📌置頂文章📌 活動記錄:永社2023年轉型正義工作坊(活動已結束)

2017年7月31日 星期一

東南亞模式將被打破?

吳景欽(作者為真理大學法律系副教授兼系所主任、永社理事)

自由時報/自由廣場 2017.07.30
http://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1122999

又有十八名台籍詐欺犯從泰國遣返回台受審,卻有另一批二十五名台籍人士將被移送至中國。這是否意謂著,台灣人遣台、中國人遣中的處理模式,已因兩岸關係的冷凍出現變化?

二○一一年初,菲律賓將十四名台籍詐欺犯遣送中國受審,引發我國人民激憤,我政府就與對岸協商,將此批人士遣送回台。二○一三年,除與菲律賓簽訂刑事司法互助協定外,也與印尼、馬來西亞等國進行個案合作,致逐漸形成台人遣台、中人遣中的東南亞模式。

惟這類域外的電信詐欺,由於犯罪行為地與結果地皆不在台灣,故在遣返回台時,他國若證據提供不完整,就會陷入訴追困境。尤其是所有被害人在中國,在不可能傳喚出庭的情況下,就只能由對岸提供卷證,這不僅無法保證其可信度,更完全得視中方的臉色。

其次,刑法針對電信詐欺,即第三三九條之四第三款,法定刑提升為一至七年的有期徒刑;但根據刑法第七條,域外犯罪須是屬最輕本刑三年以上有期徒刑者,才為刑法效力所及。除非將兩岸認定是一個中國,否則,這些域外的電信詐欺犯,我實也無任何管轄權。既稱為東南亞模式,則未與台灣有接觸的國家,台籍人犯肯定就會被遣送至中國。如去年的肯亞或今年初的西班牙事件,即是顯例。

去年十一月,立法院增訂刑法第五條第十一款,將刑法第三三九條之四的加重詐欺罪列入域外犯罪的管轄權範疇,並於今年三月修正組織犯罪防制條例第二條,將集團詐欺列入組織犯罪的範圍,以提高處罰的刑度。凡此修正,就可使域外的電信詐欺犯罪納入我國刑事管轄權之內。

惟國際刑事管轄權之競合,除逮捕地的所在國外,到底哪個國家有優先權,既有國勢強弱的現實,更有犯罪防制的考量。以近來兩起電信詐欺案比較,對於已遣返回台者來說,就是由我方主動與泰國合作。相對而言,即將遣至中國的人犯,就完全是由中方提供資訊。

也因此,泰國在處理電信詐欺事件,到底要將台人移往何方,除必然受到中國的干預與影響外,我方的證據提供是否充分、能否確保訴追與定罪,或許更是能否成功遣返的關鍵。

2017年7月27日 星期四

Prosecutorial checks and balances

Wu Ching-chin 吳景欽

(Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor, chair of Aletheia University’s law department and director of Taiwan Forever Association)
(作者為真理大學法律系副教授兼系主任、永社理事)

Translated by Julian Clegg

TAIPEI TIMES / Editorials 2017.07.26
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2017/07/26/2003675303

On Monday last week, the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office searched the home and office of former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Central Policy Committee director Alex Tsai (蔡正元) in connection with an investigation involving three companies formerly connected with the KMT: Central Motion Picture Corp (中影), China Television Co (中視) and Broadcasting Corp of China (中廣). The Taipei District Court approved the prosecutors’ application for Tsai to be detained on the grounds that there was strong evidence of his involvement in criminal activity.

However, the same case had previously been investigated by the now-defunct Special Investigation Division (SID) of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, which closed its investigation without seeking an indictment. That the investigation should now be launched anew raises questions about the independence of prosecutorial authorities.

The case involves the possibility that KMT assets were improperly disposed of and transferred. It was in 2006 that somebody reported the matter to the black gold investigation action center — an anti-corruption unit subordinate to the Taiwan High Prosecutors’ Office. The following year, the case was handed over to the center’s successor organization — the then-newly established SID. The SID’s mission was to investigate senior government officials and wealthy businesspeople.

The Prosecutor General, who is head of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, holds that position for a fixed term of four years and cannot serve a second term. It was thought that this setup would maintain a space for the independent exercise of prosecutorial power, as well as concentrate resources to take swifter and more effective legal action in major cases of corruption and economic crimes.

Because the case of the three companies involved transfers of KMT assets through diverse and complicated transactions, it would be a test of the SID’s expertise and efficiency. However, having started its investigation into the case, the SID went on investigating it for seven or eight years. Not until 2014 did it wind up its investigation, saying that it had not discovered anything illegal. Although it offered a detailed explanation of this decision in the form of a case table, it gave rise to more questions regarding matters such as embezzlement and breach of trust in connection with the already convoluted handling of the assets. Even without considering whether the SID’s explanation was reasonable, by letting the case drag on for so long before finally closing it down, the SID did not demonstrate any expertise or efficiency. On the contrary, the SID’s handling of the case left it open to accusations it was protecting those in high office and it was the main reason the SID was consigned to the history books.

Because closure of a case is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法), it does not have the force of a decision not to indict, which is so defined and engenders the restriction that prosecutors cannot make a new indictment unless new evidence is discovered. That is why the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office has been able to investigate the case and make indictments following the abolition of the SID on Jan. 1.

However, last week’s large-scale searches apparently result from accusations made by the Ill-gotten Party Assets Settlement Committee in April, and this makes one wonder whether prosecutors, be it the former SID or the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office, take action based on evidence or on which way the political wind is blowing.

The way this case has been handled, from the closure of the investigation three years ago to the renewed investigation, not only raises questions about prosecutors’ independence, but also exposes the existing situation under which prosecutorial authorities are not subject to external oversight.

Preparatory work is underway for the National Congress on Judicial Reform, of which people have high expectations for judicial democratization.

In view of situations such as this, one might question whether the remit of the congress should be extended to include constraints on prosecutorial authority. This could be achieved by following the US system, under which, when prosecutors wish to bring charges for major offenses, a grand jury composed of members of the public must decide whether they qualify for indictment.

Alternatively, Taiwan could follow the Japanese system, under which a prosecutorial review commission (kensatsu shinsakai) composed of members of the public deliberates as to whether prosecutors have acted inappropriately in cases where they decide not to bring charges. Both these systems function as preventive measures against abuse of prosecutorial power.

2017年7月26日 星期三

【活動紀錄】0722「司法改革如何落實轉型正義?」永社司改系列座談會(三)



【座談會資訊】

時間:2017/07/22(六)09:30-11:45
地點:台大校友會館 3樓B會議室
主辦:永社、法操FOLLAW
直播:法操FOLLAW

主持人:
 高涌誠/律師、永社理事長

與談人:
 林孟皇/台灣高等法院法官、司改國是會議委員
 洪偉勝/律師、永社理事
 劉恆妏/台灣師範大學公民教育與活動領導學系副教授
 薛化元/政治大學台灣史研究所教授
 鄭光倫/東吳大學法律系博士生、永社理事

完整資訊請參見:http://taiwanforever2012.blogspot.tw/2017/07/0722.html



【影像紀錄】

*特別說明:因劉恆妏教授研究資料尚未公開發表,因此該部分並未錄影。


感謝 法操FOLLAW 協助攝影直播


更多影片請點選「播放清單」檢視。




【座談會資料】

轉型正義下的司法改革(司改會黃盈嘉律師,PNN)

司法改革和轉型正義(高宏銘律師,法操)

司法院不該頒發獎章給「蓬萊島案」判決的法官──台灣司法的轉型正義功課(林孟皇法官,《轉型正義與司法改革》,元照,2015)
全文請見林法官著作:http://www.angle.com.tw/book.asp?BKID=7522

林孟皇法官投影片

薛化元教授講綱

鄭光倫講綱




【活動照片】




【相關報導】

(圖片來源:風傳媒
風傳媒/民主轉型後司法也要除垢,林孟皇:有些人過去曾是國民黨整肅的幫兇

立委暴力 遠比丟水球嚴重

吳景欽(作者為真理大學法律系副教授兼系所主任、永社理事)

中時電子報/言論 2017.07.25
http://opinion.chinatimes.com/20170725005057-262105

立法院因審前瞻計畫預算,引發藍綠立委混戰,卻發現有實習生亦趁亂丟水球,立法院也發出聲明,要將該名學生移送法辦。此位學生的行徑確實不當,但是否觸犯《刑法》,卻又是另一回事。

就學生可能未經申請或登記換證,而進入立法院議事廳堂的行為,是否有可能觸犯《刑法》第306條第1項,即法定刑為1年以下有期徒刑的無故侵入住宅罪呢?由於此罪所保護的法益為個人居住安全與隱私的自由,立法機關能否主張此種權利,有相當大的疑問。況且,禁止未經許可侵入國家機關的目的,實在確保公務員免於恐懼致能公正客觀的行使職務,與侵入住宅罪在保護的個人住居自由,實屬南轅北轍的不同面向,這也是為何在《刑法》中,將公機關稱為公署,以與住宅有所區隔的原因。

所以,除非將侵入國家機關的行為入罪化,以來填補治罪漏洞,否則,硬將公機關納入侵入住宅罪的保護對象,就有違類推禁止的《刑法》原則。而就算以侵入住宅罪論,但此實習生乃由立委以助理身分帶入,能否稱為無故,也有問題。

其次,針對丟水球的行為,依照立法院的聲明,由於此舉動恐會造成他人受傷,也影響議事先進行。依此而論,就可能涉及《刑法》第135條第1項,法定刑為3年以下有期徒刑的妨礙公務罪。只是此罪必須是對公務員執行職務的行為施以強暴、脅迫,才足以成立,而丟水球的行為,能否合致於強暴、脅迫之手段,實有相當大的疑問。更值得注意的是,藍綠立委為了前瞻預算,早已扭打成一團,此時能否稱為是議事進行、執行職務,致成為妨礙公務罪保護的對象,實在更有疑問。

大學生於議事殿堂丟水球,確實不對,卻不至於到達刑事不法的程度,而且不管是侵入住宅,抑或是妨害公務,都非屬重罪,若以最嚴厲的刑罰處置,亦嚴重違反《刑法》的謙抑性原則。尤其比之於先前太陽花學運的學生,無論是立法、行政與司法權,都是以最寬容的態度面對,若此次單一個人的丟水球事件卻大動干戈地處理,必會引來政治顏色不對的聯想,也完全不符合比例原則。

而從此事件,或許更該思考一個問題,即從過去到現在的立法院議事亂象,立委諸公們的種種荒誕,甚至是暴力行徑,遠比這位大學生的行為來得嚴重,卻可躲在民意代表的言論與表決免責權下,不受任何法律追究,也顯少看到立法院以自律方式進行懲處。因此這種對丟水球作強力譴責,卻對立法院內更多且更大的不當行為視而不見,只能說是嚴以律他、寬以待己的最糟糕示範。

2017年7月24日 星期一

訴追馬英九 頂多背信罪

吳景欽(作者為真理大學法律系副教授兼系所主任、永社理事)

自由時報/自由廣場 2017.07.23

http://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1121154

前立委蔡正元因中影掏空案遭羈押,即便北檢稱此與三中案無關,能否釋各界之疑,不得而知。惟馬前總統會否因三中案而遭訴追,肯定受關注。

特偵組雖於二○一四年對九十九年度特他第三號,即國民黨涉及賤賣中影、中廣、中視案,做出查無不法之簽結。如從北檢目前偵辦重點,乃是在中影出賣後,公司負責人有否掏空資產,與三中案確屬不相同的案件事實。惟於之前三中案的調查裡,也對出售後的資金流向進行清查,更強調董事長蔡正元並無涉案,要說如今的掏空案與之無關,只讓人有此地無銀之懷疑。由此也顯露出,檢察實務自行創出他字案的簽結手段,不僅法無所據,也因案件範圍與被告無從特定,既影響相對人的訴訟權及法律的安定性,亦容易淪為政治工具,應為立即檢討之對象。

既然中影掏空案已為三中案的重查開了一扇門,則對馬前總統於此案責任歸屬的偵查,似屬遲早之事。由於簽結於法無據,自不具有刑事訴訟法第二六○條,即不起訴處分確定後,僅有發現新事證才得再行訴追之效力,北檢若再對三中案為偵辦,並不會有程序上的瑕疵。

而二○○六年三中處分時,馬前總統雖擔任台北市長兼國民黨主席,但因其處理的是政黨之財產,則在國民黨只是私法人的情況下,黨主席的決定就不是執行公務,致非屬刑法公務員,也就不可能涉及刑罰極重的貪污治罪條例。若有賤賣黨產之行為,頂多觸犯刑法第三四二條第一項,即法定刑為五年以下有期徒刑的背信罪。

至於背信罪,於客觀上,行為人須違背職務致損害委託人的利益,則於三中案,成罪關鍵當在國民黨資產是否遭低估。如從中影市值至少百億,卻以三十一億賣出來看,似乎有損黨的利益,惟基於私法自治,資產到底價值多少,恐有極大迴避究責之空間。

此外,背信罪在主觀上,須有為自己或他人不法所有的意圖,就算認為馬前總統賤賣資產有違職務,只要查無黨產出賣後,其本人或家人有收受任何回扣之事實,亦無由成罪。從此就暴露出,對於私領域團體可能涉及的瀆職情事,要以現行刑法究責,實有其窮極之處。