專業人士參與失智者財產剝削事件之研究

A Study on the Interventions of Professionals in Cases of Financial Exploitation of People with Dementia

過往針對失智者財產剝削之研究，主要立基於加害人為「外人」或「金融機構」。本研究搜集了11年份244件法院判決、249筆資料作為研究樣本，以量化實證研究方式進行分析，發現：一、失智者財產剝削的態樣以「家人侵占」比例最高（61.5%）；二、樣本中高達84%的資料（209筆）已確診失智，但大部分失智者（63.1%）依然沒有聲請監護與輔助宣告；三、170筆（68%）的財產處分被法院認定有效，79筆（32%）為無效；四、涉訟的財產型態以不動產為大宗；五、有相當比例的處分有專業人士參與，依件數多寡分別為：地政士、公證人、金融機構、律師。其中只有律師的介入與處分的有效性之間有顯著關聯，地政士、金融機構的介入則與處分之效力無關。有鑒於「家人侵占」為剝削型態之大宗，若要善用旁觀者介入機制，預防失智者財產剝削，應提高專業人士對「高齡失智者從事家人間財產處分」之敏感度。此外，過去文獻多著重於金融機構與金融從業人員的商品銷售倫理及失智友善措施（包含發覺詐騙等），而較少提及法律從業人員在防範失智者財產剝削上的重要性與不足性。因此，未來政策上有必要更聚焦於「公證人」、「地政士」等與不動產之處分有關之法律專業人士，以建立有效的旁觀者介入機制。

Previous studies on financial exploitation of people with dementia have primarily focused on perpetrators categorized as“outsiders”or“financial institutions.”This study collected 244 court rulings over 11 years, comprising 249 people with dementia, and analyzed them using a quantitative empirical research approach. Key findings include: (1)“Family misappropriation”accounted for the highest proportion of exploitation types (61.5%); (2) 84% (209 samples) of the principals were diagnosed with dementia, yet a majority (63.1%) had not applied for guardianship or assistance; (3) 68% (170 samples) of property dispositions were deemed valid by the courts, while 32% (79 samples) were invalid; (4) most disputed assets involved real estate; (5) a considerable proportion of the property transactions involved professionals, listed in descending order of frequency: land administration agents, notaries, financial institutions, and lawyers. Among these, only the involvement of lawyers showed a significant correlation with the validity of transactions, while the involvement of land administration agents and financial institutions did not. Given that“family misappropriation”constitutes the predominant type of exploitation, leveraging bystander intervention mechanisms to prevent financial exploitation requires raising professionals’awareness of“intrafamilial property transactions involving elderly individuals with dementia.”Furthermore, existing literature has largely emphasized the sales ethics of financial institutions and employees and dementia-friendly measures (e.g., detecting fraud), with limited focus on the critical yet insufficient role of legal professionals in preventing financial exploitation of people with dementia. Future policy should thus prioritize legal professionals such as notaries and land administration agents involved in real estate transactions, aiming to establish effective bystander intervention mechanisms.