兩岸司法(警察)機關以往對共同打擊犯罪雖有心突破,但受限於政治因素,高層風向不定,中高層以下執行面人員囿於權限,有時只能揣摩上意,自行評估風險,致彼此無法充分合作,也使得兩岸共同打擊犯罪僅能個案進行,而非制度化解決。2009年4月26日,兩岸簽署「海峽兩岸共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協議」(以下簡稱「協議」)後,雙方治安機關在打擊跨境犯罪上,有了重大的突破及挑戰。四年多的執行經驗與成果,也獲得兩岸政府與人民的支持肯定。 本研究以「協議」所旨揭「共同打擊犯罪」的「犯罪資訊交換」、「全面合作,重點打擊」、「協助偵辦」及「人員遣返」等四大面向;及「司法互助」的「送達文書」、「調查取證」、「罪贓移交」、「裁判認可」、「人道探視」及「罪犯接返」等六大內容為主,探討「協議」簽署生效以來,兩岸警方在「共同打擊犯罪」及「刑事司法互助」方面的成效,及其困境。據此,研究者蒐集研析警察機關(刑事警察局)實務執行資料,並立意抽選具業務及實務經驗的刑事警察9人實施訪談,期能理論及實務的相互驗證,而概有以下研究發現: 一、 共同打擊犯罪:刑事警察局是執行力最佳的治安單位,在犯罪情資交換、重點打擊、協助偵辦等面向較有成效。雙方在打擊電信詐欺、毒品犯罪集團成效顯著,惟整體共同打擊犯罪工作,仍有待雙方磨合,消除歧見。 二、 刑事司法互助:在人道探視、送達文書的表現非常顯著,調查取證,罪贓移交、裁判認可及罪犯罪接返等項,已有所突破,惟限於兩岸政治及司法、檢察體制的不同,雙方仍有努力、協商的空間。 三、 兩岸治安機關深化合作力度及廣度,加強合作機制,積極打擊重大兩岸跨境犯罪。 四、 其他:兩岸應化解政治及法律成見,建立司法互助平臺、設置平等聯繫窗口,派駐聯絡官,是兩岸未來打擊跨境犯罪的方向及努力目標。
Abstract Despite judicial and police authorities across Taiwan strait intended to enhance cooperation in fighting cross-border crime before 2009, the political factors and the uncertainty of high-level personnel have led the cooperation subject to individual discretion and case-by-case basis, failing to establish institutional mechanism. On April 26, 2009, after signing "Cross-strait Cooperation of Combating Crimes and Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement" (hereinafter referred to as the agreement), there has been a breakthrough but also arises a series of challenge in combating cross-border crimes. After more than four years’ practice, the implementation of the agreement wins strong support from cross-strait governments and the people. Within the scope of the agreement, this study focuses on the four aspects of crime fighting including "information exchange", "investigation assistance," “joint taskforce” and "criminal deportation." In addition, six contents of mutual legal assistance were analyzed in this study including "document delivery service," "investigation and evidence preservation, " " transference of criminal evidence and stolen goods"," referee notary "," humanitarian visiting" and " deportation of fugitives and suspects." This study explores the effectiveness and challenges of the agreement implementation which mostly applied on "joint crime fighting" and "mutual legal assistance." Accordingly, in order to implement mutual authentication between theory and practice, the researcher analyzed the data gathered from police aut horities, particularly from Criminal Investigation Bureau and interviewed nine police officers who have practical experiences. The findings are: 1. Joint Crime Fighting: Taiwan’s Criminal Investigation Bureau is the most effective agency among all law enforcements to implement the agreement. It is more effective on the aspects of criminal intelligence exchange, high-profile case solving, and investigation assistance. But both governments still have different viewpoints or stands pending for further settlement. 2. Mutual Legal Assistance: the impact of humanitarian visiting and the delivery of documents are very significant. There has been a breakthrough on the investigation and evidence preservation, criminal evidences and stolen goods’ transference, referee notary and deportation of suspects. However, there is plenty room for negotiation due to the difference of political, judicial, prosecution systems. 3. The two governments across Taiwan strait need to strengthen cooperation mechanism in order to actively combat major cross-border criminal case. 4. Two sides have to set aside the political and legal differences in order to establish a mutual legal assistance platform, installing contact points and deploying liaison officers.
為了持續優化網站功能與使用者體驗,本網站將Cookies分析技術用於網站營運、分析和個人化服務之目的。
若您繼續瀏覽本網站,即表示您同意本網站使用Cookies。