2019年刑事法實務回顧：詐欺集團的洗錢罪責

在2016年大幅修正洗錢防制法之後，詐欺集團的提供人頭帳戶與車手提款在成立共同或幫助詐欺罪之外，是否另外成立洗錢罪，成為實務重要卻難解的問題，故本文擇定2019年最高法院與高等法院之相關判決作為回顧對象。本文指出，新洗錢防制法的政策目標是打擊犯罪和維護金融秩序，但是從洗錢罪的構成要件及法律效果來看，其具體任務在於透過保全國家沒收犯罪所得的請求權，間接達成保護前置犯罪法益的最終目標。依此，普通洗錢罪及特殊洗錢罪的適用範圍，限定於行為人所處置之財產利益屬於國家可得（擴大）沒收的犯罪所得，二者皆以行為人實施洗錢防制法第2條各款的洗錢行為為必要條件。基於此一立場，本文認定提供人頭帳戶不該當於第2條的洗錢行為，無法成立洗錢罪，僅可能成立幫助（加重）詐欺罪。相對地，車手加入詐欺集團及提款行為，難以成立共同或幫助（加重）詐欺罪，但是提領現金及偽造轉帳目的之匯款，具有掩飾隱匿犯罪所得的作用，得成立普通或特殊洗錢罪。

關鍵字

普通洗錢罪；特殊洗錢罪；詐欺罪；犯罪所得沒收；詐欺集團；人頭帳戶；車手

並列摘要

The Anti-Money Laundering Law was drastically amended in 2016. After the amendment, the question of whether the providers of dummy accounts and money mules who withdraw money besides being the aider of fraud will also commit the crime of money laundering has become a difficult insoluble in law practice. Therefore, this article will review the judgments in 2019. This article points out that the new edition of Anti-Money Laundering Law aims at cracking down on crime and maintaining the financial order. However, from the criminal elements and legal effects of money laundering, the concrete purpose is to assure the right of recourse of criminal proceeds of the state, and the terminal objective is to protect the legal interest. According to this opinion, the scope of money laundering and special money laundering is limited to the situation that the state can confiscate the involving property interest and the actor has implemented the money laundering actions of Article 2. Each money-laundering action has different effects on jeopardizing the right of recourse of confiscation of the state. Therefore, the action of providing dummy accounts isn't a money-laundering action, the provider can only be the aider of fraud. As to money mules who participate in fraud gangs and withdraw money will not be the aider of fraud, but they commit the crime of (special) money laundering because the action of withdrawing and transferring money will cover and hide the resources of criminal proceeds.