沒收制度的實然與應然

The Normative and Practical Dimensions of Forfeiture System

刑法沒收制度雖經過2015年的修正，賦予其獨立性法律效果的地位，同時將沒收原本的效力加以擴張，對於犯罪工具及犯罪所得或所生的不法利益，除原對犯罪行為人得為沒收之外，更擴及犯罪行為人以外之人，即所謂第三人沒收的規定。但對於沒收制度的認知，仍舊為擺脫屬人性的制裁性格，對於沒收的本質，仍舊以刑罰及保安處分的認知為基礎，卻不知沒收所對應者，應為犯罪事實中存在之物，其與人無關。沒收的本質，應為屬物性的性質，從而，並無對於人沒收與否的衡量問題。加上新修正的沒收規定，其適用上得以為溯及既往，其所引介的論述基礎，應屬於錯誤，移植錯誤的規範與法理，必然形成沒收法制適用上的謬誤，不得不慎！

Since the adoption of the amendments in the criminal law in 2015, not only have the forfeiture procedures been granted as the status of independent legal effects, but also they expand the original scope of legal validity. Except for the confiscation of the offender’s criminal tools and derivative illegal interests, they also include the confiscation of the third party’s criminal possessions. However, the forfeiture procedures do not go beyond the purview of personality when considering the sanctions against criminal acts. The rationale is based on the penalty and rehabilitative measures for criminals. The crux of the forfeiture procedures is materiality-centric and should target on criminal possessions but not criminals per se. Most importantly, the new forfeiture procedures allow for the application of retroactivity, which undermines the fundamental principle that there is no penalty without definite law (Latin: nulla poena sine lege) in the criminal law system. This author reminds that the new forfeiture procedures mistakenly concede to retroact to past criminal acts before the passage of the new amendments has created inherent paradoxes for practice.