我國經濟犯罪偵查困境之芻論

經濟犯罪之相關證物，須經研判內容，而非鑑識文件之真偽，其各項與傳統犯罪不同之特點，皆致使偵查機關於偵查時面臨困境。或有謂因經濟犯罪之犯罪黑數高居不下，認為應該採取嚴刑峻法之重刑化政策，以提高制裁之嚴重性，遏阻經濟犯罪；但偵處之重點應為遭受處罰之機率，而非刑度之高低，隨著機率之提升，則刑罰之嚇阻力必定增加。隨著公訴裁量權的擴大和非刑罰化潮流之發展，公訴不再以追究犯罪和懲罰犯罪為唯一目的，而有助於公共利益之矯正犯罪、修復法治秩序，才是檢察官首先要考慮的價值，故美國於安隆（Enron）案後，從原先所採取之提高層級、積極訴追，演變至今之利用緩起訴協議（deferred prosecution agreement）與不起訴協議（non-prosecution agreement）方式，要求犯罪企業配合調查，繳交罰款等處理模式，或可為我國建構經濟犯罪偵查機制之借鏡。

關鍵字

經濟犯罪；偵查程序；緩起訴協議；不起訴協議

並列摘要

Related evidences of economic crime should judge content rather than forensic authenticity of documents. Its characteristics differs from the traditional crime, resulting the investigating authorities are facing diffi culties at the time of the investigation procedure. Because the dark fi gure of crime of economic crime remains high, that we should adopt draconian policies of heavy penalty to increase the severity of sanctions and deter economic crime. But the focus of the investigation procedure should be the probability of punishment, rather than the punishment itself. With the enhancement of probability is thereby bound to increase the deterrent punishment. The development of the expansion of prosecutorial discretion and the trend of decriminalization, the prosecution and punishment of crime are no longer the sole purpose of the prosecution. The prosecutor considers at fi rst is the value of public interest and repair order by correction crime. Just like the Enron case in the U.S., the investigative procedure improved the level and active prosecution at first, then use the way of deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) and the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and the mode of enterprises cooperating with the investigation and to pay fines and other processing. American practice is a useful reference for our country’s Economic Crime Investigation Mechanism.