刑法新修正沒收規定之檢討

A Review of the New Amendment of Criminal Code on Confiscation

陳贈吉(Tseng-Chi Chen)

指導教授 ： 李茂生

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201700037

摘要

2015年刑法新修正的沒收規定，參考德國法為主的外國立法例，將沒收重新定性為獨立的法律效果，同時增訂犯罪所得沒收、第三人沒收與單獨宣告沒收，並適用裁判時法的從新原則。修法的結果，沒收與罰金刑產生重複剝奪犯罪所得的問題，沒收在重新定性後不受罪刑法定主義與責任原則拘束，也受到許多質疑。本文在參考外國立法例與相關學說見解後認為，本次修法只是選擇性參考有助於擴張沒收範圍的外國法規定或實務學說見解，而非整體性的繼受，不論是在立法理由對於沒收性質的說明，抑或個別條文的解釋上，均產生諸多問題。

關於沒收的性質，由於沒收會因客體不同而具有保安處分以及類似罰金刑的刑罰性質，本文認為立法者將沒收重新定性為獨立的法律效果，只是讓沒收得以脫離從刑而具備多重性質，並不是一種真正存在的法律效果類型。而單獨宣告沒收規定，則屬於程序法上的便宜措施。至於個別條文的問題，本文參考德國法與國內學說見解認為，沒收是否扣除成本、裁量減免規定、排除規定、沒收適用的證據法則、單獨宣告沒收的適用範圍等問題，尚能以解釋方式處理。惟從新原則難以限縮解釋，而罰金刑、犯罪行為人沒收與追徵、第三人沒收與追徵的適用關係，雖然本文提出優先適用罰金刑與優先沒收犯罪行為人的解釋方式，但由於欠缺實定法依據，無法完全避免重複剝奪犯罪所得的問題，都有待透過修法方式徹底解決。

關鍵字

沒收 ； 罰金刑 ； 犯罪所得 ； 總額原則 ； 從新原則

並列摘要

The new amendment of confiscation provisions of Criminal Code in 2015 re-characterized the confiscation as an independent legal effect, added confiscation of the proceeds of crime, confiscation of third party and separate confiscation, and applied the principle of law in force at the time of judgment. As a result, the confiscation and fine penalty will result in repeated deprivation of the proceeds of crime, and the re-characterized confiscation without subject to nulla poena sine lege and the principle of responsibility has also been questioned. In reference to foreign legislation and relevant theories, this article thinks that this amendment selectively referenced to foreign legislations and theories, which help expand the scope of the confiscation, and result in many issues in legal interpretation.

Because the confiscation may have different characters depending on the object, including rehabilitative measure and a similar character of property penalty, this article thinks that the re-characterization of confiscation just demonstrates its multiple characters, the independent legal effect is not a kind of real legal effect, and the separate confiscation is a kind of procedural expedient measure. As for other issues of confiscation, except that the gross value principle, discretionary reduction provision, exclusion provision, evidence rule, and the scope of separate confiscation can be resolved through legal interpretation, the issues of the principle of law in force at the time of judgment, and the application sequence of fine penalty, confiscation, and third party confiscation, can only be completely resolved through next amendment.

並列關鍵字

confiscation ； fine penalty ； the proceeds of crime ； gross value principle ； the principle of law in force at the time of judgment

參考文獻

許恒達（2015），非定罪之犯罪所得沒收：借鏡德國法制，收於：法務部司法官學院編，刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集（17），頁19-36，臺北：法務部司法官學院。

薛智仁（2015），犯罪所得沒收制度之新典範？評析食安法第四十九條之一之修正，臺大法學論叢，44卷特刊，頁1327-1394。

柯耀程（2008），沒收、追徵、追繳與抵償制度之運用與檢討，法令月刊，59卷6期，頁4-26。

李榮耕（2015），犯罪所得資產的沒收－以美國民事沒收制度為借鏡，輔仁法學，49期，頁55-97。

王皇玉（2013），法人刑事責任之研究，輔仁法學，46期，頁1-34。