刑法第三八條之一第二項立法理由與德國擴大沒收

The Legislative Explanation of Art.38-1, para.2 of the Criminal Code and the Extended Crime Gains Confiscation under German Law

此次刑法利得沒收制度之修正，不僅擺脫舊法「從刑」之桎梏，且更「擴及」第三人利得沒收，殊值肯定。惟第三八條之一第二項立法理由：「該違法行……不以被起訴或證明有罪為必要」意指為何？是否與德國刑法擴大利得沒收相類似？本文認為，儘管德國擴大利得沒收之法機制值得我國效法，然而此段立法理由之敘述，如非多餘即屬誤植，其與擴大利得沒收無關。因此，我國利得沒收新制尚欠缺類似德國擴大利得沒收此等規定，猶待繼續努力！

The amended regulations of crime gains confiscation not only broke away from the previous shackles of “accessory punishments” but also extended its application scope to the gains of third party, which should be highly recognized. However, the legislative explanation of Art. 38-1, Para.2 of Criminal Code, which said “the illegal behavior...doesn’t necessarily require convictions or proven guilty”, remains confusing. Is it similar to the extended crime gains confiscation under the German Criminal Code? From the author’s point of view, the legislative explanation is either unnecessary or an error since it is irrelevant to the extended crime gains confiscation. Therefore, our amended regulations of crime gains confiscation still lack the extended crime gains confiscation under German law and require further efforts.