論我國沒收新制──美國沒收法制之借鏡與啟發

Comment on the New Provisions of Criminal Confiscation－Lessons from the Inspiration of the U.S. Forfeiture System

呂倩茹(Chien-Ju Lu)

《法令月刊》 68卷1期 (2017/01) Pp. 134-163

https://doi.org/10.6509/TLM.2017.6801.05

摘要

我國因近年來之食安風暴，希藉由建構沒收體系，並擴大沒收範圍，以透過利得沒收制度，解決經濟犯罪之問題，惟新法於刑事沒收制度之修訂，囿限在刑事法體系框架下，仍遺留不少待解之結。而美國之沒收制度，可追溯至英國之財產沒收法，依聯邦法設立有三個沒收程序，包括了行政沒收、民事沒收、刑事沒收等三種；將「犯罪人」、「涉及犯罪之財產利益」加以區別，無論刑事責任成立與否，藉由刑事政策，針對一切便利犯罪之財產，以民事沒收程序，獨立執行沒收；各種沒收制度各有不同之程序規範，及執行機關選擇適用程序之原因亦有所異同。 我國是否可就於被告不明或無法到庭之情況，並依憲法保障正當程序權利之比例原則，合理規範沒收範圍，於考量執法之需求成效、執行之便利、制度之優劣比較後，參考美國民事沒收制度，作為進一步思考改進之方向，以求打擊犯罪所得，進而沒收因犯罪之不法獲得。

關鍵字

沒收 ； 利得沒收 ； 準不當得利 ； 保全程序

並列摘要

In recent years, due to the food sanitary crisis, our government hope to construct and expand the scope of forfeiture system, so that profits could have been confiscated by the government and solve the problem of economic crime. But the new specification is limited by the criminal confiscation scheme, and under the framework of the criminal law system that there are still a lot of issues to be solved. The forfeiture system of US dated back to the property forfeiture laws of UK. There are three kinds of forfeiture procedure under Federal law, including three kinds of forfeiture of criminal assets. The forfeiture system distinguish between ＂Offender＂ and ＂property interest of crime.＂ According to the criminal policy, whether the criminal liability is established or not, the property which could promote the crime should be enforced for forfeiture independently. There are different procedures for every kind of forfeiture system. The reasons of the executive organs to select the applicable procedures are also different. Whether the situation of the defendant is unknown or unavailable in court and accordance with the principle of proportionality of the legitimate right guaranteed by the Constitution to reasonable standard the scope of forfeiture. Then we should consider the needs of the effectiveness of law enforcement, the implementation of facilitation, compared with the pros and cons of the system. Then reference to the US forfeiture of criminal assets as a further reflection on the direction of future improvement. In order to combat the proceeds of crime, and then confiscate illegal profit of the crime.

並列關鍵字

Forfeiture of Criminal Assets ； Criminal Proceeds Confiscation ； Quasi-Unjustified Enrichment ； the Procedure of Preservation

參考文獻

曾淑瑜（2012），〈犯罪所得沒收追徵及保全程序之研究〉，《軍法專刊》，58 卷2 期，頁41-66。

楊雲驊（2014），《刑事司法互助法之比較研究—以我國現況為中心》，法務部102 年度委託研究計畫。臺北：法務部。

蔡志宏（2014），〈比法人罰金刑更重要的事〉，《自由時報電子報》，http://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/828883（ 最後瀏覽日：2016/8/29）。

蘇龍麒（2016），〈設強制處分專庭司法院有意見〉，《中央社即時新聞》，http://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/201605190135-1.aspx（ 最後瀏覽日：2016/8/24）。

Cassella, Stefan D.(2007),Asset Forfeiture Law in the United States. Huntington: JurisNet.