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.