金融管制法律之實質合憲性審查

Review on the Substantive Constitutionality of Financial Control Laws

我國之金融管制法律對違反者多數均有刑事責任，諸如：銀行法、證券交易法、洗錢防制法、票據法、保險法、信託法、信託業法、金融控股公司法、金融機構合併法、金融資產證券化條例、國際金融業務條例……等。其中除票據法在上世紀1970年代廢止刑罰外，幾乎主要之金融管制法令皆對違反者皆有刑事處罰，此為對違反金融管制行政規章之「入罪化」。此與我國立法或行政部門一向認為欲使行政法規真正達其成效，非以刑罰威嚇不足以達立法效果。此種已入罪化之金融管制法律，誠如憲法法庭112年憲判字第5號判決所述「自有經濟活動以來，即有屬於經濟刑法範疇之犯罪類型」，但亦無法否定具有刑責之金融管制法律（或經濟刑法），在目前法律體系下普遍大量存在之事實，此類具有刑責之金融管制法律國內學界之討論或實務上多注重於探討其「形式合憲性」，本文係以憲法之視野來檢視國內金融管制法律科以刑責之「實質合憲性」，研究結論認為金融管制法律所涉及之基本權之種類與價值，乃「涉及最基本之人身自由」（憲法第8條之憲法保留），其價值應優先於「財產權」之保障，於實質違憲審查時應採取從嚴審查之標準。尤以證券交易法之刑事責任屬於典型之「法定犯」，較之自然犯具有較低之道德非難性，然證券交易法（法定犯）就違反者之刑責「可處罰達7年以上有期徒刑」，其手段與目的甚難被認為已符合比例原則或罪刑相當原則，故本文傾向現行之金融管制法律之刑事處罰具實質違憲之結論。

Most of the financial control laws have criminal liability in Taiwan, such as: Banking Law, Securities and Exchange Act, Money Laundering Prevention Law, Law of Negotiable Instruments, Insurance Law, Trust Law, Trust Industry Law, Financial Holding Company Law, Financial Institutions Merger Law, Financial Asset Securitization Regulations, International Financial Business Regulations ... etc. Except for the Law of Negotiable Instruments which abolished criminal penalties in the 1970s, almost all major financial control laws and regulations have criminal penalties for violators. This is the“criminalization”of violations of financial control administrative regulations. This is in line with the fact that our legislative or authority always believed that if there is no threat of punishment, it will not be enough to achieve the effectiveness of legislation. Those financial control law that has been criminalized is just like the Constitutional Court interpret in the judgement of Constitutional Court No. 5 of 112,“Since the beginning of economic activities, there have been types of crimes that fall within the scope of economic criminal law.”However, this cannot deny the fact that financial control laws with criminal liability are ubiquitous in the current legal system. Most of the academic or practical only focus on the“formal constitutionality”of financial laws. This article will no longer discuss the“formal constitutionality,”but examine the domestic financial regulatory laws from a constitutional perspective and discuss the“substantive constitutionality”of criminal liability. The conclusion is that the types of basic constitutional rights involved in financial control laws involve the core protection of personal freedom (Article 8 of the Constitution), its value should take priority over the protection of“property rights,”and strict review standards should be adopted when reviewing substantive constitutionality. In particular, the criminal liability under the Securities and Exchange Act is a typical“statutory crime.”Compared with natural crimes, this type of crime obviously has lower moral condemnation. However, the current penalties imposed on those who violate the Securities and Exchange Act are“up to a fixed-term imprisonment of more than seven years.”The means and purposes are difficult to be considered to comply with the principle of proportionality or the principle of commensurate crime and punishment. Therefore, the conclusion of this study is that the criminal penalties of the current financial control laws are essentially unconstitutional.