證券交易法第171條第1項證券犯罪之研究—以鑑識會計訴訟支援與量刑為核心

現今訴訟審理逐漸走向專業化，於財經犯罪刑事案件中亦漸有鑑識會計訴訟支援之需求。我國商業事件審理法設置商業法院並引進專家證人制度、法院組織法亦設立民事與刑事大法庭，使其認有必要時得依職權選任專家學者到庭陳述法律意見；司法改革會議分組決議亦建議研擬並制訂完善專家證人制度，此等乃關注於我國司法案件中就專家協助之角色就應定位為法官之輔佐人或證人而有不同相應之規範。本文基於被告訴訟權利之保護與保障被告提出有利證據的權利，主張應以專家證人制度取代鑑定制度，提供更多證據與資訊供法院進行審理判斷之依據，而在專家到庭參與與接受詰問之方式，又可再細分為律師對其交互詰問、專家間之對質與提問、專家會議之召開等多種模式。其中澳洲的Hot Tub制度行之有年，或可有供我國參考學習之處，亦將於本文一併探討。此外，在專家證人制度研究中，無資力被告之訴訟支援權，以及實行訴訟支援之會計師是否有與當事人秘匿特權之適用，亦為應研究探討之重要議題。本文透過比較法分析，簡介美國法上之專家證人制度與專家證人報酬之給付，並由美國法上標竿案例Ake v. Oklahoma案談起，探討無資力之被告在刑事訴訟案件中是否具有專家證人訴訟支援權、其權利之範圍，以及在肯認具有專家證人訴訟支援權之前提下，應如何尋找有意願之專家證人及其專家報酬之經費來源。並輔以質性訪談研究方法，點出我國刑事訴訟制度中可能存在檢察官裁量權應否擴大、認罪協商制度之落實、法院詰問制度之運作等議題，以就我國現行實務運作現況為呈現，並為我國學術與實務界之參考。此外，我國於刑事訴訟法與民事訴訟法中制定之「拒絕證言權」規範，與「與當事人秘匿特權」間應如何具體適用亦值探討。而提供訴訟支援之會計師，亦因其提供訴訟支援之服務係單純擔任律師之諮詢顧問角色或出庭之專家證人而不同，前者因身為律師之代理人，協助當事人獲得律師之適切法律意見，而應有與當事人秘匿特權之適用；後者則因專家證人應出庭接受交互詰問以驗證其專家適格與證言可信性，故此時如被告委任專家證人出庭證述，即視為當事人自願放棄與當事人秘匿特權。於審判之後，另一重要卻倍受忽視者為量刑議題。本文透過比較法分析，簡介美國法上有關量刑準則之運作與量刑程序之進行，希望借鏡美國實務之經驗，並以質性訪談研究方法，針對我國證券犯罪量刑實體法與程序法提出立法建議。在實體法上，本文提出「量刑建議表」模式，將量刑因子予以抽象化，搭配程序法之修正，將認定有罪與否之審判程序與量刑程序分離，並要求被告與其辯護人、檢察官針對量刑建議表於該個案中應具體適用之量刑因子以書狀表示意見、提出證據並進行辯論，以供法院裁量並進行量刑判決。法官於判決書內應詳述量刑理由，以供兩造上訴時得以具體爭執。本文針對證券交易法第171條第1項證券犯罪之專家參與制度之選擇、無資力被告訴訟支援權、會計師與當事人秘匿特權，以及量刑議題就我國現行實務運作現況為呈現，並提出立法建議，期為我國學術與實務界之參考。

關鍵字

證券犯罪；鑑識會計；訴訟支援；量刑；鑑定；專家證人

並列摘要

Nowadays, the litigation procedure is forward to professionalization. The demand for litigation support in financial crimes cases is gradually increasing. This article focuses on the right to the expert assistance of an indigent defendant, the Accountant-Client Privilege and the sentencing policy of the securities crime. Based on the comparative perspective of the United States’ legal system and empirical research, the article provides many useful legislative suggestions to the legal system of Taiwan. First, this article introduces the expert witness in the United States legal system and analyzes the leading case: Ake v. Oklahoma. The purpose of this research is to study whether an indigent defendant has the right to expert assistance in criminal cases. To be more specific, how they can exercise this right, how to find an expert who has the willingness to assist the case, and what is the financial resource to support this legal system. To deeply understand the legal system and litigation situation in Taiwan, this study adopted the interview research method and provided the perspective of accounting professor, accountant, and the litigation attorney. Based on their professional opinion, to further analyze the demands of the indigent defendant to hire an expert, whether should the legal system to endow the defendant the right to elect their expert. On the other hand, it probably exists some critical issues in Taiwan’s legal system, such as the discretion of the prosecutor, the plea bargaining system and the right of Judges to interrogate the expert witness. Second, whether an accountant has the Accountant-Client Privilege is an important issue to enact the expert witness. The Criminal Procedure Code and Civil Procedure Code endow attorney the right of refusal to testify. However, the person who has this specific right is attorney rather than the client. The outcome probably impedes the client to disclose confidential information to her attorney and results in the substantive effective defense did not exist. On the other hand, the accountant, as an expert to provide litigation support service, can be divided into two situations. First, if they only served as a consultant to the attorney, the client should have the Accountant-Client Privilege. Second, if the accountant is a testifying expert, in order to verify the quality and the reliance of the expert testimony, the client regarded as waive her privilege. This study may lead to a better understanding of the Attorney-Client Privilege, Accountant-Client Privilege and the legislative proposals of the right of refusal to testify. Third, this article introduces the sentencing guideline and sentencing procedure in the United States legal system. The purpose of this research aims to provide legislative suggestion to Taiwan’s substantive and procedure of the Sentencing Policy of the Securities Exchange Act of paragraph 1 of Article 171 by learning for the United States’ experience. To deeply understand the legal system and litigation situation in Taiwan, this study adopted the interview research method and provided the perspective of judges and the litigation attorney. In substantive law, this article designs a sentencing table to analyze the sentencing factors. In procedure law, it suggests to separate the adjudication and sentencing procedure, and requires judges to state the detail reasons for the sentencing decision. Therefore, the defendants and prosecutors can argue the legality of the sentencing decision in the appeal. This study hopes to establish a systematic structure of sentencing policy and contributes to improving Taiwan’s legal system.