法人刑事利得沒收之預防──以法令遵循制度為中心

Prevention of Corporate Confiscation-Compliance Centric Solution

系所名稱：法學院碩士在職專班
學位別：碩士
畢業學年：109年
指導教授：楊雲驊
從大統長基的案件了解法人不法利得沒能被沒收的不正義，以及最近的康友案、博達案這些瞞天過海的不法行為，法人犯罪的破壞力和法遵預防的重要性日益突顯。法人犯罪的問題層出不窮，有罪則便應有處罰，有不法利得就應剝奪！為了實現刑法精神，本文以「法人刑事利得沒收的預防」為題，並「以法令遵循制度為核心」，透過文獻分析法和實務案例硏討與模擬，就法人刑事責任、法人做為沒收主體與沒收程序審查、法令遵循的預防機制三大命題探討如何預防法人犯罪和利得沒收的發生。
法人犯罪的刑事責任，可區分為決策者不法和員工不法兩種狀況：決策者的不法行為，不管故意還是過失，在法人的直接連結之下，法人皆應負其責。員工的故意不法，法人應負監督責任，在僱用人責任的間接連結下，仍應負其責。然員工的過失行為，法人若已盡注意義務予以防免，就有機會成為阻卻責任事由，可以免責。
各國學說上雖然朝向肯定法人刑事責任的方向，但實務上當法人利得沒收卻多以第三人沒收為之。以法人應負刑事責任觀之，法人應可為犯罪行為人適格，特別是故意者，應以一般沒收為原則。另，在刑罰上可考量民法、刑法、行政罰法的結合，讓裁罰更多樣性，讓不法利得沒收範圍從寬認定、從嚴處分。
運用法令遵循體制來預防犯罪與預防沒收者，乃運用公司治理、法令遵循、內部控制三大主軸。透過業務、法遵、與稽核等三道防線，落實合規執行。其中，公司治理和內部控制，需要一個透明即時且系統性的資訊系統與通報制度，以及決策者積極監督注意。但法遵和內控並非萬靈丹，除了內部常規機制之外，還需要例外處理的吹哨者機制，以及外部市場的經營規則和外部稽核、以及主管機關來形成第四道防線。
法令遵循機制除了制度規劃與人員執行之外，為求效率和效能，法遵數位智能科技的應用也愈來愈普遍，且科技的特性還可為公司治理留下軌跡，成為注意義務履行的佐證與阻卻法人責任的有利參考，法遵智能科技誠然為未來法人犯罪與利得沒收預防之一大利器。
隨著法人犯罪的案件越來越多、手法越來越複雜，本文依法人犯罪手法對於法人財務利益的影響，將法人犯罪區分為收入提升型、成本降低型、逃漏稅捐型、不實財報型四大類型。這四大類型也反映出來，不論是直接的收入增加，或是原料成本、製造成本、稅負成本的節省，任何形式的利益，只要是經濟上可衡量者，皆為不法利得的範圍。
法人利得沒收的處分卻還是相當有限，本文為求提高可應用性，就法人不法行為成立的案件，以實際案例模擬利得沒收的審查程序，以及探討法遵制度的重點、說明法遵制度如何可以發揮防止的效果，冀能從中學習，並開啟未來的研究方向，並且希望得以投石問路，激起法人刑事利得沒收與刑事法遵的漣漪，對以法遵制度為中心來達成法人刑事利得沒收的預防，發揮最大的效果。

Corporate crime occurs frequently in economic, environmental, and food safetyissues, which can hurt the victims, the financial and social environment and the LAWseriously. In order to prevent the damage it may cause and the corporate confiscation,it is critical to plan and implement compliance program, which is the key purpose ofthis study. To provide an effective solution of prevention of corporate confiscation, thispaper focuses on three major propositions: corporate criminal responsibility, legal partyand process of corporate confiscation, and compliance solution.All things considered, corporate is responsible for violation of criminal lawperformed by its decision makers and employees. The only exception is when theemployee (the party) is negligent and the corporate/decision maker(s) well performs itsduty of care.Since the criminal liability of corporate is affirmed, it should be treated as theparty qualified instead of third party under the process of confiscation, especially in thecase of intentional criminal behavior. For better crime prevention, the combination ofthe punishment and penalty designed under the Civil Law, the Criminal Law and theAdministrative Penalty Law can be considered.Compliance Program is the most effective solution to detect the red flag(s) ofcorporate crime and to prevent from corporate confiscation. The effectiveness ofcompliance program relies on the three pillars: corporate governance, compliancemechanism and internal control as well as the three lines of defense: business unit,compliance and audit. In addition, an ad-hoc whistle blower mechanism is required,while the market rule and external audit and authorities can help significantly. Whileeffectiveness and efficiency are essential for compliance program, application ofregulation technology can be a facilitator for program implementation.With the increasing number and complexity of corporate crime, this studycategorizes them into four types, namely, revenue enhancement, cost deduction, taxevasion, and false financial reporting. No matter what type it is, the illegal benefitshould be confiscated, so long as it is economically measurable.Since there are limited real cases of corporate confiscation, this study simulatesthe confiscation process and procedure with actual corporate crime cases for ademonstration of how compliance program can play a preventive role. This is only astart, a small step. In the hope that this can be a small stone to trigger the ripples ofresearch about criminal compliance and to optimize the effect on the prevention ofcorporate confiscation with the compliance centric solution.