| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺北大學 === 法律學系一般生組 === 103 === Because of the object of punishment is limited in the defendant, most of the criminals in property crime, such as economic crimes, financial crimes and corruption, tries to hide their property and benefit by transferring to a third party in and outside of the country. Seizing and confiscating proceeds of crime becomes more and more difficult to judicial authority since proceeds of crime have pasted to the “innocent third-party” who seems like to obtain the asset legally.
Therefore, international conventions and legislators nationwide, such as Germany, Japan and United States, enact forfeiture laws to allow the seizure and confiscation of third-party’s property in criminal offense. In Taiwan, Money Laundering Control Act, Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation and Draft Amendment to the Criminal Code allow the subject to forfeiture can be the property belonged to a person other than the defendant, thereby aiming to deprive criminal offenders of proceeds of crime completely.
Hence, in addition to extending the subject to asset forfeiture in criminal justice, fighting of property crime, seizing and confiscating proceeds of crime and returning forfeited assets to crime victims, the demands of criminal justice must be balanced better with the right of property of innocent third parties. In order to follow due process and to protect basic human rights, it is necessary to construct the system of ”Third-Party Claims in criminal Assets Forfeiture Proceedings” in harmony with the principle of forfeiture in Taiwan.
The methodologies adopted in this thesis are literature review, case study and comparative research method.
Chapter1: The Introduction.
Chapter2: The Discussion of confiscation of third-party’s property in Taiwan.
Chapter3: The Observation of foreign legislative examples on confiscation of third-party’s property.
Chapter4: The Proposal of amending “Third-Party Claims in Criminal Assets Forfeiture Proceedings” in Taiwan.
Chapter5: Conclusion and Recommendation.
In conclusion, the study suggests amending the code of criminal procedure regarding to the system of “Third-Party Claims in Criminal Assets Forfeiture proceedings”, including due process and the proceeding of remedies, and thereby to conform to procedural justice.
Keywords: forfeiture, proceeds of crime, third-party’s property, third-party claims, due process, procedural protections.
|
|---|
