法學期刊
論著名稱: 偵查中保全扣押犯罪所得
編著譯者: 黃士元
出版日期: 2017.07
刊登出處: 台灣/司法新聲第 123 期 /7-39 頁
頁  數: 29 點閱次數: 1479
下載點數: 116 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 黃士元
關 鍵 詞: 犯罪所得保全扣押沒收追徵非附隨搜索之扣押
中文摘要: 2016 年 7 月施行的刑法沒收新制(包括實體刑法與刑事訴訟法保全扣押規定),是刑罰與保安處分等傳統刑事制裁措施(二元論)以外,打擊犯罪的第三層面向,目的在貫徹任何人都不能保有犯罪所得,以回復法益侵害前之財產秩序俾實現司法正義,兼收預防犯罪的效果。
惟徒法不足以自行,仍有賴執法機關具體落實。檢察官作為訴追機關的偵查主體,於沒收新制實施後,如何在不法利得隱匿、耗盡前積極保全該等資產?自應於偵查階段提昇執法效能,而非待法院審理乃迄判決確定後才執行。法務部爰訂定「檢察機關追討犯罪所得實施要點」,希望逐步提昇查扣犯罪所得之質量,各檢察機關應秉此意旨積極辦理。
沒收新制施行後,關於犯罪所得之扣押亦採「相對法官保留之令狀原則」,原則上由訴追機關聲請法院裁定,除應先行查明擬扣押之資產外,聲請書釋明之主旨則為:利得人之特定資產將來有沒收之必要,因此須先予保全。故內容宜依循利得沒收之審查順序行之,本文擬訂清查、保全與執行計畫流程圖暨各階段檢視查核表,並提供實際案例,做為聲請扣押裁定流程之參考,另以附表列示保全扣押與沒收特別程序規定之異同,希望對提昇保全扣押效能有所助益。
英文關鍵詞: Criminal ProceedsSeizure for RecoveryConfiscationLevySeizure Without Search Warrant
英文摘要: The new confiscation system of the Criminal Code, as enforced in July 2016(including the provisions of Penal Code and seizure for recovery in the Code of Criminal Procedure), is the third dimension of fighting against crime other than traditional criminal sanctions, such as penalties and “Sicherungsmassnahme” (dualism), which aims to enforce“crime doesn’t pay” to restore property order before the infringement of law, and thus, achieve the effect of the prevention of crimes.
However, the said acts cannot be enforced by themselves, and must be specifically accomplished by law enforcement authorities. As the main body of procuratorial authorities, how can prosecutors aggressively recover hidden illicit interests before they are consumed after the enforcement of the new system? Prosecutors shall voluntarily improve law enforcement effectiveness during the investigation stage, instead of enforcing laws after the trial and judgement of cases. The Ministry of Justice thus formulate “Guidelines for Prosecutors to Restore Criminal Proceeds” in the hope that the quality and quantity of criminal proceeds seized can be gradually improved. Various procuratorial authorities shall aggressively deal with this issue in order to achieve the objective.
After enforcement of the new confiscation system, the “principle of relative reserves for judge”, which is also adopted for the seizure of criminal proceeds. In general, prosecutors shall apply for the court’s consent. In addition to identifying and seizing assets, prosecutors shall set up the statement as: “Specific Assets of the Profiteer Have to be Confiscated in the Future, thus, They are Seized for Recovery Now.” Therefore, it is preferable to follow the review rule for the confiscation. This study develops a flowchart for inventory, recovery, and execution plans, as well as a checklist for the various stages, and provides actual cases as reference for the application of verdict for seizure. In addition, this study tabulates the similarities and differences between seizure for recovery and special procedural provisions of confiscation in order to improve the effectiveness of seizure for recovery.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、意義與價值
參、具體操作流程
一、偵查保全與執行保全之區別實益
二、扣押程序具有獨立性
三、扣押裁定聲請書之釋明
四、擬定與執行(追)查扣(押)計畫
五、偵結時其他程序事項之檢視
肆、實際案例(味全公司利得案)
伍、保全扣押與沒收特別程序之異同
陸、結語
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
    返回功能列