月旦知識庫
  1. 熱門:
 
首頁 臺灣期刊   法律   公行政治   醫學   財經   社會學   教育   其他 大陸期刊   核心   非核心 DOI文章
查看詳細全文
篇名
犯罪物沒收
並列篇名
Confiscation of Criminal Object
作者 李聖傑
中文摘要
刑法沒收的新規範體系,跳脫刑罰與保安處分的法律效果思維,不再將沒收定位為從刑。而國家剝奪犯罪物使用、收益等處分權利的法理基礎,與「利得沒收」應有不同依據。本文以沒收干預手段之維護公共利益與沒收標的之財產權濫用禁止的刑事政策,認為可以財產權管制的比例原則,建構犯罪物沒收的法理依據,並因此說明犯罪物沒收原型的判斷標準,與犯罪物沒收及於第三人的檢視要件。藉以在適用結果上徹底貫徹與犯罪關聯的物之歸咎意義,並在國家保障人民財產權的法治理念前提下,消滅犯罪憑藉、達成維護社會治安的全民期待。
英文摘要
The new criminal law confiscation norms that began to implement since July 1, 2016 has already let the legal effect escaped from punishment and Rehabilitative Measures, and showing the different meaning between criminal object comfiscation and criminal proceeds comfiscation. Therefore, comfiscation have a new and complete system appearance and no longer being treated as accessory punishments.
Compared to criminal proceeds comfiscation, the legal basis of depriveing criminal object by nation should have different interpretation, and should get rid of the traditional “punishment” or “Rehabilitative Measures” classification restrictions. While interrogation the criminal policy of interrogation confiscated interventions to safeguarding the public interest and prohibit abusing of property rights, we could considerate the appropriateness of the principle of proportionality in interference to property right, and achieve universal expectations of eradication of crime, maintaining social order by completely deprived of benefits associated with the crime at the national law to protect people’s property rights concept premise.
起訖頁 60-72
關鍵詞 犯罪物犯罪工具刑法沒收犯罪利得沒收財產權干預Criminal ObjectInstrument of CrimeCrinimal ConfiscationCriminal Proceeds ConfiscationInterference to Property Right
刊名 月旦法學雜誌  
期數 201604 (251期)
出版單位 元照出版公司
DOI 10.3966/102559312016040251003  複製DOI
QRCode
該期刊-上一篇 刑法第三八條之一第二項立法理由與德國擴大沒收
該期刊-下一篇 犯罪所得優先發還被害人――簡析新刑法之發還條款
 

新書閱讀



最新講座


優惠活動




讀者服務專線:+886-2-23756688 傳真:+886-2-23318496
地址:臺北市館前路28 號 7 樓 客服信箱
Copyright © 元照出版 All rights reserved. 版權所有,禁止轉貼節錄