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.

本國為因應2018年亞太防制洗錢組織（APG）相互評鑑事宜，相關單位陸續參照國際規範，如防制洗錢金融行動工作組織（FATF）2012年發布之「防制洗錢及打擊資恐與武器擴散國際標準40項建議」、巴塞爾銀行監理委員會(BCBS)2014年發布之「健全有關防制洗錢及打擊資恐之風險管理」文件等，以及他國作法進行有關防制洗錢及打擊資恐法制規約、監管措施及自律規範等之修正，並促請義務機構強化執行，以期順利通過第三輪相互評鑑。 銀行向為洗錢及資恐犯罪喜好之金流管道，基於銀行提供之金融服務具安全性、便利性及多元化、全球化等優點，不僅吸引一般金融消費者與銀行緊密往來，亦同時受到不良分子之青睞，致金融體系資源易遭不當利用。銀行為金融體系之核心主體，負有防制洗錢及打擊資恐之義務與責任，本文爰就銀行業防制洗錢及打擊資恐實務切入，針對本國銀行應採行之因應措施基本架構進行探討。 本文將先介紹FATF之評鑑流程及方法論，以立下銀行進行防制洗錢及打擊資恐工作之目標，復就達成前開目標為方向，引述金融機構防制洗錢及打擊資恐機制之國際標準，繼而回歸國內外對銀行實際作為之法規要求，試行建構銀行防制洗錢及打擊資恐基本機制，末則就銀行於執行面可改善空間提出重點觀察建議。 隨著工業4.0、Bank3.0及Fintech（金融科技）之快速演進，銀行客戶樣貌及交易型態正在改變，健全防制洗錢及打擊資恐機制是所有銀行業共同面臨之進階版挑戰，本文謹提出銀行機制基本實務報告，俾作為開展細緻化措施之參考。另本文為一般性原則之探討，並非針對特定機構主體之描述，併此敘明。 / For the Mutual Evaluation which will be conducted by the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG) in 2018, basing on the following consulting international norms, such as “International Standards on combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation (The FATF Recommendations)” published by Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in 2012, “Sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism” published by Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) in 2014 and foreign advanced practices, the Taiwan authorities have amended the legal system, laws and regulations, supervision measures and self-disciplines referred to Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorism Financing(CTF). Meanwhile, every relevant entity is enhancing the prevent measures and internal control on AML/CFT (Counter-Financing of Terrorism) as well. The satisfactory result of the Third Round Mutual Evaluation will be expected. As people know, the banks are always the favorite cash flow channel of money laundering and terrorism financing, since the banks provide the financial services with advantages of safety, convenience, diversification and globalization, etc. Both general financial customers and criminals on ML/FT are attracted to make transactions with the banks. Thus, the financial system’s resources could be utilized improperly. Due to the role of the core of financial system, the banks should take the responsibility and bear the liability of Anti-Money Laundering and combating the financing of terrorism. In this paper, the primary framework on AML/CFT of domestic banks will be outlined according to the real practice. First, this paper has an introduction of mutual evaluation process and methodology in order to set the goal related to AML/CFT of the bank. Next, the model practices of international standards are presenting to achieve the goal for references. Then, this paper will focus on domestic and foreign regulatory requirements on banking, and try to construct the bank’s primary internal system of AML/CFT. Finally, there are some observations of the bank’s performance related to this issue. With the rapid evolution of Industry 4.0, Bank 3.0 and Fintech, the customers’ financial behaviors and transaction types are changing. Therefore, to keep sound internal system of AML/CFT is an advanced challenge to all the banks. This paper is trying to set a primary framework on AML/CFT of domestic banks, and to be taken reference for banks to start developing appropriate prevent measures. In addition, the statement of this paper is an approach to general principles, not indicating any specific institution.

本研究主要係針對跨國企業以非常規交易掏空資產之議題進行探討，包括非常規交易之型態、操作工具之經濟誘因分析、世界各國防制對策介紹、相關案例探討及結論與建議等主要部分，茲依各章次序分述其主要內容如次： 第一章「緒論」：包括研究動機、目的、內容、方法、範圍、限制與架構等，並透過文獻探討，分析相關文獻之價值及其不足之處。並於本章未節將本研究之重要名詞予以定義及說明。 第二章「非常規交易之探討」：首先分析跨國企業操作非常規交易所需使用之主要工具，並探討選擇該等工具之經濟誘因，使讀者瞭解跨國企業經營者選擇非常規交易操作工具之考量何在。其次介紹既有研究成果所歸納之非常規交易類型，並介紹相關學理及實務上之分類，並分析既有文獻分類之不足。最後介紹，美國關係企業交易規範及沙賓法案（Sarbanes-Oxley Act）、德國公司治理之防制對策，如雙層委員會制、銀行監控主體性及職工參與制等，最後則介紹經濟合作暨發展組織(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD)之公司治理準則（Principles of Corporate Governance）及有害的稅制競爭（Harmful Tax Competition）等反租稅天堂措施等，希望能夠以國外相關制度作為吾國之借鏡。 第三章「掏空公司資產之國內案例研究」：本章首先介紹博達及久津等兩個典型案例，其次介紹政府當時對於博達案之因應作為，並作相關評析。最後輔以近年來實務上發生之案例，並歸納分析其主要之犯罪手法，再加以綜整為一整合之模式雛型，希望能使讀者透過閱讀簡單之圖型，加深對非常規交易之概念。 第四章為「跨國企業掏空公司資產之共通特徵及犯罪成因分析」：分析前述博達等類似案件之特徵，並從當時之時空背景、公司治理及外部監督機制面向，分析弊端發生之原因及制度上之不足。 第五章「結論」：本研究認為阻斷操作工具之經濟誘因能有效防制掏空資產行為，及強化公司內部治理及外部監督能有效改善企業舞弊現象；文末並針對吾國現行偵辦及相關防制實務，提出具體建議。 / The objevtives of this study aims at misappropriating assets of transnational corporations with non-arm’s length transactions, containning its categorizations, analysis of economic inducements of means, strategies of prevention economic crimes of America, German and OECD, introducing cases concerned, conclusions and suggestions. They can be found in the following: Chapter 1. This chapter explains the author’s motive and purpose of writing this thesis, ranges, methods, limits and frameworks of this study, discussing the values and deficiencies of the existing literatures, and definitions of terminology. Chapter 2. In this chapter, the author introduces the means of non-arm’s length transactions. Then, he analyzes the economic inducements of them and introduces the categorizations of non-arm’s length transactions, strategies of prevention economic crimes of America, German and OECD, such as Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and so on. Chapter 3. In Chapter 3, the author does case studies on “Procomp Informatics Ltd. Event” and “Bomy Company Event”, etc. Then inducts new categorizations of economic crimes and establishes a notional model of non-arm’s length transactions. Chapter 4. The author analyzes the backgrounds, characteristics of the 2 events mentioned before from the view points of corporate governance. Chapter 5. “To block the economic inducements of non-arm’s length transactions can prevent companies from misappropriating assets.“ and “to strengthen corporate governance inside and out can reduce fraudulence effectively.”are conclusions of the study. Based on them, the author proposes some suggestions to the authorities concerned.

Money laundering (ML) involves a wide range of predicate offenses, including drug trafficking, human smuggling, arms smuggling, gambling, fraud, tax evasion, etc. Additionally, money laundering activities had been associated with drug trafficking or organized crime in the past, but the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001 have highlighted the link between money laundering activities and terrorist financing (TF). Due to the over-banking phenomenon in Taiwan, banks focus more on business performance than compliance, resulting in the violation incident of Mega International Commercial Bank (Mega Bank) New York Branch with a huge penalty of US$180 million fined by the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) in August, 2016. The violation incident of Mega Bank New York Branch has reinforced the importance of compliance with international Anti-money laundering/Combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) standards for risk mitigation. Taiwan will undergo the third round of the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG) mutual evaluations in 2018, it calls for not only government legislation but also raising public awareness of ML/TF crimes and involves the public cooperation with the government in the fight against ML/TF.