法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 第三人沒收程序-評釋最高法院 108 年度臺上大字第 3594 號裁定(Third Party Confiscation Procedure: Comment on theSupreme Court(108) Tai-shang-da Tzu No. 3594)
編著譯者: 王士帆
出版日期: 2020.12
刊登出處: 台灣/政大法學評論第 163 期 /1-48 頁
頁  數: 28 點閱次數: 1042
下載點數: 112 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 王士帆
關 鍵 詞: 沒收第三人沒收沒收程序參與人控訴原則刑事大法庭
中文摘要: 當法院對第三人判決沒收,其財產權必受到侵害。惟第三人非刑事審判確認刑罰權存否之人,在刑事程序上不具備被告地位,欠缺被告享有之防禦權利。鑑於第三人財產權、聽審權和救濟權的權利保障與平等原則,刑事訴訟法在被告程序外,應為該第三人開展程序機制。這正是第三人沒收程序理論。為照護第三人權利,《刑事訴訟法》第 455 條之 12 第 3 項要求法院應依職權裁定命第三人參與沒收程序,不以第三人或檢察官聲請為必要。法院基於控訴原則,諭知法律效果是裁判義務,不應受制於檢察官聲請,在第三人沒收亦無例外。108 年度臺上大字第 3594 號裁定對此論證精湛,值得讚揚,惟其對否定說若干論點未充分回應,有爬梳和評釋必要,故本文嘗試與之進行學術對話。
英文關鍵詞: ConfiscationConfiscation from Other PersonsParty to Confiscation Proceedings (Einziehungsbeteiligter)Principle of Accusation, Grand Panel for Criminal Matters
英文摘要: A third party’s right is infringed when the criminal court issues a confiscation order against the said person. However, the third party does not count as a defendant in a criminal procedure and lacks the right of self-defense. In keeping with the principle of equality and to protect the third party’s right to possession, right to be heard, and right to relief, the Code of Criminal Procedure should provide a procedural mechanism for third parties whose possessions may be confiscated along with those for defendants. This is the theory of third-party confiscation procedure. To protect the rights of third parties, Item 3, Article 455-12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that the court orders third parties to participate in the procedure ex officio, instead of at the request of the third party or the prosecutor. According to the principle of accusation, it is the court,s obligation to inform the relevant parties of the legal effects of its judgments, regardless of requests by the prosecutor. This also applies to confiscations against a third party. The ruling of Grand Panel for Criminal Matters in the Supreme Court(108) Tai-shang-da Tzu No. 3594 provides a praiseworthy argument regarding this issue. However, it does not fully respond to some of the counterarguments and leaves room for improvement. This article aims to engage in academic discourse regarding the ruling.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、第三人沒收程序理論
一、第三人沒收之程序權利保障
二、第三人沒收程序之開啟
(一)法院依聲請或依職權裁定開啟
(二)第三人受通知權
(三)第三人程序選擇主體性
(四)捨棄參與之效力
三、法院職權裁定參與程序之法理
(一)法治國訴訟照料義務
(二)法院沒收判決義務與第三人聲請權
參、與否定說之學術對話
一、沒收作為「獨立」法律效果的意義
二、控訴原則說
(一)法院基於控訴原則之裁判義務
(二)比較法例
(三)本案判決上訴與應曉諭說
三、《刑事訴訟法》第 455 條之 13 第 3 項「聲請」定性
四、「參與捨棄」造成無法沒收之缺口?
肆、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
    返回功能列