法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 刑法第三八條之一第二項立法理由與德國擴大沒收(The Legislative Explanation of Art.38-1, para. 2 of the Criminal Code and the Extended Crime Gains Confiscation under German Law)
編著譯者: 吳耀宗
出版日期: 2016.03.05
刊登出處: 台灣/月旦法學雜誌第 251 期 /35-59 頁
頁  數: 24 點閱次數: 2484
下載點數: 96 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 吳耀宗
關 鍵 詞: 利得沒收擴大利得沒收犯罪不法所得建立財產秩序無罪推定原則
中文摘要: 此次刑法利得沒收制度之修正,不僅擺脫舊法「從刑」之桎梏,且更「擴及」第三人利得沒收,殊值肯定。惟第三八條之一第二項立法理由:「該違法行……不以被起訴或證明有罪為必要」意指為何?是否與德國刑法擴大利得沒收相類似?本文認為,儘管德國擴大利得沒收之法機制值得我國效法,然而此段立法理由之敘述,如非多餘即屬誤植,其與擴大利得沒收無關。因此,我國利得沒收新制尚欠缺類似德國擴大利得沒收此等規定,猶待繼續努力!
英文關鍵詞: Crime Gains ConfiscationExtended Crime Gains confiscationIllegal Proceeds of CrimeEstablishment of Property OrderPresumption of Innocence
英文摘要: The amended regulations of crime gains confiscation not only broke away from the previous shackles of “accessory punishments” but also extended its application scope to the gains of third party, which should be highly recognized However, the legislative explanation of Art. 38-1, Para 2 of Criminal Code, which said “the illegal” behavior . doesn’t necessarily require convictions or proven guilty”, remains confusing Is it simi1ar to the extended crime gains confiscation under the German Criminal Code? From the author’s point of view, the legislative explanation is either unnecessary or an error since it is irrelevant to the extended crime gains confiscation Therefore, our amended regulations of crime gains confiscation still lack the extended crime gains confiscation under German law and require further efforts.
目  次: 壹、幾個開場實例之思考
貳、隱藏版的擴大利得沒收?
參、刑法利得沒收新制-再「擴張」犯罪不法所得沒収範圍之基本思維
肆、德國刑法擴大利得沒收之概述、相關批評以及聯邦憲法法院之立場
伍、刑法第三八條之一第二項立法理由 vs. 德國刑法擴大利得沒收
陸、未完成的「暴利」犯罪之「奪命追魂曲」樂章!
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列