兩岸警察共同打擊跨境犯罪合作機制之研究-以刑事警察局偵辦跨境詐欺犯罪為例

A Study of Cross-Strait Joint Crime-Fighting：Taking the investigations of emerging fraud crime by Criminal Investigation Bureau as an example

胡仁豪(JEN-HAO HU)

指導教授 ： 許春金

共同指導教授 ： 侯崇文

國立臺北大學/社會科學學院/犯罪學研究所/碩士(2013年)

摘要

自1987年陸續開放大陸探親、臺商赴大陸地區投資經商，以及兩岸交流日趨頻繁等因素，伴隨著而來的兩岸間跨境犯罪也日漸趨多，如劫機、偷渡、毒品、走私、洗錢、組織犯罪及詐欺等等。在這些犯罪中，尤以新興詐欺犯罪對臺灣地區的民眾造成財產上損失即為甚大，故兩岸共同打擊犯罪亦成為一項重要的議題。由於兩岸主權的爭議，雙方雖進行多次會談協商，惟始終無法達成具體共識，直到2009年4月26日第三次江陳會簽訂了「海峽兩岸共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協議」，使得兩岸在刑事司法合作內容、方式、原則等方面有了重大突破。
本研究主要係以近年來橫跨兩岸之新興詐欺犯罪為主軸，透過相關文獻及實證研究之探討，並藉由兩岸新興跨境詐欺犯罪現況分析結果，結合目前兩岸共同打擊犯罪合作機制與共同偵破跨境詐欺犯罪案例5件之探討，以及對承辦相關業務及實際從事相關案件偵查人員5人之訪談，分析當前跨境詐欺犯罪之手法及實務運作之困境，以提出雙方更有效率解決管道，供實務上偵辦兩岸跨境詐欺犯罪之參考。
經本研究分析發現，在兩岸簽署之「兩岸司法互助協議」生效後，根據內政部警政署有關詐欺案件的統計資料分析發現，從2009年下半年起，案件發生數即有下降之趨勢，均顯示協議之簽署對於跨境詐欺案件之發生確實能有效的遏阻。而兩岸跨境詐欺集團現行常使用之詐騙手法可歸納為假冒司法人員詐騙、網路購物詐騙、ATM轉帳詐騙等主要手法。此外，兩岸警政機關在協議簽訂後，在共同打擊跨境詐欺犯罪上仍存在著：1.政治因素；2.偵查主體差異；3.調查取證之證據能力問題；4.情資交換欠協調；5.相關權責機關整合；6.刑事合作事項較國際上司法互助合作事項內容限縮」等問題。因此，本研究提出以下幾點具體建議，供相關單位參考：1.體認分治事實，避免主權爭議；2.派駐專責聯絡人員，建立情報聯繫網；3.建立「雙偵查主體」體制；4.視訊取證的可行性；5.執法機關應與金融機構加強聯繫，打擊兩岸間的洗錢活動；6.增進兩岸人員警務與學術交流；7.建立兩岸與香港、澳門警方共同打擊犯罪合作機制；8.擴大兩岸跨第三地合作打擊詐欺犯罪；9.未來兩岸協商應補強協議規定。

關鍵字

詐欺集團 ； 跨境犯罪 ； 合作機制

並列摘要

On account of opening up that Taiwanese visit with relatives and engage in trade in Mainland continually since 1987,and cross-strait exchanges more and more frequently, such as hijacking, narcotics, smuggling, money laundering, organized crime and fraud. In these crimes, the worst one is the emerging fraud crime which result in loss of property to people in Taiwan. Therefore, cross-strait cooperation in fighting crimes is becoming an important topic. Because of the dispute of cross-strait sovereignty, although the both sides have negotiated several times, they cannot reach a concrete common consensus. Until April 26,2009,in the third Chiang-Chen meeting, the Cross-strait Joint Fight against Crime and Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement was signed. It makes the cross-strait a major breakthrough in the contents, manner, and principals of penal judicature cooperation.

This study makes the emerging fraud crime between cross-strait as a spindle, by probing into relevant literature and empirical research, and through the situational analysis results of the emerging fraud crime between cross-strait, combined with the five examples of current cooperation mechanisms about cross-strait cooperation in combating crimes and detecting cross-border fraud crimes together, and the interviews of five investigators who contract to related businesses and actually engage in related cases, analyze the technique of current cross-border fraud crimes and the predicament of practical operations, in order to bring up a more efficient solve channel to both sides and a reference to investigate cross-border fraud crimes.

Through this study, after the Cross-strait Joint Fight against Crime and Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement works, according to the statistics about fraud case analyzed by National Police Agency, from the second half of 2009, the number of cases has a tendency to decrease. It shows that signing the agreement can deter the occurrence of cross-border fraud cases effectively indeed. The current fraud trick used by con artist group can be summarized as faking judicial official fraud , shopping online fraud, ATM transfer accounts fraud, and so on. Furthermore, after signing the agreement, Police agencies on both sides still have some problems in cooperation in combating crimes, for example, first, political factors; second, the difference of the main detection; third, the evidence capacity issues of investigation; forth, lack of consultation in exchanging information; fifth, the integration of pertinent authority; sixth, cooperation in criminal matters is more less than the international judicial mutual assistance. Therefore, this study proposes the following specific recommendations: first, realize the fact of divide, avoid the dispute of sovereignty; second, station dedicated liaison officers, establish network of intelligence contacts; third, establish 『two investigative subjects』system; forth, feasibility of video evidence; fifth, law enforcement agencies should strengthen ties with financial institutions, combating money laundering between the two sides; sixth, promote the interflow of police and academic between Cross-strait; seventh, establish cooperation mechanisms in combating crime with the Hong Kong and Macao police; eighth, expand cooperation in combating fraud crime with third place; ninth, cross-strait consultations should reinforce the agreement in the future.

並列關鍵字

emerging fraud group ； cross-border crime ； cooperation mechanisms

參考文獻

張福昌（2009）。歐洲聯盟反恐政策初探。歐洲國際評論，5，109-145。

曾進忠（2010）。資通訊詐欺犯罪特性及歷程之研究（碩士論文，國立臺北大學）。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。（系統編號fb130805201006）。

張智雄（2011）。通訊詐欺犯罪行為特性與模式之研究（碩士論文，國立臺北大學）。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。（系統編號fb130805201305）。

劉志偉（2006）。我國因應非傳統安全威脅之研究—以處理跨國犯罪為例（未出版碩士論文）。私立淡江大學，新北市，臺灣。

孟維德（2005）。海峽兩岸跨境犯罪之實證研究-以人口走私活動為例。刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集，8，137-183。