| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺北大學 === 犯罪學研究所 === 97 === The unique political and economic situation between Taiwan and China facilitates the across-strait underground banking business, which refers to the informal alternative remittance system. The business rapidly grows with the ascending trade and personal interactions across the Taiwan Straits. Its scope and scale expands in line with the increase of new residents on this island, such as spouses from mainland China and other foreign countries as well as foreign workers. In order to deter underground banking, relevant laws have been revised several times to include stiffer penalties for crime of the kind. That coincides with the Criminal Code Revision on July 1, 2006 as a result of adoption to the “leniency for some, harsher punishment for others” policy which tough sentences act as a deterrent to crime offenders. This thesis aims to explore the theories of criminology that advocate severe criminal punishments, to grasp an understanding of legislative reasons and process of stiffer penalties for alternative remittance system, and to discuss the effectiveness of law enforcement efforts against underground banking cases.
Caesar Beccaria, a leading philosopher of Classical School in criminology, argued that punishment can act as an effective deterrent for crime, so long as the punishment is certain, proportional, fits to criminal damage, and is carried out promptly. The literature review focuses on the purpose and standard of inflicting criminal punishment, the implications of severe criminal punishment based on the Rational Choice Theory and Deterrence Theory, the development of underground banking as a victimless crime, and the correlation between underground banking and money laundering.
First, this study conducts a literature review to convey the criminology theories of Rational Choice and Deterrence. Rational Choice Theory evaluates the variables from a micro-perspective regarding a person’s choice to commit or not commit a crime based on rationality with the aim of seeking effective strategy for crime prevention. Deterrence Theory advocates inflicting severe punishment on criminals as a deterrent to potential offenders. Secondly, by analyzing the legislative process and reasons for several revisions to article 125 of the Banking Code, the purpose of stiffer criminal penalty is to deter the proliferation of financial crimes. Finally, a review of 85 first-instance verdicts on underground banking cases from 2000 to 2007 indicates that 125 people were found guilty. Although defendants in underground banking cases are frequently determined guilty by the court, they are usually given a lesser or suspended sentence. It is also difficult to charge them with money laundering for lack of a positive correlation between underground banking and money laundering.
In summary, this research finds that law enforcement efforts against underground banking cases are aggressive; however, court decisions in practice concerning punishment for crime of this kind are less serious due to the law designated for crime reduction as well as exemption. This is inconsistent with the legislative purpose of advocating severe penalties to effectively deter criminal offences.
In this regard, the research suggests reviewing the law in order to evaluate the exemption within the law in the hope of embracing stiffer criminal penalties for felons so as to deter other would-be offenders. The study also adopts the concept of Rational Choice Theory to loosen restrictions on the amount and locations for foreign exchange. The increased supply of legitimate remittance services will decrease the demand for the alternative remittance system. As a result, the underground banking business will be crippled by the market mechanism. Finally, examining the nature of severe punishment policy, underground banking is not necessarily linked to money laundering; however, felons very often exploit the informal alternative system to avoid investigations. In conclusion, the administrative, legislative, and judicial organizations should pay more attention to the specialty of underground banking cases, review the incongruity between law and policy implementation, and work in close collaboration on crime deterrence as well as crime prevention.
|
|---|
