透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.139.81.58
  • 期刊

國際刑事司法互助之雙方可罰性原則規範模式分析-併論其於洗錢防制之規範模式

Analyzing the Regulating Model of the Principle of Dual Criminality in the International Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters- and the Regulating Model thereof in Money Laundering Prevention

摘要


過於僵化之雙方可罰原則,對刑事司法互助之廣泛運用顯然有礙,故近年來之國際公約、條約、司法互助協定及各國內國法對雙方可罰原則,大都採取緩解或放棄適用之趨勢,以調和雙方可罰原則與活絡刑事司法互助之關係。在刑事司法互助之具體實踐上,其緩解或放棄適用雙方可罰原則之規範模式,卻極為分歧。我國相關之法律、條約、刑事司法互助協定及洗錢防制法關於「雙方可罰原則」之規範模式與「40項建議」等國際公約之規範模式是否相符?值得予以歸類分析,可供我國實務適用上產生疑義及未來修法時之參考。

並列摘要


The principle of dual criminality narrows the use of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters when it is applied without any flexibility. As a result, there is a trend to apply the principle more loosely or to refrain from the application of the principle altogether in the international conventions, treaties, mutual legal assistance agreements and domestic laws in recent years so as to coordinate the relation between the application of the principle and the encouragement of the broader use of mutual legal assistance. With regard to the mutual legal assistance in criminal matters in practice, in order to loosening up the application of the dual criminality principle, different methods including excluding the application of the principle or to substitute with the abstract dual criminality principle to narrow the application of the principle of dual criminality, ruling out the application of the principle in whole or in part by the requested country are adopted in the international conventions, treaties, mutual legal assistance agreements and domestic laws. However, how to loosely apply or cease the application of the principle is quite diversified with regard to the implementation of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. Is the regulation of the principle of dual criminality in the relevant laws, treaties, mutual legal assistance agreements and the Money Laundering Control Act in Taiwan in conformity with the regulation of international conventions including the FATF 40 Recommendations? It is worthwhile to categorize and analyze the regulation thereof so as to provide as reference for future application and amendment.

參考文獻


外交部(2013),〈條約協定(司法類):引渡〉,http://no06.mofa.gov.tw/mofatreatys/Result.aspx?tysubject_c=%e5%bc%95%e6%b8%a1&tysubject_e=%e5%bc%95%e6%b8%a1&tysubject_o=%e5%bc%95%e6%b8%a1&tycountry_c=&tycountry_e=&tyeffectivedate=&tyeffectivedateE=&tysigneddate=&tysigneddateE=&start=Y&tykeyword=&Order=Signing (最後瀏覽日:2018/4/16)。
吳天雲(2016)。本國人不引渡、雙方可罰主義與證據標準—以日本基因間諜事件為例。檢察新論。20,258-271。
法務部(2017),〈與我國簽有刑事司法互助協定( 議) 之國家〉,https://www.moj.gov.tw/lp-149-001.html(最後瀏覽日:2018/4/16)
楊雲驊編、王文杰編(2017)。新洗錢防制法—法令遵循實務分析。臺北:元照。
楊雲驊()。

延伸閱讀