當前企業於激烈之商業競爭環境下，為期生存發展，經營運作手段無所不用其極，甚或甘冒觸法風險，導致企業之經濟犯罪（Economic Crimes）、金融犯罪（Finance Crime）案件層出不窮；其中尤以金融投資信託公司之金融犯罪行為，造成之傷害牽連更為廣泛，影響所及，不僅在於投資大眾之財務損失，更嚴重戕害及腐蝕國家整體力量，影響民眾對私人企業及對政府之信任至鉅。 加之為期因應高齡化課題，政府業以龐大的「退休基金」建構完整之老年經濟保障制度，各項政府基金不僅對金融市場產生重大影響，在人口普遍老化的趨勢下，對個人未來生涯之規劃影響程度亦更為深遠。為達有效之財務經營管理及靈活運用之目地，政府基金均依據法令由各所屬機關依各投信業者操作績效，每年自行接洽投信業者代為操作，此一政策雖均訂有監理、查核、監管機制，可稱極為嚴謹，惟仍有2011～2013年之安○投信基金案及2012～2013年之日○投信等案發生，本研究針對當前金控投信公司漠視企業倫理、罔顧企業社會責任之金融犯罪行為，希能經由文獻之探討、學理之分析，並透過專業人員（政府官員及受託代操勞動基金之金融投信業者）之深度訪談，彙整分析前述委外代操機制，以期發掘運作流程有無發生貪腐之可能環節及原因，並提出具體防範對策，以供政府主管機關研擬相關政策之參考。

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.

銀行法第一百二十五條之二之背信罪係於民國八十九年修正公布，當時之立法背景係因重大金融弊案陸續發生，嚴重損害銀行利益，並危及國家金融秩序，立法者遂在嚴懲金融犯罪之氛圍下，制定銀行法背信罪。其後於民國九十三年修正銀行法背信罪時，除提高法定刑外，並新增以犯罪所得達一億元作為加重刑度之要件，並新增訂銀行法第一百二十五條之四第三項，犯罪所得利益超過罰金最高額及損及金融市場穩定之加重處罰規定。 銀行法背信罪在性質上屬於金融犯罪之一種，其所侵害者係「金融市場秩序」，而「金融市場秩序」屬於具有刑法意義之超個人法益，其內涵即是社會大眾對於金融制度之信賴，與刑法背信罪單純保護財產法益不同。當「金融市場秩序」此一超個人法益受到侵害時，最終受害的仍是參與其中的每個人的整體財產法益。 銀行法背信罪與刑法背信罪規定幾乎雷同，而普通刑法有背信罪，特別刑法亦有背信罪規範之立法模式，與日本刑法背任罪及會社法特別背任罪之立法模式亦相同，故參照我國刑法背信罪構成要件、日本學說及實務見解，解析我國銀行法背信罪之構成要件：行為主體「銀行負責人」，依公司法及銀行之組織章程而來認定；「職員」，係指與銀行存有僱傭關係，領有報酬並為銀行處理事務者；「違背職務」在判斷上，應從銀行負責人或職員之職務內容、範圍、法律規定、內部規章及社會上之一般通念等各方面加以綜合判斷；「財產上損害」應從經濟及法律之觀點檢視銀行的整體財產之總值有無減少而論；「主觀故意」不限於直接故意，未必故意之情形亦屬之；「不法意圖」指得利意圖及損害意圖，行為人僅須具有兩種不法意圖之一者即可。 我國銀行法背信罪在立法上採重刑化思維，忽略法益位階及比例原則，並有重複加重處罰之嫌；將銀行負責人及職員同列為行為主體更為不當之立法。參酌日本立法例及檢視我國實務判決後，仍建議以修法為解決之道。

金融犯罪近年來日益受學者與實務界之重視,而我國證券交易 法既以「發展國民經濟、保障投資」為目的,證券市場是否依自然 供需法則自由運作,而不受人為操縱行為破壞價格決定機制,顯得 至為重要。 我國證券交易法明文禁止操縱市場行為,違反者除民事損害賠 償責任外,尚有刑事處罰,且刑度非輕。操縱市場雖屬於相對抽象 之一種禁止類型,但法院實務上已經累積為數不少之判決,然而因 案件內容繁雜、法條構成要件不夠明確......等因素,造成法律見解難 以統一之現象,進而使得辯護工作難度增加。 本文擬從比較法上,參考外國法對操縱市場行為禁止之類型及 方式,檢視我國證券交易法中關於操縱市場之立法過程與構成要 件,並蒐集大量法院判決,整理分析被告提出之各式抗辯,回顧法 院判決中之見解、判斷,期待能更深入問題之核心,裨對實務工作 者能有所助益。 / Financial crimes are increasingly valued by academics and practitioners in recent years. Securities and Exchange Act in Taiwan is securities market operate freely in accordance with the law of natural supply and demand without undermining the mechanism of price determination by human manipulation so important. Securities and Exchange Act in Taiwan expressly prohibited for market manipulation and penalize who breach of regulation. They must bear civil liability for damages and seriously criminal penalties. Although market manipulation may be very abstract sometimes, court practice has accumulated a large number of judgments. However, it’s still a big challenge for attorneys due to the different opinions in practice. The relevant provisions of this order the United States, England and China on different types of legislation about manipulation, in order to find the difference of among the Securities and Exchange Law of Taiwan, as a reference to amend acts of manipulation. By studying cases selected our Court and trying to analyze how the various defenses affect the court decision.