金融犯罪成因及防制對策之研究

Causes and Preventions of Financial Fraud: From the View Points of Criminal Justice Systems, Regulatory Authorities, and Financial Institutions

系所名稱：犯罪防治研究所 學位別：博士 畢業學年：95年 指導教授：蔡德輝、楊士隆 隨著我國經濟迅速成長，台灣金融犯罪的標的也逐年增加，少數被告利用攫奪全民為整體經濟成長所付出代價，當整體經濟向上發展，民眾對於金融犯罪的非難性偏低，近年來受到經濟不景氣影響，台灣民眾已深切感受到金融犯罪對整體社會所造成損害，然面對金融犯罪定罪率偏低，以及少數政治人物涉入金融弊案，致民眾產生政治操弄司法印象。 本研究假設因機關屬性（司法、金融監理及金融機構）不同，甚至同為司法人員，因不同機關（法官、檢察官、檢察事務官，以及調查局人員）對於金融犯罪的感受、原因認知，以及防制對策的看法是有差異的，希望透過本研究發現其差異，以及對於金融犯罪感受、原因認知是否與防制對策相關，有無預測力，俾供主管機關未來防制金融犯罪之參考。又金融犯罪在國內犯罪學領域，研究成果不若暴力犯罪、毒品犯罪等傳統犯罪豐碩，本研究期能達到拋磚引玉目的，引起國內犯罪學界，對此一犯罪類型的重視。 研究發現，多數受訪者在金融犯罪感受部分，同意金融犯罪會影響整體經濟發展，破壞金融秩序，影響國家形象。在金融犯罪原因中，受訪者對於司法機關對被告犯罪所得未能即時扣押沒收，金融機構內控不健全，國人金融常識不足，以及缺乏有效國際合作管道，皆達到九成以上的肯認。最後關於防制對策，發現幾乎所有受訪者認為司法（警察）機關人員應再提昇金融專業知識。 又司法人員、金融監理人員、金融機構人員對於金融犯罪感受、金融犯罪原因的認知其差異是顯著的，但對於犯罪防制的看法差異並不顯著。另透過多元迴歸分析，試算迴歸方程式如下： 防制對策 =α*感受 β*原因 C （α, β 為係數，C 為常數項） 分析發現，感受對於防制對策的解釋達.516，原因對於防制對策的解釋可達.605；以感受、原因為自變項，其可以解釋防制對策65.0%的變異（R=.650）。 最後，研究者就研究結果，分別就司法機關、金融監理機關，以及金融機構的觀點，提出對於金融犯罪之防制的建議，期能引起國內學術、實務界對於金融犯罪後續研究興趣，以減少金融犯罪對國家社會所造成之損害。

With the rapid economic development, financial frauds in Taiwan are on the increase from one year to another. A few defendants usurped the economic fruits brought by the toil of the whole people. When the economy is on the upswing, people are less complaining about economic offenses. In recent years the economic recession has sharpened people’s realization about the scourge of financial crimes. As comparatively fewer financial offenses are convicted and some political figures are involved in some cases, people have the feelings that politics has manipulated the judiciary.This study hypothesize different (judicial, financial, and finance supervisory) organizations and officials (judges, prosecutors, prosecutor’s assistances, and special agents of Investigation Bureau, Ministry of Justice) have different sensibilities about the offenses, perceptions of their causes, and opinions on countermeasures. This study is intended to find out such differences through meticulous analyses and to gauge their sensibilities, perceptions, and countermeasures for reference by competent organizations in controlling financial frauds. In the discipline of financial crime, the studies are not as plenty as in the field of traditional street crimes, it is hoped that this study will become a minnow that can attract the whale – the more valuable opinions – and the attention of various circles to this type of offense.In the study, most of the people interviewed have expressed their sensibilities and agreed that financial offenses will affect the development of the economy as a whole, undermine the financial order, and tarnish the nation’s image. With regard to the cause of financial offenses, ninety percent of the interviewees lay the blame on the failure of not impounding or confiscating the gains of the offenses in time, on the lack of internal control and audit among the financial institutions, on the insufficiency of financial knowledge among the people, and on the inadequate channels of international cooperation. As for the countermeasures, the interviewees opine that judicial personnel and law enforcement agencies should increase their financial knowledge.There are great differences among judicial, finance supervisory and financial personnel in their sensibilities to and in the identity of the causes of financial offenses but their differences in opinion on the control of financial crime are not conspicuous. Through polynomial regression analysis the equation is:Countermeasure = α*sensibility β* cause C (α, β are coefficients and C is a constant)It is discovered in the analysis that, in the explanation of the countermeasure, sensibility accounts for 0.516, whereas the cause accounts for 0.605. When sensibility and cause are used as independent variables, they can explain 65.0% of the change of the countermeasure (R=0.650).In the end, the researcher makes proposals on the control of financial offenses from the perspectives of the criminal justice system, regulatory authority, and financial institutions in hopes of arousing the interests of domestic academics and financial practitioners in follow-up studies of financial offenses in order to reduce the harms of the crime.