法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
論事後宣告沒收與憲法一事不再理原則-兼論金融八法發還賠償條款是否允許事後宣告沒收(On the Subsequent Confiscation and the Principle of Ne Bis in Idem: Also a Discussion on Whether the Reparation Regulations of Financial Eight Laws Allow the Subsequent Confiscation)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 連孟琦
出版日期: 2023.03
刊登出處: 台灣/臺北大學法學論叢第 125 期/147-195 頁
頁  數: 49 點閱次數: 535
下載點數: 196 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 連孟琦
關 鍵 詞: 事後宣告沒收單獨宣告沒收事後單獨宣告沒收一事不再理一行為不二罰司法院釋字第775號解釋司法院釋字第808號解釋金融八法發還賠償條款
中文摘要: 我國刑法第 40 條第 3 項單獨宣告沒收之立法理由中提及被告「曾受判決確定者」,亦得單獨宣告沒收,最高法院有判決據此認為被告「曾受有罪判決確定」之案件,似乎也可適用單獨宣告沒收。本文認為本案判決確定後之事後宣告沒收,應接受憲法一事不再理之檢驗,並對以下三種事後宣告沒收制度一併加以分析:包括我國刑法第 40 條第 3 項與德國刑法第 76a 條當中之事後單獨宣告沒收、德國刑法第 76 條之事後改宣告追徵以及德國刑事訴訟法第 422、423 條之沒收與本案分離後之事後宣告沒收。本文認為後兩者並未違反一事不再理,而事後單獨宣告沒收則應參考德國刑法第 76a 條第 1 項第 3 句進行目的性限縮,加入「僅限於前確定判決未曾對沒收做出裁判者」之要件,方能合憲。
至於我國金融八法發還賠償條款是否允許事後宣告沒收,本文認為該類條款並非單獨宣告沒收之特別規定,而且也不得事後單獨宣告沒收。根本之道,還是應該刪除此類條款,並回歸刑法。若仍想讓法院可等待確認發還及賠償數額後,再事後宣告沒收,則建議引進德國刑事訴訟法第 422 及 423 條與本案分離之事後宣告沒收程序。
英文關鍵詞: Subsequent ConfiscationIndependent ConfiscationSubsequent Independent ConfiscationNe Bis in IdemBan on Being Punished Twice for the Same OffenceJudicial Yuan Interpretation No. 775Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 808Reparation Regulations of Financial Eight Laws
英文摘要: The legislative explanation of Art. 40 Para. 3 mentions that the court can independently order that the object be confiscated even if the judgment of the case becomes final. According to this explanation, one judgment of the supreme court considers that the court can independently order that the object be confiscated after a verdict becomes final. This article argues that the subsequent confiscation must be in conformity with the constitutional principle of ne bis in idem. It examines the constitutionality of three kinds of subsequent confiscation, including subsequent independent confiscation (Art. 40 Para. 3 of Taiwanese Criminal Code and Art. 76a of German Criminal Code), subsequent order for confiscation of equivalent sum of money (Art. 76 of German Criminal Code) and separation of confiscation proceedings and confiscation following separation (Art. 422 and 423 of German Code of Criminal Procedure). The latter two systems conform with the principle of ne bis in idem and could be used as a reference for amending our criminal law. As for the subsequent independent confiscation, in order to comply with constitutional requirements, an additional condition similar to Art. 76a para. 1 sentence 3 of the German Criminal Code has to be amended: “Confiscation is not ordered, if a decision concerning said confiscation has already been taken and become final.”
As for the question, whether the reparation regulations of Financial Eight Laws allow the subsequent confiscation? The answer is no. The only possible way is to introduce the German system: separation of confiscation proceedings and confiscation following separation (Art. 422 and 423 of German Code of Criminal Procedure).
目  次: 壹、問題意識
貳、「單獨宣告沒收」、「事後宣告沒收」及「事後單獨宣告沒收」之概念及適用前提
  一、三種沒收概念區辨
  二、不附隨本案訴訟之單獨宣告沒收須有特別規定
參、沒收與憲法一事不再理原則之檢驗
  一、德國基本法一事不再理與禁止雙重處罰原則之內涵
  二、我國憲法一事不再理與一行為不二罰原則之內涵
  三、沒收亦適用我國憲法一事不再理原則
肆、事後宣告沒收與憲法一事不再理原則之檢驗
  一、事後單獨宣告沒收(我國刑法第 40 條第 3 項與德國刑法第 76a 條)
  (一)德國 2017 年修法前後之規定不同
  (二)我國事後單獨宣告沒收之目的性限縮與可能適用案型
  (三)附論:被告受免刑判決者,可事後單獨宣告沒收?
  二、事後改宣告追徵(德國刑法第 76 條)
  三、與本案分離之事後宣告沒收程序(德國刑事訴訟法第 422、423 條)
伍、我國金融八法發還賠償條款是否允許事後宣告沒收?
  一、銀行法發還賠償條款並非單獨宣告沒收之特別規定
  二、銀行法案件得否適用事後單獨宣告沒收?
  (一)依銀行法舊法判決確定後得否事後單獨宣告沒收
  (二)依銀行法新法判決確定後得否事後單獨宣告沒收
  三、金融八法建議增訂與本案分離之事後宣告沒收程序
陸、結論及修法建議
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
連孟琦,論事後宣告沒收與憲法一事不再理原則-兼論金融八法發還賠償條款是否允許事後宣告沒收,臺北大學法學論叢,第 125 期,147-195 頁,2023年03月。
返回功能列