新修正刑法之「獨立宣告沒收」（上）

The Non-conviction-based AssetConfiscation under the Newly-amendedCriminal Code (Part I)

我國刑法舊法之沒收屬於從刑，一般情況下，必須在被告已經獲判有罪確定，同時也科予主刑時，才能夠一併科處沒收的從刑，但緊扣著「有罪判決才能沒收」的原則規定，在實務上勢必出現許多無法解決的問題，如何建構一套合理且具有實務效用的非定罪犯罪所得沒收制度，甚至解決透過刑事司法互助而追討被告留置外國的犯罪所得，成為我國現行刑事司法的重要課題。新刑法沒收制度特別於第四十條第三項明定犯罪物及犯罪所得，因事實上或法律上原因未能追訴犯罪行為人之犯罪或判決有罪者，得單獨宣告沒收。本文將從比較法以及新規定之構成要件等，詳細分析此一新法之意義。

Confiscation was an accessory punishment before amendments. Generally speaking, itcan only accompany principal punishment after the conviction of defendant. Thisrequirement will result in many unsolvable problems in practice. Therefore, how toestablish a reasonable and practical non-conviction confiscation system and even to claimcrime proceeds by mutual assistance in criminal justice have become critical issues. Underthe newly-amended Article 40, Paragraph 3 of Criminal Code, confiscation for crimeproceeds or things used in the commission can be pronounced independently if theconviction is failed due to factual or legal causes. This article will conduct in-depthanalysis of the essence of new regulations from its criteria and the perspective ofcomparative law.