論特殊洗錢罪之立法與實務發展

我國的洗錢防制法係於1996年立法完成，使得我國成為亞洲第一個設立洗錢專法的國家，然而隨著時代的演進，犯罪者對於洗錢之手法推陳出新，國際間對於防制洗錢之管制手段亦不斷做出修正，在此背景下，我國原有的洗錢防制法似乎漸漸無法與國際接軌。為了解決此問題，因此我國於2016年對於洗錢防制法進行大幅度之修正，而本文所要探討的特殊洗錢罪，亦是於此次修法中所增訂。由於特殊洗錢罪之增訂，是移植了我國鮮少參考的澳洲法，然而澳洲法之體系畢竟與我國法體系不相同，因此本罪名是否能夠與我國的洗錢犯罪體系相容，即值得探究。為了釐清特殊洗錢罪於我國法之定位及運用，因此本文將由兩角度切入探討，分別是本罪法釋義學之討論及我國實務判決之分析。就本罪法釋義學討論的部分：首先，由於特殊洗錢罪之「特殊」，是相較於洗錢防制法中所規定的普通洗錢罪而來，因此本文將先探討我國整體洗錢犯罪架構，以了解特殊洗錢罪的「特殊之處」。接著，本文將由特殊洗錢罪之保護法益爭論切入，探討特殊洗錢罪各構成要件所面臨的解釋疑難，並試圖提出較為合理之解釋策略。而就我國實務判決之分析部分，本文蒐集了自特殊洗錢罪訂立至今，實務上曾經適用特殊洗錢罪所做出之判決，並對這些判決之內容加以分析。本文發現實務上適用特殊洗錢罪之判決，大多數都屬於無罪判決，且在本罪共三款的事由運用上，僅有第2款適用次數較多，而第1款及第3款之適用屈指可數。接著，本文並對判決理由進行分析，發現法院對於本罪要件的解釋，大多是採取限縮解釋的策略，或是為本罪加上不成文的要件，以限縮本罪的成罪範圍。而實務上如此的運用情形，其實已與法條文字，或是立法者當初的立法構想有所歧異。就結論而言，本文認為特殊洗錢罪之立法，不論是在法條文字或立法脈絡上，都存在許多疑義。因此在現行法下，實務上亦僅能以限縮解釋，或是跳脫法條文字的方法來適用本罪，然而即使是採取這樣的解釋策略，特殊洗錢罪在實務上真正成罪的案例亦寥寥無幾，令人質疑特殊洗錢罪在我國訂立之實益。因此本文認為，若要使得特殊洗錢罪更加融入我國的法體系，立法者應該重新設計本罪的要件，將我國實務上根本未適用過，或甚少適用的列舉事由刪除，並重新理解洗錢犯罪的核心，以使得特殊洗錢罪確實能夠作為補足普通洗錢罪處罰漏洞，而能夠有效攔截洗錢犯罪的罪名，如此特殊洗錢罪之存在才具有實益可言。

關鍵字

洗錢防制法；洗錢；特殊洗錢罪；妨礙司法；透明金流；車手

並列摘要

More than two decades have now passed since Taiwan established the Money Laundering Control Act in 1996, which became the first specific law to control money laundering in Asia. The government promoted amendments to the Act in 2016 in response to the considerable evolution in the worldwide anti-money laundering control. In newly-amended Money Laundering Control Act, the crime of special money laundering offenses was promulgated. This crime was inherited from Australia Criminal Law, which was different from the legal system of Taiwan law. As a result, this article attempts to analyze the content of special money laundering offenses, and to understand how to interpret the newly-promulgated crime under existing money laundering structure in the legal system of Taiwan. In order to clarify the content of special money laundering offenses, this article looks into special money laundering offenses in two aspects, including the interpretation of the elements, and the development of judicial practices. Regarding the interpretation of the elements of special money laundering offenses, this article first introduces the overall structure of money laundering offenses in order to clarify how “special” it is between special money laundering offenses and normal money laundering offenses. On the following, this article analyzes the protective interest of special money laundering offenses to discuss the difficulties faced when interpreting the elements of special money laundering offenses. On the other hand, regarding the aspect of judicial development of special money laundering offenses, this article collects cases regarding special money laundering offenses from 2016 through July, 2020, and focuses on analyzing the classifications of cases, and the judges' thinking process. In conclusion, this article suggests that under the legal texts of the existing law, the crime of special money laundering offenses shall be interpreted narrowly to avoid the expansion of punishment. Moreover, in terms of the judicial practice, the statistics show that the promulgation of special money laundering offenses does not have great impacts on the development of judicial practice as expected, indicating that this crime shall be amended to adjust to the judicial practice in Taiwan more properly.