台籍電信詐欺嫌犯在第三國被遣送中國大陸案之爭議

Controversy Over Deportation to Mainland China for Taiwanese Nationals Suspected in Third Countries on Telecoms Fraud Cases

李傑清(Jye-Ching Lee)

《刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集》 19集 (2016/12) Pp. 37-55

https://doi.org/10.6482/ECPCR.201612.0002

摘要

近期我國在政黨輪替之際，突然傳來遠在肯亞的台籍詐欺嫌犯再次被遣送至中國大陸而引起軒然大波，且接續馬來西亞及柬埔寨的台嫌遣陸案不禁讓人質疑相關案件的真實情況如何？我國司法主權是否受到侵犯？兩岸協議是否適用於兩岸人民在第三國的犯罪行為？對於在第三國被查緝之台籍詐欺嫌犯，是否曾經協商確立「各自帶回的原則」？又該原則是否符合國際法管轄權的法理或刑法空間效力的規定？頗值吾人深入探討。最後，本文將從我國與第三國或中國大陸協商管轄權、管轄權確認後之協商重點等之觀點，提出我國爭取台籍電信詐欺嫌犯返台審理的刑事政策，以拋磚引玉，供各界參考。

關鍵字

電信詐欺 ； 兩岸協議 ； 管轄權 ； 刑法空間效力 ； 刑事司法互助

並列摘要

Recently during party alternation in Taiwan, a great disturbance rose abruptly on the matter that Taiwanese nationals suspected on fraud cases far from Kenya were repeatedly deported to mainland China; and then successively, Taiwanese suspects were deported from Malaysia and Cambodia to mainland China, making people wonder about what the truth of relevant cases is? Whether Taiwanese judicial sovereignty has been impinged upon? Whether cross-strait agreements are applicable to the crimes committed in third countries by the people of cross-straits? Whether negotiations have ever concluded that Taiwanese nationals, as suspects investigated and seized in third countries for fraud cases, should comply with the principle that ＂criminal suspects be taken back to their origins＂? Or such principle is consistent with the international law with respect to the legal theory of jurisdiction or to the regulations on penal spatial effectiveness? These are the subjects worth thinking deeply about. Eventually, this paper will review the negotiations for jurisdiction with third countries or with China, and the key points involved in these negotiations after confirming the jurisdiction, such that viewpoints on criminal policy may be presented in striving for repatriation and hearing in Taiwanese courts for the Taiwanese nationals suspected on the telecoms fraud cases, in an attempt to invite more valuable remarks and to welcome for anyone's references.

並列關鍵字

telecoms fraud ； cross-strait agreements ； jurisdiction ； penal spatial effectiveness ； criminal judiciary mutual assistance