本文從台灣洗錢防制法第18條第2項條文規定出發，探討擴大利得沒收之概念、性質及其適用要件。釐清目前各國就某「高度懷疑來源自不法」的財產所具有的不同處理方式，大致可區分為兩種：以德國法為例的擴大利得沒收及以英美法為例的非以定罪為基礎之沒收。通過了解德國新舊刑法中關於擴大利得沒收的規定及變化，嘗試回答台灣法中的擴大利得沒收制度究竟應該如何理解，有何修正空間。其中，就台灣擴大利得沒收條文中所設置的「常習性」、「集團性」兩大限定要件進行了具體分析，明確其意涵。最後，對擴大利得沒收遭受的相關疑義進行了回應，肯定其作為沒收類型之一而具有一般性，應當納入刑法典。 / This research starts from the article 18(2) of the Money Laundering Control Act, trying to discuss the concept, the nature and the usage of the extended confiscation. Basically, there are two different ways to deal with the property which are under highly suspicion that it is derived from criminal conduct. One is the extended confiscation represented by German law, and the other one is the non-conviction-based confiscation represented by the U.S law. Taiwan uses the same way as German, thus the research focusing on the comparison between German law and Taiwanese law, trying to find out the suggestion for revision.

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.

我國經濟犯罪之範圍，係由司法機關(司法院)與行政機關(法務部) 分別以作業性之行政規則頒訂，仍以侵害個人財產法益之金融犯罪為 規範對象。 就經濟犯罪所得，由於其性質屬於準不當得利之衡平措施，自應予以 追繳或抵償(再發還被害人或充公收歸國有)以修復正義，該行為只要 與法規範對立矛盾(即具有不法構成要件該當之違法性)即足，無庸探 究行為人之罪責要件。我國將犯罪所得規定為從刑，須待行為人(即 被告)受有罪科刑判決方能併宣告沒收，緩不濟急。 建議將犯罪所得追繳後發還被害人之個別法律，移置於刑法總則一體 適用，定性為強制處分，並將沒收、追繳、追徵或抵償自從刑之規定 刪除，另於刑事訴訟法宣示判決之條文增加發還被害人或得請求損害 賠償之人，且得由法院依職權或依檢察官之聲請權單獨宣告。 我國附帶民事訴訟受請求之被告，不限於刑事訴訟進行中之被告，尚包括「其他依民法應負賠償責任之人」，刑事庭法官遇有此種情形，因對渠等並無確定刑罰權有無及範圍之權限，在刑事訴訟程序的操作上格格不入，有仿襲德國刑事訴訟法第403條規定，被請求人應以刑事被告為限。 由於附帶民事訴訟規範之目的在避免雙重工作負擔及二次裁判，惟依 現行刑事訴訟法之規定，法官除刑事判決外，另需製作一份民事訴訟 判決，如此顯違反前揭附帶民事訴訟規範之目的；故正本清源之道， 乃無庸另製作一份附帶民事訴訟之判決，就犯罪不法利得，逕於刑事 判決主文中諭知發還被害人或給付若干金額予被害人。 被害人與加害人間共同參與之修復式司法近年來在世界各國實務及 學說均肯定其實踐層面之重要性，為具體落實憲法訴訟權應保障犯罪 被害人公平且有效的權利救濟途徑及程序主體性之地位，本文建議在 審理刑事案件之前階段即擴大強制調解及和解制度之運用，由被告及 被害人共同參與決定採取何種途徑最有利於促成實質修復正義之結 果，俾利被害人程序主體性之建立及擴大紛爭解決一次性之要求。 / Economic crime in Taiwan is defined by the administrative regulations of the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice, respectively. Such regulations are aimed at financial crimes that damage personal property. Because the proceeds of economic crimes are “quasi-kondiktionelle Ausgleichsmaßnahme”, the courts should seize the profits, and then use them to either compensate victims or confiscate them in the name of serving justice. So long as this offense is contradictory to criminal law (i.e. constituting the penal code and finding no specific legal cause for that offense), the courts need not review the problem of offender's guilt. As ill-gotten gains are stipulated as “Nebenstrafe” in the Taiwan penal code, the courts cannot confiscate those gains unless there is a simultaneous conviction, which seems too slow. The following suggestions are presented. The individual laws regulating “Verfall” and compensation to the victims should be reorganized in the penal code and characterized as “maßnahme”. The legal effect of these laws as “Nebenstrafe” should be deleted. The articles relating to the compensation of criminal proceeds to the victims should be increased as well. In addition, the courts should be allowed to announce verdicts either alone by its authority or according to the prosecutor’s request. In Taiwan, defendants accused during the adhesion process are not limited to being defendants in the process of criminal litigation, but also include other persons who should bear damages in accordance with civil law. When criminal court judges face this situation, since it is not certain whether there is a right to impose criminal punishment, or what the scope of punishment should be, there are inconsistencies in the operations of the criminal litigation procedure. There have been attempts to imitate Germany’s Criminal Litigation Law Clause 403, in which the accused should be limited to criminal defendants. The purpose of the rules on the adhesion process is to prevent a double workload and multiple judgments. However, according to existing requirements for criminal litigation, in addition to criminal judgments, judges must also make civil litigation judgments. This violates the aforementioned purpose of adhesion process rules. Thus, the way to rectify this situation is to create another adhesion process judgment based on the proceeds of crime, in order to assign restitution or to pay a certain amount to the victim, inside the main text of the criminal judgment. Restorative justice, in which the victim and offender jointly participate, has recently been affirmed in its importance, both in theory and in practice, all over the world. In order to concretely realize the principle that constitutional litigation rights should protect crime victims, as well as provide fair and effective remedial paths and procedural subjectivity, this study suggested that in the stage prior to judging criminal cases, there should be expanded use of enforced arbitration and mediation systems, in which the defendant and the victim jointly participate, in order to determine the best course for promoting restorative justice, to satisfy the demand for victim procedural subjectivity, and to expand the one-time character of dispute resolutions.