查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 犯罪所得沒收制度之新典範?評析食安法第四十九條之一之修正
- 販賣毒品罪之犯罪所得沒收範圍--最高法院100年度臺上字第842號判決
- 論「行政訴訟上之訴訟參加」
- 行政訴訟法修正草案關於訴訟參加之評釋
- 地方自治團體之原處分機關不服自治監督機關訴願決定時之行政救濟途徑
- 我國行政訴訟法上訴訟參加制度類型之檢討--論行政訴訟法第四十四條第二項「利害關係人輔助參加」制度之妥當性
- 行政法院漏未實施訴訟參加之法律救濟途徑--兼論行政訴訟法上重新審理制度
- 訴訟參加制度在我國行政法院實務上之適用--評最高行政法院八十八年度訴字第二九一七號裁定
- 課予義務訴訟與訴訟參加
- 行政訴訟法講座系列(1)--民事訴訟法與行政訴訟法上訴訟參加制度之異同
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 犯罪所得沒收制度之新典範?評析食安法第四十九條之一之修正=The New System of Confiscating Crime Proceeds: A Comment on the Amendment of Article 49-1 of Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation |
---|---|
作者姓名(中文) | 薛智仁; | 書刊名 | 國立臺灣大學法學論叢 |
卷期 | 44:特刊 2015.11[民104.11] |
頁次 | 頁1327-1394 |
專輯 | 食品安全 |
分類號 | 587.218 |
關鍵詞 | 犯罪所得沒收; 淨額原則; 替代價值之沒收; 扣押財產; 訴訟參加; 估價權限; 被害人參與分配程序; Criminal proceeds comfiscation; The principle of net amount; Sequestrate succedaneum; Seizure of property; Intervention; The authority of evaluation; Victim participates in distribution procedure; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 在2014年的大統混油案判決引發爭議後,立法院火速通過食安法第49條之1之修正,將犯罪所得沒收擴大適用於第三人,增訂第三人程序保障規定及授權行政院制訂推估計價辦法。此一規定自此集結了犯罪所得沒收的實體法與程序法面向,可謂現行犯罪所得沒收制度的縮影,值得作全面性的立法檢討。根據本文的研究結果,我國立法者必須精確化第三人犯罪所得沒收的要件、明確採取淨額原則、將追徵抵償轉型為補充性的沒收宣告型態、健全扣押財產之實體與程序要件、擴大被沒收之第三人的訴訟參加權限、增訂法官對犯罪所得價額與範圍之估價權限、建構刑事執行階段之被害人參與分配程序。整體而言,在正視現行法規範結構缺陷的前提下,通盤改革犯罪所得沒收制度,已是刑事政策上迫在眉睫之事。 |
英文摘要 | After the 2014 judgment in the case of Datong Company's mixed oil, which provoked controversy, the Legislature amended Article 49-1 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation (AGFSS) immediately, the confiscation of crime proceeds now extend its force to cover the third party's property. The amendment also includes procedural safeguards for the third party (such as the consumer), and authorized the Executive Yuan to formulate rules for evaluating the crime proceeds. Article 49-1 assembled both substantive and procedural law of the confiscation of crime proceeds, which can be described as a microcosm of the current forfeiture system, it is worth to make a comprehensive review of legislation. This study submit the following suggestion to the current legislation: first, legislators shall define the element of a third party when confiscating crime proceeds. Second, adopt the principle of net amount directly. Third, transform requisition and compensation of crime proceeds into supplementary sequestration. Fourth, delete penalty provisions. Fifth, enhance the completeness of procedural and material elements of forfeiture. Sixth, granting rights to the third party, whose property was been sequestrated, to participate in the proceedings. Seventh, authorize the judge to evaluate the amount and the range of the crime proceeds. Eighth, construct the distribution procedure for criminal victim to participate in the implementation stage. Overall, the existing legal norms have serious structural defects, a full-scale reform of confiscating crime proceeds is an imminent issue of criminal policy. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。