評新修正洗錢犯罪及實務近期動向

A Review on the Amendment to Money Laundering Offenses: Focusing on the Development of Taiwan's Criminal Practice

許恒達(Heng-Da Hsu)

《臺大法學論叢》 48卷S期 (2019/11) Pp. 1435-1502

https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.201911_48(SP).0003

摘要

本文討論新修正洗錢防制法後，如何解釋同法第14條的普通洗錢罪與第15條特殊洗錢罪的問題，並以我國實務上最重要的兩類案例：人頭帳戶提供者與車手是否構成洗錢罪作為中心，以保護法益為中心檢討普通洗錢罪與特殊洗錢罪的合理性，並提出本文對於這兩則罪名的解釋建議：（1）普通或特殊洗錢罪，均保護前置犯罪的司法權能，此即前置犯罪追訴、定罪、處罰等效果的有效實現；所謂透明金流的保護，僅屬反射利益，而非核心的保護內涵。（2）普通洗錢罪應該以掩飾隱恐犯罪所得作為基本行為態樣，而移轉、變更、收受、持有、使用犯罪所得均為其具體類型；（3）特殊洗錢罪則以無特定前置犯罪作為適用前提，其行為必須達到實行各款所要求的異常金融交易行為，否則不成立特殊洗錢罪。（4）人頭帳戶提供者至多構成移轉型普通洗錢罪的幫助犯，但須以提供者知悉洗錢行為內容為前提。（5）車手不成立特殊洗錢罪。至若構成詐欺罪幫助犯，則不應再論洗錢罪名，若不成立詐欺罪幫助犯，則可考慮成立收受型洗錢罪。

關鍵字

洗錢罪 ； 特殊洗錢罪 ； 人頭帳戶 ； 車手 ； 司法權限 ； 透明金流

並列摘要

This article aims to discuss how to interpret the amendment to Money Laundering Control Act (MLCA). Discussion will focus on general money laundering offense (Paragraph 14 MLCA) and special money laundering offense (Paragraph 15 MLCA) together with two important cases in Taiwan's criminal justice: provider of dummy account as well as money mule. In addition, the author tries to justify the punishment of money laundering on the basis of its protective interests and propose a different point of view for legitimate judicial mechanism applicable to money laundering offenses: (1) Not only general, but also special money laundering offense protect the judicial administration of the predicate crime with regard to its effective conviction, sentencing and sanction. The transparency of cash flow should not constitute the core ground for the incrimination of money laundering. (2) ＂Disguise or conceal the crime proceeds＂ should be deemed as the fundamental act of general money laundering offense. Nevertheless, ＂transfer, transform, acquire, possess or use the crime proceeds＂ should be defined as an alternative act of ＂disguising or concealment of the crime proceeds＂ in terms of general money laundering offense. (3) Special money laundering offense is not applicable to those cases in which the predicate crime has been confirmed. (4) ＂Dummy account provider＂ may only constitute the accessory of money laundering through transferring the crime proceeds, if he knows the accomplices will use the dummy account for further transfer of the crime proceeds to escape from criminal investigation. (5) ＂Money mule＂, who withdraws the crime proceeds from the bank account, may not commit the special money laundering offense, since the predicate crime has been identified. He may not constitute the general money laundering offense, if his involvement in the commission of the predicate crime, even as an accessory, is confirmed by court. However, he can commit general money laundering offense by possessing the crime proceeds, if he is not involved in commission of the predicate crime.

並列關鍵字

money laundering ； special money laundering ； provider of dummy account ； money mule ； judicial administration ； transparency of cash flow

參考文獻

王皇玉（2013），〈洗錢罪之研究：從實然面到規範面之檢驗〉，《政大法學評論》，132期，頁215-260。

許恒達（2017），〈國際法規範與刑事立法：兼評近期刑事法修訂動向〉，《臺大法學論叢》，46卷特刊，頁1257-1330。

許恒達（2018），〈評析特殊洗錢罪的新立法〉，收於：法務部司法官學院（編），《刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集（21）》，頁95-117，臺北：法務部司法官學院。

李秉錡（2019），〈探討提款車手應如何適用洗錢防制法：評六件高等法院之判決〉，《月旦裁判時報》，79期，頁67-80。

林志潔（2014），〈洗錢犯罪與犯罪收益之定義：從United States v. Santos案看美國反洗錢法之新發展〉，《科技法學評論》，11卷2期，頁1-40。