洗錢防制法上有關禁止處分制度之研究--以沒收保全為中心--

Research related to the disposition prohibition system on Money Laundering Control Act--comparing with the securance of confiscation systems of other countyies--

魏武群(WU-CHUN WEI)

指導教授 ： 管高岳

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2008年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu200800067

摘要

摘 要
我國於1996年制定洗錢防制法，施行後發現或有規定不完善或有闕漏，乃於2003年增訂第8條之1禁止處分等規定，在禁止處分缺失方面有一、禁止處分以帳戶為主，未考量其他類型債權；二、僅能對該筆洗錢交易作禁止處分，無法對該帳戶作處分，在舉證責任轉換上偵查機關難以追查資金流向；三、禁止處分期間為6個月，實務上無法於期間內審理結束作出沒收命令，有違反法律保留原則及侵害人民財產權之嫌，迄2007年始修正禁止處分期間為6個月得延長一次之規定，惟前述缺失亦未改善。這是本文探討原因之一。
金管會依銀行法第45條之2第3項法律授權公布銀行對疑似不法或顯屬異常交易之存款帳戶管理辦法，該辦法以行政命令，暫停行為人銀行帳戶全部交易功能，較本法禁止處分規定寬鬆，似有以行政命令架空本法禁止處分，本文也將一併討論。
日本分別於1991年及1999年制定麻藥特別法及組織犯罪處罰法，規範有沒收、沒收保全及債權沒收保全等，因組織犯罪處罰法適用範圍較廣，防制洗錢部分已取代麻藥特別法；另美國刑事沒收保全之客體與作法，與日本及我國不同，本文將與我國禁止處分內容作比較，供我國防制洗錢借鏡參考。
本文除參考國內相關文獻、期刊及實務上禁止處分個案分析外，並參酌日本及美國文獻、期刊及學說進行研究。研究目的以本法禁止處分在實務運作上有無窒礙難行，或其要件有無闕漏或增修之必要，再與日本及美國等沒收保全作比較，將比較之優缺點作整理，冀望未來修法時，能提供主管機關參考，使能達到防制洗錢，追查重大犯罪的目的。
本法第9條第5項規定事涉國際司法互助內容，非本文討論重心，本文將不針對該規定作討論；另有關追徴保全部分，因與沒收保全在法理上與目的相同，僅無法沒收或沒收不能時，由追徴代替之。本文以沒收保全為核心，追徴保全非本文討論重心，本文不對追徴保全作討論，在此先敘明。

關鍵字

麻藥特別法 ； 禁止處分 ； 沒收 ； 凍結 ； 洗錢罪 ； 洗錢防制法 ； 沒收保全 ； 警示帳戶 ； 組織的犯罪處罰法

並列摘要

Summary
The Money Laundering Control Act (MLCA) came into force in 1996. There are some deficiencies being found after implementation. Therefore, the Act was amended to add in the Article 8-1 which stipulates the regulations of disposal ban. The deficiencies of the MLCA include: 1) the disposal ban mainly focuses on banking accounts and lacks deliberation of other type debts derived from money laundering; 2) the authorities can only freeze the specific money laundering transaction in the designated bank account but can not have disposal ban to the whole designated bank account. Furthermore, the burden of giving proof that lacking reverse mechanism causes the law enforcement agencies faces many obstacles on tracing illegal funds flow; 3) the period of disposal ban is limited to the maximum of six months but if courts can not make judgment and issue confiscation order in the period, the continuity of disposal ban may violate the doctrines of rules by law and jeopardize the property right of people. Although the MLCA has been amended in 2007 to allow one extension of the disposal ban period, the deficiencies mentioned above are still not being improved. The grounds conduce to the consequences will be one of the major topics in this thesis. .
The Financial Supervisory Commission is authorized by the regulation of the paragraph 3 Article 45-2 of the Banking Act to promulgate the Regulations Governing Bank Handling of Accounts with Suspicious or Unusual Transactions. The Regulations is only an administrative decree but has full power to stop all transactions of the designated banking accounts. In view of the regulations of disposal ban in the decree is not so conscientious and careful but is easier to implement, the disposal ban in the MLCA seems contrarily becoming to exist in name only. This will be a topic in this thesis.
Japan respectively promulgated the Special Provisions for the Narcotics and Psychotropic Control Law and the Law for Punishment of Organized Crime in 1991 and 1999 that regulate confiscation and its insurance. The Law for Punishment of Organized Crime has partly replaced the Special Provisions for the Narcotics and Psychotropic Control Law on the disposal ban of confiscated subjects due to its application is more extensive. Besides, the subjects and measures of USA criminal confiscation insurance are different from the related regulations of Japan and this country. This thesis will compare those regulations and then propose suggestion that can be referred on anti money laundering in the future.
This thesis also refers the documents, periodicals and case studies of disposal ban that come from Japan, USA and this country. It is mainly aimed at the researches on the practical operation obstacles of MLCA and the necessities of further amendment for improving the deficiencies and omitted matters in the MLCA, and then compares with the related regulations of confiscation insurance from Japan and USA. The advantages and shortcomings will be sorted and presented after comparison. Furthermore, suggestions will be proposed to authorities for further reference on the amendment of MLCA in the future.
The international mutual legal assistance matters in the paragraph 5 Article 9 of the MLCA and the indemnity of confiscated assets will not be further discussed in this thesis. It is mainly based on the consideration of that there are not the cores of this thesis and the indemnity insurance of confiscated assets has the same legal principle and purpose as confiscation insurance. The indemnity of confiscated assets can only happen under the circumstance of confiscation unable to be implemented. It is not the key point of this thesis which concentrates on the confiscation insurance.

並列關鍵字

confiscation ； freeze ； Money Laundering Control Act

參考文獻

12.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(2006)。

9.林鈺雄，刑事訴訟法(上)，自版(2005)。

10.林俊益，刑事訴訟法概論，新學林(2005)。

23.褚劍鴻，刑事訴訟法論上冊，臺灣商務印書館(2001)。

9.田口守一，刑事訴訟法第3版，弘文堂(2001)。