犯罪所得沒收制度之新典範？評析食安法第四十九條之一之修正

The New System of Confiscating Crime Proceeds: A Comment on the Amendment of Article 49-1 of Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation

薛智仁(Chih-Jen Hsueh)

《臺大法學論叢》 44卷S期 (2015/11) Pp. 1327-1394

https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.2015.44.SP.04

摘要

在2014年的大統混油案判決引發爭議後，立法院火速通過食安法第49條之1之修正，將犯罪所得沒收擴大適用於第三人，增訂第三人程序保障規定及授權行政院制訂推估計價辦法。此一規定自此集結了犯罪所得沒收的實體法與程序法面向，可謂現行犯罪所得沒收制度的縮影，值得作全面性的立法檢討。根據本文的研究結果，我國立法者必須精確化第三人犯罪所得沒收的要件、明確採取淨額原則、將追徵抵償轉型為補充性的沒收宣告型態、健全扣押財產之實體與程序要件、擴大被沒收之第三人的訴訟參加權限、增訂法官對犯罪所得價額與範圍之估價權限、建構刑事執行階段之被害人參與分配程序。整體而言，在正視現行法規範結構缺陷的前提下，通盤改革犯罪所得沒收制度，已是刑事政策上迫在眉睫之事。

關鍵字

犯罪所得沒收 ； 淨額原則 ； 替代價值之沒收 ； 扣押財產 ； 訴訟參加 ； 估價權限 ； 被害人參與分配程序

並列摘要

After the 2014 judgment in the case of Datong Company's mixed oil, which provoked controversy, the Legislature amended Article 49-1 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation (AGFSS) immediately, the confiscation of crime proceeds now extend its force to cover the third party's property. The amendment also includes procedural safeguards for the third party (such as the consumer), and authorized the Executive Yuan to formulate rules for evaluating the crime proceeds. Article 49-1 assembled both substantive and procedural law of the confiscation of crime proceeds, which can be described as a microcosm of the current forfeiture system, it is worth to make a comprehensive review of legislation. This study submit the following suggestion to the current legislation: first, legislators shall define the element of a third party when confiscating crime proceeds. Second, adopt the principle of net amount directly. Third, transform requisition and compensation of crime proceeds into supplementary sequestration. Fourth, delete penalty provisions. Fifth, enhance the completeness of procedural and material elements of forfeiture. Sixth, granting rights to the third party, whose property was been sequestrated, to participate in the proceedings. Seventh, authorize the judge to evaluate the amount and the range of the crime proceeds. Eighth, construct the distribution procedure for criminal victim to participate in the implementation stage. Overall, the existing legal norms have serious structural defects, a full-scale reform of confiscating crime proceeds is an imminent issue of criminal policy.

並列關鍵字

criminal proceeds comfiscation ； the principle of net amount ； sequestrate succedaneum ； seizure of property ； intervention ； the authority of evaluation ； victim participates in distribution procedure

參考文獻

莫藍藍（2014）。《沒收制度之研究》，國立成功大學法律學系碩士論文（未出版），台南。

周俞宏（2011）。《論犯罪所得之剝奪》，國立成功大學法律學研究所碩士論文（未出版），台南。

林傳哲（2006）。《論從刑中財產利益之剝奪》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文（未出版），台北。

許恒達（2014）。〈非定罪之犯罪所得沒收：借鏡德國法制〉，收於：法務部司法官學院（編），《刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集（17）》，頁19-35。台北：法務部。

薛智仁（2012）。〈內線交易之犯罪所得概念〉，《政大法學評論》，129期，頁 245-299。