資訊科技的發達為人類的生活帶來了便利，同時也嘉惠犯罪實施的便利性，許多與犯罪相關的證據已經普遍以數位化的形式存在，在刑事偵查中對於這類數位資訊之保全成效，將直接影響到後續的刑事訴訟程序是否能順利地進行。因此有必要對於相關的法規範加以檢視，以期在顧及偵查效率的同時，亦能縮減對人民基本權利之侵害。 本文第二章介紹進入資訊數位時代之後，刑事偵查程序因數位資訊之保全所帶來的改變。第三章美國偵查實務討論美國法制對於數位資訊之保全在刑事偵查中的相關程序規定。第四章我國偵查實務探討我國法制對於數位資訊保全的相關規定，以及是否有可以借鏡外國法制優點改進之處。

無論我國航運公司所屬船舶有無「權宜船籍」的問題，於船舶航經英國法權或間接繼受英國法學之區域（如美國、澳洲、紐西蘭、新加坡、香港與加拿大等），皆有受該海事法系統管轄之可能。海上犯罪之行為地管轄固勿論，即使英國非行為地，英國海事法向來均允許對航經英國法權之船舶、運費或貨載等財產（res；property）進行扣押（arrest）以取得對財產之管轄權，俾迫使財產之利害關係人提供擔保或出庭應訊，故即使位居東南亞的我國航運公司亦有了解英國海事法程序特殊性之必要，此不僅可事先規避可能遭受司法扣押的風險，於受扣押之後，亦可即使採取適當行為減少損害進而保護應有權利。因此，對我國航運公司而言，對英國海事程序，特別是對物訴訟（action in rem）的研究不啻為一種法律上的「風險管理」（Risk Management）。 本文第二章介紹以複雜著稱的英國法院系統，並將重心置於海事法院之地位與其管轄權之發展，並分類逐條論述海事法院之對物訴訟管轄權（即何種性質之請求權得提海事對物訴訟）。第三章為本文重心，介紹英國對物訴訟理論之發展，並對其理論形成之歷史景、本質理論（程序說（procedural theory）或人格化說（personification theory）等）、與國際公約及普通法間如何取得平衡？財產所有權人或利害關係人出庭應訴與否之責任差異何在等，並於最後對容易致生混淆的相關概念一併釐清。第四章論述現行對物訴訟「程序」問題，從對物訴訟令狀（writ in rem）之聲請、簽發與送達、扣押裁定之聲請與船舶扣押之執行、各種特別聲請（caveat）、財產利害關係人之承認送達（acknowledgment of service）、保釋金（bail）或擔保等之提出、財產之放行（release）、船舶之鑑價與變價、對物訴訟缺席判決（default judgment）、聲請法院付出（payment out）與準備程序行為（preliminary acts）等。第五章討論瑪瑞發禁制令（Mareva Injunction）之最新發展，其可補充對物訴訟船舶扣押效力不足之部分，且其現於海事及商事訴訟上頗為盛行，其可避免被告惡意所為之脫產行為，可禁制大於一艘以上之被告船舶，有特予介紹論述的必要。 於民事訴訟法中增訂一編海事程序之草案，以為本文結論。

由於政經環境之變遷、公司治理的缺漏和外部監理機制之失調，常導致重大金融犯罪之發生，與其惡害卻由全民負擔之不公現象。於是除嚴刑峻罰外，奠基於任何人均不得從犯罪中獲利之犯罪所得剝奪理念與制度設計，遂於二ＯＯ四年金融七法修法時被廣泛納入。惟歷經一段期間之適用後，其法實效性如何？有無源於其他刑事法制無從配合，或囿於司法實務判解之困頓，所導致的扞格？部分國際公約與其他國家之相關法制設計及運作理念，有無值得比較、參研之處，均殊值探研。 　　本文嘗試先掌握金融犯罪之特性，與近來金融犯罪防制法規之演變。其次，再就我國犯罪所得剝奪法制沿革、犯罪所得之界定、計算為研析，並探索犯罪所得剝奪法制在預防、打擊與抗制金融犯罪等之必要性，以及其應通過之憲法基權保障檢驗。再者，則希能透過偵審案例，探究研現階段我國金融犯罪防制法規，在犯罪所得之暫時保全與終局剝奪上所面臨之實務困境及問題；並瞭解部分重要之國際公約與美、英、日等國家有關法制之設計。最後，則期能歸結相關問題與爭議，並融合法制建構、實務運作、外國法制借鏡等數個層面，提出可能之解決途徑或修法建議。 / Political and economic changes, incomplete of corporate governance, and imbalance of external supervision mechanism are all reasons for occurrence of major financial fraud. The losses and costs of major financial fraud, in general, are always enormous. Unfortunately, most people, instead of offenders, need to bear the huge losses. As a result, except the strategy of severe punishment, the idea and regulations on deprivation proceeds of crime were introduced to combat these problems in 2004. However, after a period of practicing, how about the application and practice of regulations on deprivation proceeds of crime is. Therefore, we are concerned about: are there any problems or difficulties resulting from criminal legal system and the practice of precedent itself? What we can learn from international conventions and other countries’ similar legal system? The thesis, first of all, attempts to figure out the feature of major financial fraud and the changes of financial regulations. Secondly, we try to explore the history of regulations on deprivation proceeds of crime, the definition and the calculation of proceeds of crime, and whether the regulations on deprivation proceeds of crime are essential for preventing and against major financial fraud or not. Meanwhile, in order to guarantee and protect the fundamental rights of people, we also hope to exam the regulations on deprivation proceeds of crime by the concepts of constitution. In additions, according to the case study, the thesis also longs for exploring what are the practical problems and dilemmas for current regulations on temporary seizure and final forfeiture procedures. At the same time, comparing with the international conventions and other countries’ similar legal system on laundering, search, freeze, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds from crime is also important and useful for this study. Finally, after concluding the relative problems and debates about this topic, of course, the paper hopes to propose a possible approach or legal amendment by integrating legal system modification, legal practice, and foreign legal system.

我國於97年7月1日設立智慧財產法院，專責辦理智慧財產案件，智慧財產民事保全程序之假扣押、假處分及定暫時狀態處分亦包括在內，為瞭解智慧財產法院對於假扣押、假處分及定暫時狀態處分案件所採取之見解，本文蒐集智慧財產法院自97年7月1日設立後至103年4月30日止之假扣押、假處分及定暫時狀態處分裁定，將相關裁定之准許理由、駁回理由加以歸納分類，進行系統化之整理，依不同類型之權利如專利權、商標權、著作權等分類，予以統計分析，並提出問題與建議。

抵銷制度所具有之簡易清償機能與公平維持機能已廣受我國學說與實務承認，惟抵銷制度是否具有擔保機能一事，則尚未受到充分之關注與討論而仍存有疑義。 所謂抵銷之擔保機能者，係指在互有相對立債權債務的主被動債權人間，若被動債權人資力不足且同時對多數債權人負有債務時，身為多數債權人之一的主動債權人，可藉由抵銷權之行使，使其與被動債權人間相對立之債務立即消滅，產生主動債權人藉由抵銷權之行使，令自身債權獲得較其他債權人優先受償、主動債權如同受被動債權擔保般的效果。 此一抵銷權之擔保機能反映在法律規定上，與之關連最密切者，乃民法第340條。蓋民法第340條乃規範多數債權人（扣押債權人與主動債權人）於競爭何人得自被動債權人財產受償時，抵銷權行使應否受限制的問題。因此，若承認擔保機能為抵銷制度之本質機能，則在民法第340條之解釋適用上，即應擴大允許被動債權受扣押後抵銷權之行使範圍，使此一抵銷制度之本質機能得以充分發揮。 然觀察我國法將發現，目前我國學說對於抵銷制度本質上是否具有擔保機能，討論仍極為有限，此種討論不足的情況延伸至審判實務上，使各級法院在解釋適用民法第340條時，因欠缺理論基礎，導致對系爭條文之解釋適用存在有見解分歧、法律適用不安定的問題，凸顯了對於抵銷之擔保機能進行深入研究，並統一民法第340條解釋適用之必要性。 對上述問題，因日本民法第511條與我國民法第340條規範幾近相同，且該國判例學說長期以來已累積豐富之討論成果，可為我國法解釋適用之參考。在整理該國判例學說與修法動態後，可得出下列三點啟發：第一、「擔保機能」僅是多種「抵銷對第三人效力理論基礎」的可能選項之一，其存在對於抵銷制度並非絕對。第二、日本法上對於民法第511條之所以存在多種解釋方法，此亦係肇因於其背後對於「抵銷對第三人效力理論基礎」的選擇不同所致。第三、在決定是否以「抵銷制度本質具擔保機能」作為「抵銷對第三人效力理論基礎」後，尚須注意此一結論是否能與扣押命令效力範圍、民法第511條之體系定位、期限利益喪失約款之對第三人效力等周邊問題建立邏輯一貫而無矛盾的解釋。 將對日本法之研究成果運用在我國法的解釋適用上，可自民法第299條第2項之規範方式推知我國立法者有意採取「對抵銷期待利益之保護」作為「抵銷對第三人效力理論基礎」。考量民法第340條與民法第299條第2項同為抵銷制度下「抵銷對第三人效力」規範，故兩規範在解釋適用上應採取相同之理論基礎。換言之，民法第340條所規範的「抵銷與扣押」關係中，主動債權人之所以可藉由主張抵銷而獲得較扣押債權人優先受償的類似擔保效果，實為保障主動債權人對抵銷之期待利益所產生的事實上反射效果，並非抵銷制度本質上有何擔保機能存在。而在否定抵銷制度本質上具有擔保機能後，則可以此結論作為解決相關問題之起點，逐一推論出民法第340條應如何解釋適用，以及其他周邊問題的解答。 / Expediency in satisfying debts and keeping fair treatment among creditors are two major functions well acknowledged by academics and the judiciary in Taiwan. However, a possible third function - securing unpaid loans through claiming an offset (hereinafter referred to as securing function) - has not yet been fully discussed. The purpose of this thesis is to fill this gap in the understanding of the issue. Securing function of offset means that in the situation that two people are each others’ creditors and one of them is insolvent, the solvent creditor can assert their right of offset. To claim an offset allows a creditor/debtor to have his/her unpaid loans preferentially satisfied before other creditors’ claims. Allowing a creditor to claim offset results in the same effect as the creditors’ loan having been secured. In the civil code of the R.O.C, Article 340 is most relevant to the question of whether the right of offset includes the securing function. Article 340 stipulates that, “When an obligation has been attached by an order of the court, the third debtor of such obligation shall not take a claim which he has acquired from the creditor after the attachment to offset the obligation attached.” The question in point is: • whether the limitation on the garnishee’s right of offset is only limited to his counter claim against his creditor generated after the issuance of an attachment order, or • should it be expanded to all of his counter claims, including those generated before the issuance of an attachment order. The key to answer the abovementioned question lies in whether securing function is within the intention of the legislator in enacting Article 340 of the Civil Code of the R.O.C. After scrutinizing essays related to the right of offset in the Civil Code of the R.O.C., it is clear that scholars in Taiwan have not discussed the questions enough yet. The lack of academic research results in considerable confusion in judicial practices when applying Article 340 of the Civil Code of the R.O.C. Japanese scholars and legal precedents of the Japanese Supreme Court have been exploring the securing function issue of the right of offset for more than half a century. There is the same question regarding Article 511 of the Japanese Civil Code, and the article is almost identical to Article 340 of the R.O.C Civil Code. We consider it to be helpful to review their research and take it as our reference. The gist of Japanese academic research and legal precedents regarding the above-mentioned issue, can be summarized as follows. First, acknowledging securing function of the offset right is not necessary in constructing the theory of the right of offset; second, explanations for Article 511 of the Japanese Civil Code in Japan have not yet been unified. There are still controversies in Japanese scholars' research and legal precedents regarding the issue, as Japanese scholars and Japan's Supreme Court continue to offer various theories regarding the legislative intent of Article 511. Third, whether securing function can be considered as within the legislative intent of Article 511 further relates to the solutions to the following three questions: the scope of attachment orders, the role of the right of offset within the whole of the Japanese civil law system, and the influence of acceleration clauses. The above-mentioned research on Japanese law concludes that the legislative intent of the Japanese Civil Code is not to confer securing function to the right of offset, but to protect legitimate expectations of the debtors to have the chance of claiming offset. The same conclusion can be derived from observing the design of paragraph 2 of Article 299 of the Civil Code of the R.O.C., which regulates the influence of the right of offset on the third party creditors (hereinafter the “third party effect”). Paragraph 2 of Article 299 stipulates that, “At the time of the debtor being notified, if the debtor had the claim against the transferor [sic], and if such claim matures before or at the same time as the claim transferred does, he/she may claim for offset against the transferee.” To clarify, when a debt is transferred from the original creditor to a new creditor (hereinafter transferee), the debtor can only claim an offset against the transferee with a counter claim that matures before or at the same time as the transferred claim does. The same design in the Japanese law leads to the conclusion that the legislative intent in designing the third party effect of the right of offset is based on protecting the legitimate expectation of the debtor in having the chance to claim the right of offset. We propose that it is helpful to construe Taiwan’s system in the same way. To clarify the conclusion further, Paragraph 2 of Article 299 and Article 340 of the Civil Code of the R.O.C. both regulate the third party effect of the right of offset. The same theory of interpretation should be adopted in order to keep the Taiwanese civil law system coherent. Article 340 provides that a garnishee can only claim the right of offset when his/her counter claim against the creditors originated before the date of issuance of the attachment order. We should construe that the legislative intent is to protect debtors’ expectation of a chance to claim an offset identical to the construction of the paragraph 2 of Article 299. Although the operation of Article 340 allows the debtor/creditor to satisfy his/her claim preferentially before other creditors under some circumstances, the so-called “securing function” of right of offset can only be considered as a collateral effect and is not within the legislative intent of the regulation. After denying the legislative intent of securing function of the right of offset, the thesis further clarifies the answers to three questions relating to the third party effect of the right of offset: (1) the limitation on the right of offset stipulated in Article 340 shall be construed as an exception in the civil law system of Taiwan; (2) the scope of an attachment order shall not reach the right of offset of the third party (garnishee) in principle; and (3) the acceleration clause shall not influence the rights of third parties.

營建工程契約不同於一般傳統之承攬契約，在於其履約期長、所牽涉之標的金額龐大，有其專業性要求且風險性高之特性，因此工程契約所衍生之履約爭議往往十分常見，基於工程契約之特性，為了確保權益之實現，因而發展出許多工程契約之擔保類型，除了一般常見之工程履約保證金以及銀行出具之履約保證書之履約擔保方式外，透過約定由第三人實際接續施作工程，以完成業主之完工利益，乃工程契約特殊之擔保類型之一，最常見之情形乃保證廠商之約定以及監督付款之協議。 然而，保證廠商性質上乃民法上之保證人，基於保證廠商單務契約之性質，原則上保證廠商並無任何法定之權利得向業主請求給付工程款，僅得基於求償權之規定，向承包商請求相關之費用，但是因承包商於此等情形已無資力甚或是不知去向，保證廠商往往要求約定業主將原應給付予承包商之工程款讓與予承包商，否則不願接續繼續施作。因此實務上保證廠商與業主間，往往約定將承包商權利移轉予保證廠商或將工程契約之一切權利義務移轉予保證廠商之條款，但是此等條款之效力如何以及所衍生之效力，在實務上迭生爭議。 工程實務所發展出的監督付款協議，係指大型工程承包商將工程部分分包予其他廠商之時，若承包商資金週轉發生問題，而分包商不願繼續履約時，為了確保廠商繼續施作，業主、承包商及分包商其中二方或全體共同協議，由分包商接續施作工程，而將業主應給付予承包商之工程款監督付款予分包商。然而，在法院實務上，業主時常主張監督付款之協議並未使分包商取得對於業主之工程款直接請求權，而主張拒絕給付工程款予分包商。此等監督付款之協議內容應如何解釋較為合理，以及監督付款之分包商權利是否獲得足夠之保障，均為重要之議題。 本文將整理法院實務所觀察到的保證廠商以及監督付款協議之重要判決並類型化，比較各種類型與法律概念之釐清，逐一檢視各案中法院對於保證廠商以及監督付款之定性是否妥適，並分析當事人間之法律關係。嘗試就涉及承包商之債權人若受讓工程款債權或是進行強制執行之扣押時之四方權利義務衝突 (在承包商之債權人、業主、保證廠商/監督付款之分包商彼此之間，權利之衝突應該如何判斷？)之爭議，綜合保證廠商及監督付款之法律定性、各工程款之法律性質之判斷，提出符合我國法理之解釋，並就我國法律所欠缺之部分，提出可供參考的修正方向，希冀能對於我國工程契約以及擔保法制提供若干貢獻。