有限，嚴重影響判決確定後之沒收成效，更使人民喪失對國家司法之信任。有鑑於此，我國近年來開始針對犯罪所得之查扣、沒收、取回規定進行檢討，並試圖修正刑法總則及刑事訴訟法規定。因此，本文嘗試將我國現制及修正方向與美國沒收制度進行比較。本文研究內容捨棄僅以學者角度出發之學說理論探討，尚輔以實務工作者所處理實際案件分析，以及嘗試以解決之角度切入。且研究解決之角度也不再以司法人員偵查技巧作切入，而放在後端犯罪所得，並提出有效消弭在我國愈趨嚴重，影響社會經濟之重大犯罪利得案件，如掏空公司資產、詐欺集團、販毒集團、人口犯運集團，甚至政府官員貪瀆等案件之數項建議。

U.S. forfeiture system can be dated back to British Common Law system. In 1789, British Congress enacted laws, which authorized law enforcements to seize and forfeite ships and cargoes that were involved in Customs Act and later extended to the properties of whom committed piracy or trafficking slaves. U.S. government adopted the British forfeiture system and enhabced and glorified another unique one. This unique forfeiture system commenced between the 17th and 18th Century, when smuggling, piracy, and slave trading committed very frequently in the U.S.. At that time, criminals would stay out of the country, and the Government hardly imposed penalties on them since there was no criminal verdict can be delibered. Therefore, to avoid those means of crimes from being used again and to compensate necessary expense, U.S. government developed a civil forfeiture, in rem forfeiture. In the early of 1970s, it can be used to strike down some drug dealer related crimes such as bribes, gambles, murders, or racketeering. Civil forfeiture focused on recovering the proceeds instead of investigating skills. Since then, the civil forfeiture system has helped a lot on reducing numbers of sever economic or proceeds related crimes. In Taiwan, there are several mandatory forfeiture penalties in Criminal Code and other related Codes, such as Drug Control Act and Anti-money Laundering Act. However, the traditional concepts of forfeiture are still remained. For example, most people consider forfeiture as an accessory punishment and that the objects must be the original tangible properties, moreover, the ownership of the forfeited properties is determined by the titular but not by the real holder. Also, the image of a defendant is still treated as a weak one who tries hard to fight with the strong government. On the other hand, the Court confuses the elements of a perpetration with the elements of forfeiture, which is part of sentencing, so it does not allocate the burden of proof properly during between the trial and sentencing activities. It makes the prosecutors take excessive burden of proof. Owing to those reasons above, the chance to recover proceeds of some severe economic related crimes, if not impossible, is limited. The Government is gradually losing the faith from the people. Keep this in mind; Taiwan starts reviewing its forfeiture system, such as seizure, forfeiture, and recovery elements. The Ministry of Justice is undertaking a proposal of amendment of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the contents of this thesis will not only discuss from a scholar’s observation, but also focus on empirical study. The purpose is no longer emphasized on the investigating skills, but on proceeds and then try to bring up suggestions about how to eliminate severe economic or proceeds related crimes. Accordingly, the research program is not focusing on investigation skills but on cutting down illegal proceeds, make criminals get noting from crimes, and finally give up on committing crimes. Hopefully, we can put an end to those embezzlement, frauds, drug dealers, corruption and so on, that undermine domestic finance and economics security and to stabilize public security and flourish economics in Taiwan.