A criminalidade transnacional é um dos males da atualidade e tem seu crescimento associado à complexidade dos processos da globalização. Quão mais interligadas estão a economia, cultura e demais comunicações dos Estados, mais vulneráveis estão às ações criminosas. Diante desta constatação a comunidade internacional escolheu o Direito Penal Internacional como um dos instrumentos destinados a fazer frente a este problema contemporâneo. O DPI, como especialização do Direito Penal, atende às exigências da comunidade internacional, por ser constituído pelo binômio criminalização e instituições de repressão e por contemplar dois distintos referenciais, quais sejam o do observador nacional que vê a projeção de seu ordenamento jurídico para fora das fronteiras territoriais e a do observador internacional que vê a projeção das normas internacionais para dentro do território dos Estados. A importância do DPI para o combate ao crime se faz pela pluralidade de espécies de cooperação (administrativa e jurídica) e de formas, que vão desde as mais clássicas como a extradição, a carta rogatória e a homologação da sentença estrangeira às mais modernas como a transferência de presos e a assistência mútua. As formas mais clássicas da cooperação têm se mostrado pouco eficazes e muito burocráticas para alcançar os resultados pretendidos, principalmente pelas barreiras jurídicas impostas pelos Estados, A assistência mútua vai ao encontro das expectativas internacionais, por simplificar a tramitação dos pedidos, em razão da tramitação dos mesmos por Autoridades Centrais e não por vias diplomáticas, por reduzir as barreiras jurídicas, pois há a possibilidade de mitigação do princípio da identidade, a redução dos motivos de recusa e a desnecessidade de submeter ao crivo do Superior Tribunal de Justiça pedidos que notoriamente dispensam juízo de delibação. Embora a assistência mútua traga muitas vantagens para facilitar a persecução penal, o desprendimento às formalidades e às barreiras jurídicas não pode significar desapego às garantias materiais e processuais das pessoas que são os destinatários da ação estatal persecutória, em especial à garantia de não ter contra si aplicadas penas vedadas constitucionalmente (art. 5, XLVII da CF/88). Neste sentido torna-se necessário reconhecer a existência de uma obrigação de não fazer e não cooperar por parte dos Estados que possa ser invocada para obstar atos de cooperação que possam contribuir para a aplicação das penas vedadas. / The transnational criminality is one of the major problems of the present time and its growth is associated with the complexity in the processes of globalization. The more interconnect the economy, the culture and other means of communications of the State, more vulnerable they are to criminal actions. In face of this fact, the international community chose the International Criminal Law as one of the instruments developed to face this contemporary problem. The ICL, as a specialization of the Criminal Law, fulfills the demands of the international community because it is constituted by the binomial criminalization and repression institutions, and because it contemplates two different perspectives: that of the national observer who sees the projection of its own legal system to outside the territorial boundaries, and that of the international observer who see the projection of the international norms to the inside of the State territory. The importance of the ICL for the fight against crime is seen in a plurality of kinds of cooperation (administrative and judicial) and of methods which range from the most traditional ones, such as extradition, rogatory letters, recognition of foreign sentences, to the most modern ones, such as transfer of prisoners and mutual assistance. The most traditional methods of cooperation are proving themselves to be minimally efficient and excessively bureaucratic to achieve the expected result, specially due to the juridical barriers imposed by the States. The mutual assistance method, however, meets the international expectation because it simplifies the transaction of requests, since they are done by central authorities and not by diplomatic means, and also because it reduced the juridical barriers. The reduction in the juridical barriers happens because it is possible to mitigate the identity principle, to reduce the reasons for rejection and because it deems unnecessary to submit requests that notoriously bypass the approval of the brazilians Superior Court of Justice. Although the mutual assistance brings various advantages in facilitating the criminal persecution, in promoting formality detachment and in diminishing the juridical barriers, it cannot result in a dismissal of material and procedural warranties of those people who are the recipient of the persecutory state action, specially with respect to the warranty that prevents one to have a forbidden punishments applied against oneself (5 art., XLVII of the CF/88). Hence, the recognition of the existence of the obligation to not-do, and, from the side of the State, the existence of the obligation to not-cooperate are necessary, so that they can be invoked to prevent cooperation acts that can contribute to the application of forbidden punishments.

Magister Legum - LLM / Several international instruments relating to the forfeiture of assets derived through unlawful means have been developed in the last decade. These relate to both civil and criminal forfeiture proceedings. Nevertheless, the processes of tracing the assets and having them forfeit to the State present formidable obstacles to justice authorities enforcers around the world. The fact of the matter is that the advent of the internet has made it easier for money launderers to camouflage the nature and the physical locality of their ill-got gains. This has made it all the more necessary for states and financial institutions to co-operate more closely in hitting the criminals where it hurts most – their pockets. However, the international structures that provide for mutual legal assistance procedures are drafted in broad terms or in guideline-form. Most of the books and journal articles dealing with money laundering devote scant attention to this very important aspect of combating transnational economic criminality. In most of the literature, this topic is simply avoided. This paper, which confines itself to civil recovery proceedings, strives to determine first, what international mechanisms are available for obtaining information located abroad that could be used for domestic civil forfeiture, and second, to identify some of the most intractable problems encountered by justice authorities in their attempts to attach property situated abroad. The idea is to identify the principal point of discordance, and to suggest ways in which the international instruments governing civil forfeiture could be amended so as to make them more user friendly.

Organized cybercrime has no borders in cyberspace. This paper suggests a state-of-the-art architected solution for a global Automated cross-border mutual legal assistance system within Digital Forensic (AUTOMLA). The Enterprise framework with technical viewpoint enables international collaboration between sovereign countries Fusion Centers. The evaluation concludes a user interface built in React, middleware Apollo with schema support linked to graph database Neo4j. GraphQL is the preferred application protocol over REST. Fusion Centers API is deployed as federated gateways, and business functions are implemented as PaaS serverless services.  Its intuitive modeling Forensics in graphs, semantic networks enables causality and inference. All suggested elements in AUTOMLA are forming an internationally agreed collaborative platform; the solution for fast cross-border crime investigations. AUTOMLA deployed on the Internet is a subject for threats. Risks are mitigated in design guided by security frameworks. The recommended development method is agile, distributed in between autonomous teams.

[pt] O aumento do crime organizado transnacional nas últimas três décadas fez com que as autoridades mundiais procurassem novos meios de enfrentar, reprimir e punir organizações cada vez mais poderosas. A soberania estatal impede a intervenção de terceiros nos assuntos internos dos Estados, mesmo quando se trata de delitos de repercussão internacional, impossibilitando a criação um órgão supranacional dotados de poderes para investigar e punir esses delitos. A única resposta encontrada pelos Estados foi o incremento dos tipos e da quantidade de medidas de cooperação internacional em matéria penal. Para isso, fez-se necessário rever os métodos tradicionais de cooperação judicial, outorgando às autoridades encarregadas da persecução penal maior autonomia para cooperar diretamente, sem intervenção judicial. No Brasil, mesmo que de forma mais vagarosa que no resto do mundo, o mesmo vai acontecendo. A tese propõe que a Constituição da República, da legislação infraconstitucional e dos tratados internacionais, que regulam a cooperação em matéria criminal celebrados pelo Brasil, revelam que o Ministério Público Brasileiro, em especial o Ministério Público Federal, tem o dever de cooperar com as autoridades estrangeiras no combate à criminalidade transnacional. É o Ministério Público o principal ator da persecução penal, sendo-lhe inerente papel a atribuição de realizar atos de cooperação internacional. Decisões recentes do Supremo Tribunal Federal e do Superior Tribunal de Justiça negaram a validade de atos de cooperação direta. Apesar disso, persistem fortes argumentos a favor da cooperação pelo MP, mesmo quando a medida solicitada pelo Estado estrangeiro depender da autorização dos órgãos da base do Poder Judiciário. / [en] In the last three decades the world has seen an astonishing rise in transnational organized crime, a challenge that made the International Society search for new ways to prosecute organizations that seem to grow more powerful every day. In International Society, each and every State is an independent and sovereign entity, which means that no other State or international entity may meddle in another Stat s internal affairs. This means that the prosecution of transnational crime cannot be entrusted to an international organ, nor can a State pretend to pursue an offender into another s territory. To overcome this barrier, new and faster methods of international cooperation have been adopted with authorities being granted a greater degree of autonomy to perform acts of mutual legal assistance. The same phenomenon is occurring in Brazil, although in a much slower pace. This doctoral dissertation seeks to establish that the Constitution, Brazilian procedural and criminal laws, and the international treaties to which Brazil is party assign to the Ministério Público - MP, as the autonomous government office in charge of criminal prosecution, the task to assist international authorities in prosecuting transnational crime. Specially at the Federal level, the Ministério Público is the main actor in the investigation and judicial prosecution of criminals, however recent decisions reached by the Supremo Tribunal Federal and the Superior Tribunal de Justiça, Brazil s highest courts, have voided acts of direct cooperation by judicial authorities, raising a lot of questions about the possibility of mutual legal assistance acts by Brazilian authorities. That notwithstanding, there are several arguments which were not presented to those courts that clearly show that the MP has a crucial role to play in international cooperation in criminal matters.

No description available.

自兩岸於1987年開放探親以來，隨著兩岸頻繁的交流，跨兩岸性的犯罪活動，如販毒、詐欺、人口販運等犯罪亦日趨嚴重，特別是近年來出現有別於以往傳統詐騙手法的新型態詐欺犯罪—以電話、網路為中介物的「電信詐欺犯罪」，大肆橫行於兩岸，為害兩岸治安最深，是類犯罪不斷翻新手法，巧藉各種名目詐騙民眾獲取不法暴利，造成極嚴重的社會成本付出。過去，兩岸共同打擊犯罪機制，僅有「金門協議」及其他非正式管道，以為合作打擊犯罪的依據，因「金門協議」的內涵不足致使成果有限。隨著政治氛圍的改變，兩岸終於2009年4月簽署「海峽兩岸共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協議」，為兩岸共同打擊犯罪奠定了新里程碑，惟分析其內容並與「駐美國台北經濟文化代表處與美國在台協會間之刑事司法互助協定」比較，可以發現尚有許多問題亟待解決。本研究藉由分析現行兩岸共同打擊犯罪機制，並提出問題及建議，以強化兩岸共同打擊電信詐欺犯罪的力道。 / Since 1987 Taiwan and Mainland China allowed people visited opposite side, cross-strait crimes such as smuggling drugs, fraud and human trafficking have become more and more serious as both parts frequently contacting with each other. Recently, new type fraud which is different from traditional fraud spread around and critically damage social security, especially telecom fraud by telephone and internet being the mediators. By using multiform excuses, these kinds of crimes continuously renovate to cheat innocent people and obtain huge illegal money, so that they cause a great loss of social. In the past, there were only Kinmen Agreement and the other unofficial channel as the basis in the cross-strait crime-fighting mechanism. However, Kinmen Agreement was too narrowed its coverage to limited in its results. With the political atmosphere changes, each part finally signed “Cross-Strait Agreement on Joint Crime-Fighting and Judicial Mutual Assistance” in April, 2009. This is the new milestone of cross-strait crime-fighting cooperation mechanism. As analyzing it and comparing it with “Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office and the American Institute in Taiwan”, we found there are still some obstacles need to be resolved. This study offers some questions and advises in order to strengthen the cross-strait telecom fraud crime-fighting cooperation mechanism.

傳統的國家安全威脅之應處，係以確保國家軍事、政治及外交衝突等國家安全問題為目標。隨著冷戰結束後，全球化時代來臨，國際戰略環境的變遷與威脅性質的演變，「非傳統安全」威脅已逐漸取代「傳統安全」威脅。換言之，傳統安全思維僅著重在主權國家的軍事安全層面，非傳統安全則是基於整體人類安全的考量。我國在面對非傳統安全威脅下，如何調整適應環境之變化，以確保生存及發展，已成為當前刻不容緩之要務。 非傳統安全議題相當廣泛，主要包括：經濟及金融安全、自然生態環境安全、網路資訊安全、大規模殺傷性武器擴散、疫情傳播、恐怖主義、跨境犯罪、走私販毒、非法移民、海盜、洗錢等。中國大陸對臺威脅亦包含傳統與非傳統安全威脅性質。傳統安全係以軍事戰略威脅為主，非傳統安全威脅則來源多元、形式多樣，所呈現以走私、海盜、偷渡、偽造貨幣、詐欺、洗錢等跨境犯罪最為顯著， 本論文將探討兩岸共同打擊跨境犯罪背景發展，並分析兩岸交流衍生之大陸民眾非法來臺所呈現之態樣與現況，闡明我國所面臨的非傳統安全威脅，希冀由相關資料分析比較，藉此驗證現行實務面執行運作成效，並針對實務運作所面臨之困境提出研究建議，供相關單位參考，建立一個兩岸和平安全的互動環境。 / The aim of dealing with the traditional threats to national security is to ensure the national security in the aspects of military, politics and diplomacy. After the end of the Cold War comes the era of globalization, international strategic environment changes as well as the substantial of threat evolves. As a result, “non-traditional security (NTS)” threats have gradually taken the place of “traditional security” treats. In other words, the concept of traditional security only focuses on the aspects of military security of a sovereign state, whereas the consideration of non-traditional security is based on the general human safety. While confronting with threats of non-traditional security, it’s crunch time to make adjustments and adaptation so as to ensure existence and development of Taiwan. The issues of non-traditional security are extremely wide-ranging, mainly including: economic and financial security, ecological and environmental security, information and network security, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the spread of epidemics, terrorism, transnational crime, narcotics and smuggling, illegal immigration, piracy, money laundering, and so on. The threats to Taiwan from China include traditional security threats and non-traditional security threats. The main threat of the traditional threats is military hostility, while non-traditional security threats stem from various sources and come out in multitudinous forms, especially in the fields of transnational crime such as smuggling, piracy, stowaways, currency counterfeiting, fraud, money laundering, etc. This study discusses the background and context of the cross-strait joint fight against transnational crime, and analyzes the current situation and patterns of illegal immigration of the people from Mainland China resulting from the cross-trait exchanges, as well as explicates the non-traditional security threats confronted by Taiwan, whereupon, in the hope of examining the practice performance by means of comparative analysis of related materials, proposed suggestions and strategies for these predicaments are finally concluded as a reference to the competent authorities to build a peaceful and secure environment for cross-strait interactions accordingly.

La recevabilité de la preuve est sans doute l’une des questions les plusimportantes de l’espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice de l’Union européenne,mais aussi une des plus complexes. Les difficultés relatives à l’utilisation d’unepreuve recueillie dans un État membre, devant les juridictions répressives d’un autreÉtat membre, semblent cependant avoir été sous-estimées par le législateureuropéen. En effet, l’amélioration de l’efficacité de la répression transnationale a étéune des priorités de la politique criminelle de l’Union ces quinze dernières années. Àce titre, le renforcement des mécanismes de coopération judiciaire, y compris ceuxvisant à l’obtention de la preuve transnationale, a été privilégié. Grâce au principe dereconnaissance mutuelle des décisions judiciaires en matière pénale, fondé sur laconfiance réciproque que les États membres se portent, les divergences etéventuelles incompatibilités entre les systèmes nationaux ont été tenues en échec,permettant ainsi la libre circulation des preuves dans l’espace pénal européen.Cependant, cette justification théorique n’est pas suffisante pour assurer larecevabilité mutuelle des preuves, la bonne administration de la preuve pénaledemeurant une question nationale, souverainement appréciée par le juge national.De plus, tant l’étude comparative des régimes probatoires nationaux que laprésentation des instruments de coopération judiciaire montrent des déficiencesprofondes, appelant ainsi à une protection accrue et harmonisée des droitsfondamentaux dans les procédures répressives au niveau européen, dans le butd’assurer la recevabilité mutuelle des preuves pénales dans l’espace pénaleuropéen. / Admissibility of evidence is one of the most crucial and complicatedissues in the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice. However, thedifficulties regarding the use of evidence gathered in one Member State inproceedings in another Member State through the mechanisms of judicialcooperation seems to have been underestimated by the European Union legislator,and this despite the success of criminal proceedings with a cross-border characterbeing considered a priority for the last fifteen years. Indeed, the EU’s criminal policyhas been striving for the strengthening of the efficiency of judicial cooperationbetween judicial authorities. This requires the improvement of the instrumentsdedicated to obtaining criminal evidence. Thanks to the principle of mutualrecognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters, based on mutual trust betweenMember States, the differences between and potential incompatibilities of nationalsystems should not be an obstacle to the free circulation of evidence in the EUcriminal justice area.However, this theoretical justification is not sufficient to ensure mutual admissibility ofevidence, as the good administration of evidence remains a national issue, with awide margin of appreciation accorded to the national judge. Furthermore, both thestudy of national procedural norms and the study of the European Union legalframework show deficiencies, requiring a coherent concept for the protection offundamental rights in criminal proceedings at the EU-level. A better and harmonisedprotection of procedural guarantees is the path to ensure the mutual admissibility ofevidence, overcoming national differences.