沒收特別程序參與主體之探討

沒收對於財產權的干預甚大，除了實體法上應有法律授權，符合法律保留原則外，更應依循正當法律程序，於程序法上給予人民應有之聽審權、救濟權等保障，當沒收新制將沒收主體範圍擴張至第三人後，第三人程序參與權的保障更顯重要。因此，我國於2016年5月27日通過《刑事訴訟法》沒收特別程序條文。而在沒收特別程序的相關疑義中，為了不讓主題失焦，本文選擇一個較為上位的問題進行討論：「沒收特別程序之第三人主體範圍」，畢竟，這是開啟沒收特別程序中最為重要的前提要件。本文認為我國「參與」沒收特別程序之第三人範圍，應以反面排除的方式來理解，也就是說除了《刑法》第38-1第5項之被害人以及《刑法》第38-3第2項之人無法參與外，只要是財產可能被沒收又無程序保障之人，皆為沒收特別程序之可能參與人，並無法明確地依照實體法上的分類作為劃分依據，應從程序法的角度來解讀。

關鍵字

沒收特別程序；第三人沒收；第三人；程序參與；正當法律程序

並列摘要

The confiscation has a great interference in the right of property. In addition to the authorization in the substantive law for achieving the principle of legal reservation, people should be given the right to hear and remedy in the procedural law to follow the due process. Since the confiscation scope in Taiwan's Criminal Law has extended to the third persons, the procedure protection regarding the participation right of the third persons has become more important accordingly. Therefore, the special procedure regarding confiscation in the Criminal Procedural Law was amended on May 27, 2016. This paper will analysis such special procedure, particularly, will concentrate on the issue of participation under the amended Criminal Procedural Law. This paper believes that the participation in confiscate procedure in the Criminal Procedural Law should exclude the person mentioned in Paragraph 2 of Article 38-3 and the victim mentioned in Paragraph 5 of Article 38-1 of the Criminal Law. Therefore, the participation of confiscate procedure should be interpreted from the perspective of procedural law, which currently cannot be clearly defined under the substantive law.