論洗錢防制法禁止處分的程序保障與救濟制度--一併檢視沒收與扣押的相關機制

A Study of the Procedural Protection and Remedies of Disposition Injunction on Money Laundering Control Act--with Review of Rules of Forfeiture and Seizure

黃智鶯(Chin-Ying Huang)

指導教授 ： 徐偉群

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2011年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201101015

摘要

我國洗錢防制法於二○○三年修法時增設「禁止處分」之規定，增訂此規定後對防制洗錢及追查重大犯罪之目的有顯著的成效。不過，另一方面也可能潛藏對財產權或生存權等人權侵害的問題。因此，本論文撰寫之核心目的在於，探討我國洗錢防制法中禁止處分之程序保障及救濟制度是否完善？制度上是否有在打擊洗錢犯罪與財產權或相對人的權益之間取得平衡？
盱衡國際公約及國際共識，除強調以剝奪及暫時性限制財產的措施打擊洗錢防罪，同時亦考量在運用此類手段可能對相關權利造成侵害之問題，明白揭示各會員國應重視相關的權利保障及法律救濟。掃視美國、英國、德國及日本等先進國家與我國禁止處分相類似的手段，亦可見制定有當事人甚至是第三人權益保障的規定。惟本論文從事前審查、事後審查、事後救濟及實務案例的觀察檢析，發現我國禁止處分在制度面及實務面皆存有可議的問題，例如：救濟制度忽略第三人、救濟制度緩不濟急等。
禁止處分是一種新型態的強制處分，與我國刑事訴訟法上的扣押同屬暫時性限制人民財產權的規定；此外，沒收也是國家限制人民財產權的手段，其與禁止處分或扣押的差別在於階段上的不同，一為終局性的剝奪，一為暫時性的限制，但同樣都應該在侵害人民財產權時，給予相當程度的保障及救濟。因此，本論文一併檢視此二制度，期藉此尋求準用、適用、類推適用或是改進參考的依據。
惟，揆諸我國固有的扣押及沒收制度，二者亦存有程序保障不足的問題。本論文進一步詳細探討美國法相關制度的規定，期從比較法的觀察中尋求我國法制問題的出路。本論文觀察美國的刑事沒收及民事沒收手段，發現其在程序保障上都有細緻且周延的規範，並試對禁止處分提出以下建議：(1)明確制定通知規定；(2)分階段的處分期間規定；(3)救濟制度應有配套代替措施；(4)第三人存有救濟利益；(5)事後救濟應設有言詞審理的規定。此外，扣押及沒收的問題亦應一併改革，以完備我國剝奪及限制財產權的程序法制。

關鍵字

禁止處分、扣押、沒收、程序保障、事前審查、事後審查、救濟、 刑事沒收、民事沒收

並列摘要

The Money Laundering Control Act of Taiwan was amended with the regulation of “disposition injunction”. The amendment achieves remarkable effect for preventing money laundering and tracking significant crimes. On the other hand, it
may also arouse the issues of violating property and human rights. This thesis aims to explore whether there are sufficient protection and remedies during disposition injunction procedure in Taiwan. Does the anti-money-laundering task
take our property and human rights seriously?
Although the international conventions and consensuses mostly put emphasis on depriving the proceeds of crime and freezing assets in fighting the money laundering crimes, they did also realize that there could be infringements upon relative rights. They often declared that the member states should provide sufficient procedural protection and remedies. In the cases of United States,
Britain, Germany and Japan, there are legislations to provide such protection and remedies for the prohibited, and even for the third persons. Comparing to that, Taiwan seems to have more problems in due process dealing with the injunction.
Disposition junction is a new design for Taiwan. But in the very nature, it could be considered as a special type of property seizure or forfeiture. So we would look into the established systems of seizure or forfeiture, to see if there are rules or designs that could put to use in injunction cases. Unfortunately, the established systems got their own problems, and sometimes, even worse.
In finding our way out, we take regulations of United States as a model. So we spend some effort in observing the U.S. system in detail, which includes so called criminal forfeiture as well as the civil forfeiture regulations. According to our research, with reference to procedural protection, we have some suggestions to
make: (1) amending the notification rules, (2) phased requirements of disposition
period, (3) providing alternative measures to disposition injunction, (4) allowing the
third person to have the right to claim, and (5) remedies should be heard. Moreover, the problems of seizure and forfeiture should be also reformed to justify the procedural of deprivation and restriction on property rights in Taiwan.

並列關鍵字

Pre-examination ； Disposition Injunction ； Remedies ； Post-examination ； Criminal Forfeiture ； Procedural Protection ； Civil Forfeiture ； Forfeiture ； Seizure

參考文獻

4. 李傑清，洗錢防制的課題與展望，法務部調查局，2006 年。

4. 吳天雲，洗錢防制法沒收屬於第三人犯罪所得的實體與程序問題，律師雜

9. 李傑清，金融帳戶之凍結、扣押或禁止處分，臺北大學法學論叢，第73 期，

15. 傅美惠，論沒收-刑法修正草案「沒收』規範評析，中正法學集刊第17 期，

4. 林傳哲，論從刑中財產利益之剝奪，台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，民