論偵查程序中犯罪利得扣押與強制執行程序金錢債權扣押收取之競合──從偵查審判實際案例出發

The Concurrence of Criminal Seizure and Administrative Money Collection at the Stage of Criminal Investigation -- A Case Study

犯罪不法利益之剝奪（沒收或追徵），在刑事程序的進行過程中，先予以作保全的措施，以免應沒收之物或不法利益，於刑事訴訟程序進行的過程中，被加以湮滅或轉換，而造成未來無法予以剝奪。此即現行刑事訴訟法第133 條所規範之扣押、扣押登記、發禁止提領或其他處分之扣押命令。2016 年新刑法及新刑訴法修正通過施行，所謂擴大查扣犯罪所得及沒收犯罪利得新制施行後，法制上是否已完備？在實務上運作適用上如何妥當運用？以及犯罪利得之查扣沒收新制與強制執行法、行政執行法之扣押收取等強制執行行為間之關聯性為何？又刑訴法第133 條第6 項規定：「依本法所為之扣押，具有禁止處分之效力，不妨礙民事假扣押、假處分及終局執行之查封、扣押。」究何所指？均將成為未知的問題。隨著施行時間而來爭議問題亦將日漸顯示出來，然而實務上目前卻是尚未有明確章法可以適用與運作在如何追徵。尤其是在法院、檢察官對被告或第三人之財產經刑事程序扣押可否為民事或行政強制執行，迄今亦尚未見有論理性之釐清或任何研究，拙見認為至堪探討研究，本文即以上開實務案例以為導引論述，以完備法制及實務運行。

An order to surrender or deliver evidence or seizure in Article 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code is presumed to perpetuate criminal proceeds which are subject to forfeiture. However, after the 2016 new law passed, whether the relative legal scheme to ensure the new forfeiture design is complete is unclear. In addition, what is the relationship between the Criminal Procedure Code, the Administrative Enforcement Act and the Civil Enforcement Act regarding forfeiture issues becomes a new problem. What the Paragraph of Article 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code means also become unclear after the 2016 legislation. Since there is no clear guidance about forfeiture and civil and administrative enforcement, how to resolve practical issues deserves serious attentions. This case study tries to discuss the above-mentioned issues.