兩岸共同打擊跨境詐欺犯罪及其遣返問題之研究：（3+1）i決策模型研究之途徑

A Study of Cross-strait Common Fight Against Cross-border Fraud Crime and Repatriation：Pathway of (3+1) i Decision Model Research

鍾榮欣(JUNG-HSIN CHUNG)

指導教授 ： 宋學文

國立中正大學/社會科學院/戰略暨國際事務研究所/碩士(2016年)

摘要

兩岸之間本存在許多犯罪類型，但歸納近年相關資料，以詐欺犯罪為當前最嚴重之組織犯罪問題，主因於詐欺犯罪本身不受限於地域環境的影響，但該類犯罪發生地點於境外區域，故產生了此跨境之問題，而詐騙方式種類多元，並無一定型態，因此於兩岸共同打擊犯罪中，「跨境詐欺犯罪」儼然成為兩岸間重要的國家安全政策之一。
此外，該犯罪類型主要係利用我方和陸方同文同種之語言共通性，來進行詐欺犯罪行為，但兩岸之間卻因雙方彼此長期政治分治，造成犯罪情報交流的不透明性、國際環境上的主權認同及溝通平台的不平等政治因素，延伸了詐欺犯罪於緝捕後之跨境遣返問題；因此犯罪類型之行為不僅影響我國國民生財產安全，更造成雙方經濟面的重大影響，綜合上述內容，故將「兩岸共同打擊跨境詐欺犯罪及其遣返問題」列為本研究重點。
本研究目標以「跨境」、「遣返問題」及「兩岸共同打擊」等層面為研究方向，並透過(3+1)i決策模型作為主要的研究方法，以探討發展兩岸共同為針對犯罪衍生的遣返機制架構，並在此架構下同時分析我國目前國際政治面與兩岸政治面之環境與主權認同。而本研究架構大致分成四個角度，分別為理念、利益、制度化以及民眾與新聞媒體反饋，藉由這個分析架構希望能跨出兩岸政治區隔，進一步的實現兩岸跨境詐欺犯罪遣返之相互交流政策目標，使我國相關警政機構對於犯罪遣返交流更加完善，並對於推展兩岸犯罪資訊交換及提升能有所助益。

關鍵字

兩岸共同打擊 ； 跨境 ； 詐欺犯罪 ； 遣返 ； (3+1)i決策模型

並列摘要

Many types of crime exist between the two straits. However, the summary of relevant data in recent years shows that fraud crime is currently the most serious organized crime, mainly due to the fact that fraud crime itself is not bound by the geographic location. Since this type of crime takes place in offshore areas, cross-border problems result. On the other hand, fraud crime has great diversity, without certain patterns. Therefore, “cross-strait fraud crime” has become one of the major national security policies between the two sides in cross-strait common fight against crime.
In addition, this type of crime takes advantage of Taiwan and China’s being of the same language and the same race, and this language commonality leads to fraud offenses. However, the long-term political partition between the two sides has resulted in criminal intelligence opacity, while unequal sovereignty identity and communication platform in the international environment and other political factors have deepened the problem of cross-border fraud repatriation after arrest. Therefore, crime type behaviors not only affect the life and property of our citizens, but also cause a major impact on both sides’ economic aspect. In view of the above content, “cross-strait common fight for cross-border crime and repatriation” has been listed as the focus of this study.
Through “cross border”, “repatriation problem” and “common cross-strait fight” aspects as the research directions and with the (3+1) i decision model as the main research method, the cross-strait development of a repatriation mechanism framework targeting crime was explored. At the same time, under this framework, Taiwan’s current international political and cross-strait environment and sovereignty identity were analyzed. The research framework is divided into four perspectives: concepts, interests, systems, and public and news media feedbacks. Through this analysis framework, it is expected that both sides exchange their cross-strait cross-border fraud repatriation policy objectives without being bound by cross-strait politics, thereby perfecting Taiwan’s police agencies’ crime repatriation exchanges and benefit the promotion of cross-strait information exchange and enhancement.

並列關鍵字

cross-strait common fight against ； cross-border ； fraud crime ； repatriation ； (3+1)i decision model

參考文獻

李傑清，洗錢防制的課題與展望（台北：法務部調查局，2006年）。

廖宗聖、林燦璋，「主權觀念轉變下的刑事司法互助模式之探討」，中正法學集刊，第35期(2011年10月)，頁1-73。

李毓峰，「論兩岸治理機制之建構：結構、路徑和制度化」，全球政治評論，第38期(2012年4月)，頁85-108。

林錦村，「論海峽兩岸之刑事司法協助」，法令月刊，第47期第12卷(1996年12月)，頁18-25。

林青瑾，從防制電信詐欺犯罪探討兩岸司法互助之研究，淡江大學國際事務與戰略研究所碩士論文，2013年。