| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立交通大學 === 管理學院碩士在職專班科技法律組 === 99 === U.S. forfeiture system can be dated back to British Common Law
system. In 1789, British Congress enacted laws, which authorized law
enforcements to seize and forfeite ships and cargoes that were involved
in Customs Act and later extended to the properties of whom
committed piracy or trafficking slaves. U.S. government adopted the
British forfeiture system and enhabced and glorified another unique
one.
This unique forfeiture system commenced between the 17th and
18th Century, when smuggling, piracy, and slave trading committed
very frequently in the U.S.. At that time, criminals would stay out of the
country, and the Government hardly imposed penalties on them since
there was no criminal verdict can be delibered. Therefore, to avoid
those means of crimes from being used again and to compensate
necessary expense, U.S. government developed a civil forfeiture, in rem
forfeiture. In the early of 1970s, it can be used to strike down some drug
dealer related crimes such as bribes, gambles, murders, or racketeering.
Civil forfeiture focused on recovering the proceeds instead of
investigating skills. Since then, the civil forfeiture system has helped a lot
on reducing numbers of sever economic or proceeds related crimes.
In Taiwan, there are several mandatory forfeiture penalties in
Criminal Code and other related Codes, such as Drug Control Act and
Anti-money Laundering Act. However, the traditional concepts of
forfeiture are still remained. For example, most people consider
forfeiture as an accessory punishment and that the objects must be the
original tangible properties, moreover, the ownership of the forfeited
properties is determined by the titular but not by the real holder. Also,
the image of a defendant is still treated as a weak one who tries hard to
fight with the strong government. On the other hand, the Court confuses
the elements of a perpetration with the elements of forfeiture, which is
part of sentencing, so it does not allocate the burden of proof properly
during between the trial and sentencing activities. It makes the
prosecutors take excessive burden of proof. Owing to those reasons
above, the chance to recover proceeds of some severe economic
related crimes, if not impossible, is limited. The Government is gradually
losing the faith from the people. Keep this in mind; Taiwan starts
reviewing its forfeiture system, such as seizure, forfeiture, and recovery
elements. The Ministry of Justice is undertaking a proposal of
amendment of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code.
Therefore, the contents of this thesis will not only discuss from a
scholar’s observation, but also focus on empirical study. The purpose is
no longer emphasized on the investigating skills, but on proceeds and
then try to bring up suggestions about how to eliminate severe
economic or proceeds related crimes. Accordingly, the research
program is not focusing on investigation skills but on cutting down illegal
proceeds, make criminals get noting from crimes, and finally give up on
committing crimes. Hopefully, we can put an end to those
embezzlement, frauds, drug dealers, corruption and so on, that
undermine domestic finance and economics security and to stabilize
public security and flourish economics in Taiwan.
|
|---|
