反思新法利得沒收之性質與範圍

我國近年接連不斷的食品安全案件，引起社會巨大關注，在司法審理期間舊制利得沒收的缺失也顯露無遺，我國遂於2015年年底大幅修訂刑法沒收章節，擴張沒收之主體、客體、範圍與適用之程序，以回應社會期待。而本次修法最具關鍵地位的，正是重新定位利得沒收之性質，將其從舊法之「從刑」改定為「刑罰、保安處分以外之法律效果」及「類似（準）不當得利之衡平措施」，不過對於這兩項性質的實質內涵，立法理由卻未多著墨，學說也多僅從反面陳述之「刑罰、保安處分以外之法律效果」切入說明新制利得沒收與刑罰、保安處分之異同，鮮少說明正面陳述之「類似（準）不當得利之衡平措施」，是本文擬從立法理由指示之民法、公法上不當得利制度著手，探究此項定性。　　經考察我國民法、公法上不當得利制度後，發現由於新法利得沒收之立法理由明示沒收犯罪成本，造成其認定利得之範圍與其他領域不當得利制度顯有不同，而此項差異也正是總額、淨額原則之爭論重心。於檢視總額、淨額原則論者之論述後，本文認為總額原則論者之說理有其邏輯缺失，及利得沒收確實因採取總額原則造成其性質轉變成「（類似）刑罰」，而與立法預期之定性有所衝突。本文遂藉由基礎的法學解釋方法及比例原則之檢驗，認為在現行法下仍存有採取淨額原則之可能，並經由相關實證資料質疑總額原則論者所宣稱之預防效益，而認採取總額原則將違反比例原則，因而結論上主張對現行法進行合憲性解釋、限縮立法理由所稱之總額原則適用範圍。　　最後，本文針對舊法時期已然存在之一部上訴與撤銷、共犯連帶沒收、犯罪成本沒收與回溯適用議題，觀察實務在新法修正後之說理，發現其論述之模式並未有顯著之改變，且前述內涵不明的「刑罰、保安處分以外之法律效果」及「類似（準）不當得利之衡平措施」兩項性質已取代舊法實務所創之「從刑說」，成為實務解釋相關議題時所用之替換標籤。　　文末，本文以「風險社會」理論省思本次沒收及其後特別刑法擴大沒收之推動，認為身為法律解釋、適用者的我們，在無法抵擋風險社會下社會渴求安全與立法者便宜行事的趨勢下，仍應堅持法律論理與原則。

關鍵字

沒收；利得沒收；不當得利；準不當得利衡平措施；犯罪成本；總額原則；淨額原則

並列摘要

The Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act has undergone a significant transformation in Taiwan in 2015. This transformation is attributed to re-defining the nature of criminal confiscation. In the new act, legislators no longer recognize the criminal proceeds confiscation as a kind of “punishment”, but considers it to be an "independent measure differing from the punishment and the rehabilitative measure", which is also a kind of "quasi-unjustified enrichment" in criminal law. 　　Although the foregoing two natures are quite important to the overall criminal confiscation system, there is less in-depth study in the country, and the discussion on “quasi-unjustified enrichment” is even rarer. This thesis is aim to clairify these two natures. Firstly, the article finds that the legislative grounds indicate that the scope of confiscation includes the cost of crime, which will make the nature of the proceeds confiscation no longer as presupposed by the legislator, but will change its nature into some kind of “punishment”. Secondly, this paper examines the new act by the principle of proportionality, and finds that the criminal prevention effect claimed by the legislators is not as expected. However, it is quiet clear that new act has violated the property rights of defendants and third parties, and has destroyed the principle of culpability. In conclusion, this thesis argues that only the defendants can be confiscated their costs of crime.

並列關鍵字

confiscation ； criminal proceeds confiscation ； unjustified enrichment ； quasi-unjustified enrichment ； cost of crime ； gross value principle ； net profit principle