論一般洗錢罪與特殊洗錢罪

為與國際組織及公約接軌，強化洗錢防制機制，並挽回過去APG相互評鑑成績不佳的頹勢，2016年我國洗錢防制法大幅修正，大量參酌國際公約及外國立法例洗錢罪亦在當年的修正範圍。不過，修正後的洗錢罪、以及新增訂的特殊洗錢罪，是否能夠達到立法者預設的目標，規範結構是否背離其法益保護目的，關於洗錢的學術討論如雨後春筍般出現。本文擬從洗錢的概念及國際上法制化的歷史出發，同時回顧既有的相關文獻，以更好的理解洗錢行為的本質及不法內涵。在確立洗錢罪的保護法益，在修法後依然是國家刑事司法權的運作後，即以此為基礎剖析一般洗錢罪，以及特殊洗錢罪的構成要件，並進一步探討現行法在實務爭議案件，包含「提供人頭帳戶」、「車手取款」與「律師收受辯護報酬」中應如何適用。最終本文將提出初步的修法建議，以及對現行法的反思。

關鍵字

洗錢行為；保護法益；一般洗錢罪；特殊洗錢罪；洗錢防制法

並列摘要

In order to align with international organizations and conventions, strengthen the money laundering prevention mechanism, and recover from the poor performance of the APG Mutual Evaluation in the past, our Money Laundering Control Act (MLCA) was substantially amended in 2016 with extensive reference to international conventions and foreign legislation, and the money laundering offense was included in the the amendment. Academic discussions about whether the amended money laundering offense (paragraph 14 MLCA), as well as the new special money laundering offense (paragraph 15 MLCA), can achieve the legislative goals and whether the legislative structure deviates from its purpose of protecting legal interests, have sprung up in the past few years. This article intends to look at the concept of money laundering and the history of its legalization in different nations, while reviewing the existing literature to better understand the nature of money laundering and its illicit connotations. After establishing that the legal interest of money laundering remains the mechanism of criminal justice after the amendment, this paper will analyze the constitutive elements of money laundering offense and special money laundering offense , then further explore how the current law should be applied to controversial cases in practice, including "provision of dummy accounts", "money mule" and "Attorney receiving proceeds of crime as remuneration”. Ultimately, this article will present preliminary proposals for legislative amendments and reflections on the current law.