第三人沒收程序──評釋最高法院108年度臺上大字第3594號裁定

Third Party Confiscation Procedure: Comment on the Supreme Court (108) Tai-shang-da Tzu No. 3594

當法院對第三人判決沒收，其財產權必受到侵害。惟第三人非 刑事審判確認刑罰權存否之人，在刑事程序上不具備被告地位，欠 缺被告享有之防禦權利。鑑於第三人財產權、聽審權和救濟權的權 利保障與平等原則，刑事訴訟法在被告程序外，應為該第三人開展 程序機制。這正是第三人沒收程序理論。為照護第三人權利，《刑 事訴訟法》第455條之12第3項要求法院應依職權裁定命第三人參與 沒收程序，不以第三人或檢察官聲請為必要。法院基於控訴原則， 諭知法律效果是裁判義務，不應受制於檢察官聲請，在第三人沒收 亦無例外。108年度臺上大字第3594號裁定對此論證精湛，值得讚 揚，惟其對否定說若干論點未充分回應，有爬梳和評釋必要，故本 文嘗試與之進行學術對話。

A third party’s right is infringed when the criminal court issues a confiscation order against the said person. However, the third party does not count as a defendant in a criminal procedure and lacks the right of self-defense. In keeping with the principle of equality and to protect the third party’s right to possession, right to be heard, and right to relief, the Code of Criminal Procedure should provide a procedural mechanism for third parties whose possessions may be confiscated along with those for defendants. This is the theory of third-party confiscation procedure. To protect the rights of third parties, Item 3, Article 455-12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that the court orders third parties to participate in the procedure ex officio, instead of at the request of the third party or the prosecutor. According to the principle of accusation, it is the court’s obligation to inform the relevant parties of the legal effects of its judgments, regardless of requests by the prosecutor. This also applies to confiscations against a third party. The ruling of Grand Panel for Criminal Matters in the Supreme Court (108) Tai-shang-da Tzu No. 3594 provides a praiseworthy argument regarding this issue. However, it does not fully respond to some of the counterarguments and leaves room for improvement. This article aims to engage in academic discourse regarding the ruling.