公務員貪污犯罪決意影響因素之研究

A Study on the Influence Determined Factor of Civil Servant's Corruption

民眾對司法與公務員廉政缺乏信心，大多基於貪污犯罪具有多重原因、複雜性及高犯罪黑數，本研究之目的在於瞭解公務員貪污犯罪決意之影響因素，運用官方次級資料分析、文獻探討及深度訪談為主要研究方法，採以立意抽樣方式，選取臺北、臺中、臺南、高雄、高雄女子、高雄第二監獄及明德外役監獄等7個矯正機構，選取因觸犯貪污治罪條例被判處3年以上有期徒刑定讞，在上述監獄執行之受刑人為樣本，經由同意接受訪談中，再選取符合本研究目的之對象，計有13名為樣本，為兼顧研究倫理，於訪談前經過雙重確認其意願與研究過程。研究發現，公務員貪污犯罪的決意影響因素，主要以誘因機會為主，亦即無機會即無貪污；個案基於財、利、名、情、權等需求，在廠商誘惑及難以抗拒慾望下，促發貪污犯罪的動機，且在心理、人情、經濟及同儕、工作（績效）、長官、政治等壓力因素下，極易影響決意實施貪污犯罪。尤其在成本風險評估上首重貪污利益，而非刑罰的嚴厲性；並認為既已實施貪污犯罪，則難以收手及自首之概念而持續收賄；因此，在決意時間上，以具有准駁權者之決意時間6個月至1年間較久，具有採購、裁量權限者決議時間較短，快至，當下立即決意等現象；在案件特性上，具有三個特性、兩個特殊現象，亦即一經實施即難以停止與自首之特殊性；判處徒刑重及訴訟期冗長之特性；不法利得上，行政職務愈高者，不法利得愈多等三個特性；以及職務上具有准駁權限者不法獲利高於裁罰權限者；而具有裁罰權限者不法獲利高於具有採購權限者之特殊現象與高權職務者在婚姻上大多有分居、離婚等兩個特殊現象。依據研究發現提出以下建議：1.主官親自及機關全員參與在職行政倫理、道德及法紀教育，強化關說處理流程與諮詢管道。2.機關舉辦「家庭日」凝聚依附力與眷屬互動關懷活動，提升抗壓性及能力。3.鼓勵全民參與增強外部監控機制，獎勵保護檢舉貪污瀆職行為。4.強化監控者之監控，擬定揭弊者保護及私部門揭弊規範，避免結構性貪污。5.偵查階段司法官善用職權處分，監控者扮演防貪救生員角色，給予自新機會。6.近程修正貪污治罪條例，遠程回歸刑法規範。

The existence of a high dark figure of crime for the corruption of civil servants has been widely known by general citizens, leading to the fact of distrusting the legal system and the honesty of civil servants. The goal of the research is to know the determining influential factors of why a civil servant decided to accept bribes. The main research methods are secondary data analysis, literature review and in-depth interview of qualitative research. The target samples are civil servants accused of Anti-Corruption Act and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than three years, and 13 willing inmates are chosen as appropriate purposive samples from 7 correctional institutions in Taipei, Taichung, Tainan and Kaohsiung. The determining factors for corruption includes being motivated, feeling pressure, being allured, finding a loophole in the monitoring mechanism, the result of evaluating the cost and performance and avoiding investigation. With any of these factors as the motivation, once the civil servants get the opportunity, they are easy to accept bribes (In other words, no opportunity, no bribe receiving). On the way of pursuing fortune, benefit, fame, affection and power, they might get lost and feel pressure from current economic conditions, peer recognition, job performance, supervisors, etc., which creates a loophole for vendors to swoop in. At this stage, the first priority of risk assessment is how much benefit one will get, but not how much punishment one will receive. The time for determination depends on how high the decision right the position holds. For the position with the approval right, it takes approx. six months to one year. For the positions with the discretionary and purchase rights, the decision could be made immediately. According to the study results, some suggestions are listed below as a reference for related official authorities:1. Improve ethical and law education.2. Establish whistleblower protection regulations.3. Integrate interior and exterior monitoring mechanism.4. Play the role of lifesaver.5. Make use of administrative measures to help correct error.6. Abolish Anti-Corruption Act to conform to the principles of theconsistency between the crime and the penalty and apply to the regulations of Criminal Law.