The Challenge of Taiwan Forfeiture Procedure
Financial crime is growing problem in Taiwan. To divest such criminals of their ill-gotten gains is one of our main goals and one method of reducing the incentive to carry our these financial crime.
In Taiwan, statutes provide at least two ways, non-judicial and judicial, to implement the forfeiture procedure. For example, customs officers have the authority to forfeit the illegal or smuggled products at the border and prosecutor office won't be involved. On the other hand, once the case involves judicial procedure, either criminal or civil action is available to prosecutors.
It is common for weapon and illegal drugs to be confiscated through criminal procedure. Once the prosecutor can prove a connection between the criminal and property, and once the defendant has been convicted, weapons, illegal drugs and even means of transport are usually forfeited following the written judgment. The law enforcement division of each district prosecutors' office is responsible for enforcing the written judgment. This is the traditional way to deal with property which has been illegally gained or used by the criminals. However, it is insufficient to meet the challenge of changing financial world situation, let alone investigation and confiscated property which had been hidden abroad. For example, in Taiwan little real estate has been forfeited through criminal procedure, and few civil cases has been filed to confiscate the relevant real estate. This is why the authority is eager to see how the procedure works in practice in the foreign stage
In practice, for example, in Taiwan a criminal conviction in which the defendant had been charged and confiscation has been requested requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The criminal confiscation process requires a person must already have been charged with an offence. Upon written conviction, the law enforcement division applies for a permanent confiscation of the property derived from the offence concerned.
In Taiwan, immunity is not allowed in criminal procedure. However, at the pretrial stage dismissal, deferral, plea bargaining and suspended prosecution are all available to the prosecutor. These have served the prosecution well in traditional crime. However, in economic crime, especially that involving public companies, it is rare for plea bargaining to be used, let alone the granting of immunity. Would this affects confiscation of property?
Cases of forfeiture of contraband money: http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/
透過刑事訴訟系統進行兇器與毒品等之沒收，在台灣甚為常見。 一旦檢察官可以證明犯罪行為人與財產間之關連性，而被告也被定罪，犯案工具、毒品，甚至交通工具都可以在刑事判決中加以宣告沒收。而刑事執行部門(執行科)就負責來執行這些確定判決。這是傳統處理犯罪所得之作法。然而，這些做法目前已經不足以應付巨變中的全球化財務金融狀況，更遑論必須調查以及沒收被藏放在國境外的犯罪所得財產。因此就不動產而言，甚少見到在刑事判決中被加以沒收者，更少見利用民事途徑來追討此類有關不動產的犯罪所得。 因此，這也就是為何我們迫切想要知道國際間就此問題的實踐方式以及相關執行程序。
澳洲:CONFISCATION OF CRIMINAL ASSETS ACT 2003 Australia
By Wan-Li Yang