行政裁罰不法利得追繳之研究

The study on administrative conference of illegal profits recovery of the penalty from such an act

蘇維淑(Wei-Shu Su)

指導教授 ： 黃俊杰

國立中正大學/管理學院/會計資訊與法律數位學習碩士在職專班/碩士(2015年)

摘要

近年來開發行為及經濟活動，已造成環境負荷之超載及嚴重性，尤以水污染、空氣污染、廢棄物非法棄置、土壤污染及生態破壞最為嚴重。相對的環境法令之制定與執行，承擔著多重的功能與任務，其中環境污染裁罰制度的設計，主要為使管制對象符合法秩序，達成立法目的，其罰鍰係運用最普遍及簡便的行政罰，亦是最重要關鍵的地位。行政罰法自公布施行後，該法第18條及第20條對於不法利得裁罰或追繳之審酌條件有相當規範，但實務上，執行機關運用不夠靈活，以至後續衍生行政救濟事件，由其對於因違反環境法規所節省之成本或不法利得進行抗辯。因此，對於不法利得之追繳，就其類型、範圍、裁量因素之審酌、計算原則之推估及環保署裁罰不法利得之裁量準則等，並針對首次依行政罰法裁處不法利得之案件，進行深入分析與探討。研讀「執行臺美環保技術合作協定參加環境執法教官培訓─赴美國環保署研習」之出國報告書後，加以分析比較美國對污染案件，其環境罰鍰裁罰基準、不法利得之計算方法，與國內行政裁罰制度追繳不法利得之差異及可參考之處。

關鍵字

裁量基準 ； 環境法規 ； 行政罰法 ； 不法利得

並列摘要

Development behaviors and economic activities in recent years have taken their toll on environment as it is overloaded by severe pollutions such as water pollution, air pollution, illegal disposal of wastes, soil pollution and destruction of ecology. On the other hand, environmental laws are established and enforced for a multitude of functions and tasks. Among all, the punishment system for environmental pollutions is designed to monitor the legal compliance of those who are being monitored, thus achieving the goal of legislation. The punishment often comes in the most popular and easiest form of administrative penalty, which has the most important key position. Since the promulgation of the Administrative Penalty Act, Articles 18 and 20 have provided the legal ground on which confiscation or punishment on illegal benefits is enforced. However in the real world, the enforcement agencies’ lack of enforcement flexibility led to subsequent administrative remedy, as those who were penalized appealed and defended for the costs saves from violating environmental laws or illegal benefits. As a result, this study was intended to analyze the remargining of illegal benefits in terms of type, scope and factors of discretion, the estimation of calculation principles and the criteria of discretion enforced by the Environmental Protection Administration for illegal benefits, and investigate for the first time cases of illegal benefits penalized according to the Administrative Penalty Act. The report from “Environmental Law Enforcement Seed Trainer Program Agreement between the American Institute in Taiwan and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection – A Workshop at US EPA” was scrutinized for pollution cases in the US, the basis on which the penalty was determined for these cases and how the illegal benefits were calculated. A comparison was made to find out the difference in the confiscation of illegal benefits in Taiwan’s administrative penalty system and the result may be helpful as reference.

並列關鍵字

Environmental Laws ； Administrative Penalty Act ； Illegal Benefits ； Criteria of Discretion

參考文獻

4.林書泓，環保裁罰基礎事實調查之研究，國立成功大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2010，7月。

3.李筱敏，不法所得之課稅問題—以美國內地稅法制為中心，國立政治大學法學院碩士在職專班碩士論文，2010年6月。

2.江金紋，行政調查之研究，育達科技大學報，33期，101年12月。

4.李惠宗，追繳公法上不法利得之當事人適格性，法令月刊，64卷4期，2013年10月。

壹、書籍（按作者姓氏筆劃排序）