中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(4) 刑法英文48-56
刑法英文版第48條至第56條中英對照
刑法法條中文版、
Article 48After the judgment has been finalized and an offender is found to be a recidivist, his punishment shall be increased in accordance with the provisions of the preceding article unless the fact is revealed after his sentence is fully served or his punishment is pardoned.
刑法第48條：
裁判確定後，發覺為累犯者，依前條之規定更定其刑。但刑之執行完畢或赦免後發覺者，不在此限。第48條之「更定其刑」 his punishment shall be increased in…
第48條之「但」 uless
Article 49
Provisions relating to recidivism shall not apply if the prior offense is decided by a foreign tribunal.
刑法第49條：
累犯之規定，於前所犯罪在外國法院受裁判者，不適用之。
Article 50
Punishments for several offenses committed before a judgment is finalized shall be combined.
刑法第50條：
裁判確定前犯數罪者，併合處罰之。
Article 51In combining punishments for several offenses, the punishment for each offense shall be pronounced separately and executed in accordance with the following provisions:
1.When several sentences of death penalty have been pronounced, only one of such sentences shall be executed.
2.When the most severe sentence pronounced is death penalty, no other punishment except fines and subordinate punishments shall be executed.
3.When several sentences of life imprisonment have been pronounced, only one of such sentences shall be executed.
4.When the most severe sentence pronounced is life imprisonment, no other punishment except fines and subordinate punishments shall be executed.
5.When several sentences of imprisonment have been pronounced, the period of punishment shall be fixed at not less than the longest period of these punishments and not more than the sum of the periods of these punishments, but shall not exceed thirty years.
6.When several sentences of short-term imprisonment have been pronounced, the period of punishment to be executed shall be fixed in accordance with the preceding subparagraph but shall not exceed one hundred and twenty days.
7.When several fines have been pronounced, the amount of the fine to be paid shall be fixed at not less than the largest of these fines and not more than the sum of these fines.
8.When several deprivations of citizen’s rights for a definite period have been pronounced, only the longest one shall be executed.
9.When several confiscations have been pronounced, all such confiscations shall be executed.
10.All the punishments fixed in accordance with subparagraphs 5 through 9 shall be executed; provided the punishments to be executed are an imprisonment for not less than three years and a short-term imprisonment, the short-term imprisonment shall not be executed.
刑法第51條：
數罪併罰，分別宣告其罪之刑，依下列各款定其應執行者：
一、宣告多數死刑者，執行其一。
二、宣告之最重刑為死刑者，不執行他刑。但罰金及從刑不在此限。
三、宣告多數無期徒刑者，執行其一。
四、宣告之最重刑為無期徒刑者，不執行他刑。但罰金及從刑不在此限。
五、宣告多數有期徒刑者，於各刑中之最長期以上，各刑合併之刑期以下，定其刑期。但不得逾三十年。
六、宣告多數拘役者，比照前款定其刑期。但不得逾一百二十日。
七、宣告多數罰金者，於各刑中之最多額以上，各刑合併之金額以下，定其金額。
八、宣告多數褫奪公權者，僅就其中最長期間執行之。
九、宣告多數沒收者，併執行之。
十、依第五款至第九款所定之刑，併執行之。但應執行者為三年以上有期徒刑與拘役時，不執行拘役。
第51條之「數罪併罰」 in combining punishments for several offenses,
第51條之「從刑」 subordinate punishments第51條之「定其刑期」 the period of punishment shall be fixed at(in)…第51條之「但」 but
第51條之「前款」 the preceding subparagraph第51條之「禠奪公權」 deprivations of citizen’s rights第51條之「沒收」 confiscations
Article 52After the judgment of combined punishments for several offenses has been finalized, a separate decision shall be made for an offense committed before but discovered after the judgment.
刑法第52條：
數罪併罰，於裁判確定後，發覺未經裁判之餘罪者，就餘罪處斷。第52條之「數罪併罰」 …of combined punishments for several offenses第52條之「就餘罪處斷」 a separate decision shall be made
Article 53
When there exist two or more judgments, the punishments shall be fixed in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 on combining punishments for several offenses.
刑法第53條
數罪併罰，有二裁判以上者，依第五十一條之規定，定其應執行之刑。
【最高法院33年非字第19號判例要旨： 刑法第五十三條所謂數罪併罰，有二裁判以上者，依第五十一條之規定，定其應執行之刑，以二裁判以上所宣告之數罪，均在裁判確定前所犯者為必要，若於其中甲罪之判決確定後，復犯乙罪，則甲、乙兩罪即無適用該條之餘地。】
第53條之「定其應執行之刑」 the punishment shall be fixed at(in)…
Article 54After a judgment of combined punishments has been finalized, if any of these offenses is pardoned, the punishment for the remaining offenses shall be fixed in accordance with the provision of Article 51. When only one offense remains not pardoned, the punishment shall be executed as pronounced.
刑法第54條
數罪併罰，已經處斷，如各罪中有受赦免者，餘罪仍依第五十一條之規定，定其應執行之刑，僅餘一罪者，依其宣告之刑執行。
第54條之「餘罪」 the remaining offenses
Article 55Where an act constitutes several offenses, only the most severe punishment shall be imposed. The punishment so imposed shall be not less than the minimum principal punishment for the least severe offense.
刑法第55條：
一行為而觸犯數罪名者，從一重處斷。但不得科以較輕罪名所定最輕本刑以下之刑。
第55條之「ㄧ行為」 an act
第55條之「從ㄧ重處斷」 only the most severe punishment shall be imposed
第55條之「最輕本刑以下」the minimum principal punishment
Article 56(Deleted)
刑法第56條
（刪除）
各國刑法英文版 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(1)刑法總則用語 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(2)刑法英文1-9 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(5)刑法英文10-11 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(3)刑法英文41-47 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(4)刑法英文48-56 、
刑法法條中文版、
Taiwan Law 、
刑法法條中文Taiwan Criminal Law(in chinese version)、
Wan-Li Yang 2009.05.12
2009年5月11日 星期一
2009年4月27日 星期一
性侵害防治的漏洞?
對於法院認被告觸犯妨害性自主罪，宣告緩刑，卻於確定判決漏未付保護管束時，如何救濟?
相關法規
(ㄧ)刑法規定
一、依民國95年7月1日實行之刑法第93條第1項規定：『受緩刑之宣告者，除有下列情形之一，應於緩刑期間付保護管束外，得於緩刑期間付保護管束：一、犯第91條之1所列之罪者。二、執行第74條第2項第5款至第8款所定之事項者。』
又刑法第91條之1第1項規定：『犯第221條至第227條、第228條、第229條、第230條、第234條、第332條第2項第2款、第334條第2款、第348條第2項第1款及其特別法之罪，而有下列情形之一者，得令入相當處所，施以強制治療：一、徒刑執行期滿前，於接受輔導或治療後，經鑑定、評估，有再犯之危險者。二、依其他法律規定，於接受身心治療或輔導教育後，經鑑定、評估，認有再犯之危險者。』。是以犯上開妨害性自主罪，自應於緩刑期間付保護管束。
(二)保安處分的特質
且非拘束人身自由之保安處分，適用『裁判時』之法律，刑法第2條第2項定有明文。保護管束係屬非拘束人身自由之保安處分，並無濃厚自由刑色彩，而有使行為人受雙重處罰之疑慮。此外，違反保護管束應遵守之事項，其情節重大者，檢察官固得聲請撤銷緩刑，然緩刑撤銷後，亦只是執行原本所宣告之刑罰，並無使行為人遭受更大的不利益。是刑法第93條第1項應於緩刑期間付保護管束之規定，應適用從新原則，無庸比較新舊法。
最高法院刑11庭、刑8庭見解 (97台非457、400)
惟目前最高法院見解卻認為：
(ㄧ)非常上訴，乃對於審判違背法令之確定判決所設之非常救濟程序，以統一法令之適用為主要目的。必原判決不利於被告，經另行判決；或撤銷後由原審法院更為審判者，其效力始及於被告。此與通常上訴程序旨在糾正錯誤之違法判決，使臻合法妥適，其目的係針對個案為救濟者不同。
(二)刑事訴訟法第441條對於非常上訴係採便宜主義，規定「得」提起，非「應」提起。故是否提起，自應依據非常上訴制度之本旨，衡酌人權之保障、判決違法之情形及訴訟制度之功能等因素，而為正當合理之考量。除與統一適用法令有關；或該判決不利於被告，非予救濟，不足以保障人權者外，倘原判決尚非不利於被告，且不涉及統一適用法令，即無提起非常上訴之必要性。亦即，縱有在通常程序得上訴於第三審之判決違背法令情形，並非均得提起非常上訴。
所謂與統一適用法令有關，係指涉及法律見解具有原則上之重要性者而言。詳言之，即所涉及之法律問題意義重大而有加以闡釋之必要，或對法之續造有重要意義者，始克相當。倘該違背法令情形，尚非不利於被告，且業經本院著有判例、判決或作成決議、決定予以糾正在案，實務上並無爭議者，對於法律見解並無原則上之重要性或爭議，即不屬與統一適用法令有關之範圍，殊無反覆提起非常上訴之必要性。
(三)結論: 原確定判決雖漏未依據刑法第93條第1項第1款規定，將犯妨害性自主罪而諭知緩刑之被告宣付保安處分（保護管束），而有違背法令之情形，但尚非不利於被告，且於法律見解之統一，欠缺原則上之重要性，客觀上難認有給予非常救濟之必要性，自應認非常上訴為無理由，予以駁回。
結論(依據最高法院最新見解，無法以非常上訴宣告付保護管束)
刑法94.1.7修正理由中已經明白闡釋出 何以認為妨害性自主罪之被告，應於緩刑期間保護管束:[一、緩刑制度在暫緩宣告刑之執行，促犯罪行為人自新，藉以救濟短期自由刑之弊，則緩刑期內，其是否已自我約制而洗心革面，自須予以觀察，尤其對於因生理或心理最需加以輔導之妨害性自主罪之被告，應於緩刑期間加以管束，故於第一項增訂對此類犯罪宣告緩刑時，應於緩刑期間付保護管束之宣告，以促犯罪行為人之再社會化。惟為有效運用有限之觀護資源，並避免徒增受緩刑宣告人不必要之負擔，其餘之犯罪仍宜由法官審酌具體情形，決定是否付保護管束之宣告。
二、依第七十四條第二項第五款至第八款之執行事項，因執行期間較長，為收其執行成效，宜配合保安處分之執行，方能發揮效果，爰於第一項第二款增列法官依第七十四條第二項規定，命犯罪行為人遵守第五款至第八款之事項時，應付保護管束，以利適用。
三、依刑事訴訟第第四百八十一條規定，刑法第九十六條但書之保安處分之執行，由檢察官聲請法院裁定，亦即假釋中付保護管束，係由法院裁定之，既法有明文，本條第二項無修正必要。]
漏洞:
1、該等類型之加害人，即使有高再犯性，也因未付保護管束，不會有觀護人依據性侵害防治法第20條相關規定予以輔導或約制。
2、無法召開受保護管束人社區監督輔導會議，難以評估其以何等社區處遇較為適合。
3、無法轉介適當機構或團體。
4、無法為其他必要處遇。
註:最高法院刑3庭:97台非247、最高法院刑8庭於97年2月間(97台非23)均將違法判決撤銷。惟98年起，改變見解。
2009.4.28
Wanli YANG Others:
妨害性自主相關法令
性騷擾防治有關法令
性侵害防治的漏洞? 2
性侵害防治的漏洞? 1
Sexual Assault Crime Prevention Act 性侵害犯罪防治法
相關法規
(ㄧ)刑法規定
一、依民國95年7月1日實行之刑法第93條第1項規定：『受緩刑之宣告者，除有下列情形之一，應於緩刑期間付保護管束外，得於緩刑期間付保護管束：一、犯第91條之1所列之罪者。二、執行第74條第2項第5款至第8款所定之事項者。』
又刑法第91條之1第1項規定：『犯第221條至第227條、第228條、第229條、第230條、第234條、第332條第2項第2款、第334條第2款、第348條第2項第1款及其特別法之罪，而有下列情形之一者，得令入相當處所，施以強制治療：一、徒刑執行期滿前，於接受輔導或治療後，經鑑定、評估，有再犯之危險者。二、依其他法律規定，於接受身心治療或輔導教育後，經鑑定、評估，認有再犯之危險者。』。是以犯上開妨害性自主罪，自應於緩刑期間付保護管束。
(二)保安處分的特質
且非拘束人身自由之保安處分，適用『裁判時』之法律，刑法第2條第2項定有明文。保護管束係屬非拘束人身自由之保安處分，並無濃厚自由刑色彩，而有使行為人受雙重處罰之疑慮。此外，違反保護管束應遵守之事項，其情節重大者，檢察官固得聲請撤銷緩刑，然緩刑撤銷後，亦只是執行原本所宣告之刑罰，並無使行為人遭受更大的不利益。是刑法第93條第1項應於緩刑期間付保護管束之規定，應適用從新原則，無庸比較新舊法。
最高法院刑11庭、刑8庭見解 (97台非457、400)
惟目前最高法院見解卻認為：
(ㄧ)非常上訴，乃對於審判違背法令之確定判決所設之非常救濟程序，以統一法令之適用為主要目的。必原判決不利於被告，經另行判決；或撤銷後由原審法院更為審判者，其效力始及於被告。此與通常上訴程序旨在糾正錯誤之違法判決，使臻合法妥適，其目的係針對個案為救濟者不同。
(二)刑事訴訟法第441條對於非常上訴係採便宜主義，規定「得」提起，非「應」提起。故是否提起，自應依據非常上訴制度之本旨，衡酌人權之保障、判決違法之情形及訴訟制度之功能等因素，而為正當合理之考量。除與統一適用法令有關；或該判決不利於被告，非予救濟，不足以保障人權者外，倘原判決尚非不利於被告，且不涉及統一適用法令，即無提起非常上訴之必要性。亦即，縱有在通常程序得上訴於第三審之判決違背法令情形，並非均得提起非常上訴。
所謂與統一適用法令有關，係指涉及法律見解具有原則上之重要性者而言。詳言之，即所涉及之法律問題意義重大而有加以闡釋之必要，或對法之續造有重要意義者，始克相當。倘該違背法令情形，尚非不利於被告，且業經本院著有判例、判決或作成決議、決定予以糾正在案，實務上並無爭議者，對於法律見解並無原則上之重要性或爭議，即不屬與統一適用法令有關之範圍，殊無反覆提起非常上訴之必要性。
(三)結論: 原確定判決雖漏未依據刑法第93條第1項第1款規定，將犯妨害性自主罪而諭知緩刑之被告宣付保安處分（保護管束），而有違背法令之情形，但尚非不利於被告，且於法律見解之統一，欠缺原則上之重要性，客觀上難認有給予非常救濟之必要性，自應認非常上訴為無理由，予以駁回。
結論(依據最高法院最新見解，無法以非常上訴宣告付保護管束)
刑法94.1.7修正理由中已經明白闡釋出 何以認為妨害性自主罪之被告，應於緩刑期間保護管束:[一、緩刑制度在暫緩宣告刑之執行，促犯罪行為人自新，藉以救濟短期自由刑之弊，則緩刑期內，其是否已自我約制而洗心革面，自須予以觀察，尤其對於因生理或心理最需加以輔導之妨害性自主罪之被告，應於緩刑期間加以管束，故於第一項增訂對此類犯罪宣告緩刑時，應於緩刑期間付保護管束之宣告，以促犯罪行為人之再社會化。惟為有效運用有限之觀護資源，並避免徒增受緩刑宣告人不必要之負擔，其餘之犯罪仍宜由法官審酌具體情形，決定是否付保護管束之宣告。
二、依第七十四條第二項第五款至第八款之執行事項，因執行期間較長，為收其執行成效，宜配合保安處分之執行，方能發揮效果，爰於第一項第二款增列法官依第七十四條第二項規定，命犯罪行為人遵守第五款至第八款之事項時，應付保護管束，以利適用。
三、依刑事訴訟第第四百八十一條規定，刑法第九十六條但書之保安處分之執行，由檢察官聲請法院裁定，亦即假釋中付保護管束，係由法院裁定之，既法有明文，本條第二項無修正必要。]
漏洞:
1、該等類型之加害人，即使有高再犯性，也因未付保護管束，不會有觀護人依據性侵害防治法第20條相關規定予以輔導或約制。
2、無法召開受保護管束人社區監督輔導會議，難以評估其以何等社區處遇較為適合。
3、無法轉介適當機構或團體。
4、無法為其他必要處遇。
註:最高法院刑3庭:97台非247、最高法院刑8庭於97年2月間(97台非23)均將違法判決撤銷。惟98年起，改變見解。
2009.4.28
Wanli YANG Others:
妨害性自主相關法令
性騷擾防治有關法令
性侵害防治的漏洞? 2
性侵害防治的漏洞? 1
Sexual Assault Crime Prevention Act 性侵害犯罪防治法
2009年4月19日 星期日
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(3)刑法英文41-47
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(3) 刑法英文41-47
[刑法英文全文各章節 http://wanliyang.blogspot.tw/2009/10/blog-post.html ]
刑法英文版第1條至第9條中英對照 Taiwan criminal law
Article 41
In an offense that carries a maximum principal punishment of not more than five years’ imprisonment, if the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for not more than six months or short-term imprisonment, the punishment may be commuted to a fine at a daily rate of NTD one thousand, two thousand or three thousand. This provision does not apply to the cases in which the commutation of the pronounced punishment as imposed is manifestly of little corrective effect, or the legal order cannot be maintained.
The previous paragraph also applies to the cases of combined punishment for multiple offenses, and those in which the punishment to be executed does not exceed six months.
刑法第 41 條：「犯最重本刑為五年以下有期徒刑以下之刑之罪，而受六個月以下有期徒刑或拘役之宣告者，得以新臺幣一千元、二千元或三千元折算一日，易科罰金。但確因不執行所宣告之刑，難收矯正之效或難以維持法秩序者，不在此限。（第1項）依前項規定於數罪併罰，並應執行之行刑未逾六月者，亦適用之。（第2項）」
Article 42
A fine must be paid in full within two months after judgment has been finalized. If full payment is not made within the two-month period, a compulsory execution shall be ordered. If the offender cannot afford the payment, the fine shall be commuted to labor service. If his economic or credit condition does not allow him to pay within the prescribed two months, he may be allowed to pay by installments within a year after the expiration of the prescribed period. When one installment is delayed or not paid in full, the convicted may be forced to pay the rest amount of the fine. In this case, the fine may be commuted to labor service.
If the afore-mentioned compulsory execution is taken in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph and it is found that the convicted has no property for execution, the fine may directly be commuted to labor service.
The commutation of a fine to labor service shall be calculated at the rate of NTD one thousand, two thousand or three thousand a day but the period of labor service shall not exceed a year.
If the conversion rates for commuting a fine to labor service calculated according to subparagraph 7 of Article 51 are different, the rate for the longest period of labor service shall apply.
If the total amount of a fine calculated by the day exceeds the number of days of a year, the ratio of the total amount to the days of a year shall be used in the calculation and the time limit provided for in the preceding paragraph shall also apply.
The judgment on the fine shall include the conversion rate pursuant to the provisions of the two previous paragraphs.
A fractional part of a day resulting from the commutation of a fine to labor service shall not be considered.
If a payment is made during the period of labor service commuted from a fine, the amount paid shall be converted to days at the rate fixed in the judgment and these days shall be deducted from the period of labor service accordingly.
刑法第 42 條：「罰金應於裁判確定後二個月內完納。期滿而不完納者，強制執行。其無力完納者，易服勞役。但依其經濟或信用狀況，不能於二個月內完納者，得許期滿後一年內分期繳納。遲延一期不繳或未繳足者，其餘未完納之罰金，強制執行或易服勞役。（第1項）依前項規定應強制執行者，如已查明確無財產可供執行時，得逕予易服勞役。（第2項）易服勞役以新臺幣一千元、二千元或三千元折算一日。但勞役期限不得逾一年。（第3項）依第五十一條第七款所定之金額，其易服勞役之折算標準不同者，從勞役期限較長者定之。（第4項）罰金總額折算逾一年之日數者，以罰金總額與一年之日數比例折算。依前項所定之期限，亦同。（第5項）科罰金之裁判，應依前二項之規定，載明折算一日之額數。（第6項）易服勞役不滿一日之零數，不算。（第7項）易服勞役期內納罰金者，以所納之數，依裁判所定之標準折算，扣除勞役之日期。（第8項）」）
Article 43
A sentence to short-term imprisonment or a fine may be commuted to a reprimand when the motive for committing the offense is clearly excusable from the standpoint of public interest or justice.
刑法第4 3 條：「受拘役或罰金之宣告，而犯罪動機在公益或道義上顯可宥恕者，得易以訓誡。」
Article 44
When the execution of a punishment commuted to a fine, labor service or reprimand is completed, the punishment pronounced in the sentence is deemed to have been executed.
刑法第 44 條：「易科罰金、易服勞役或易以訓誡執行完畢者，其所受宣告之刑，以已執行論。」
Article 45
A period of punishment shall be calculated from the day on which the judgment becomes final.
Notwithstanding that the judgment has been finalized, the number of days during which the offender has not been held in custody shall not be included in the calculation of the period of punishment.
刑法第4 5 條：「刑期自裁判確定之日起算。（第項）裁判雖經確定，其尚未受拘禁之日數，不算入刑期內。（第2項）」
Article 46
Each day an offender is detained prior to the judgment shall be counted as a day of serving imprisonment or short-term imprisonment, or a converted fine determined according to paragraph 6 of Article 42.
Where the days of detention can not be deducted according to the preceding paragraph, each detained day may be counted as a day of the restriction on personal freedom if he is pronounced to a rehabilitative measure.
刑法第 46 條：「裁判確定前羈押之日數，以一日抵有期徒刑或拘役一日，或第四十二條第六項裁判所定之罰金額數。（第1項）羈押之日數，無前項刑罰可抵，如經宣告拘束人身自由之保安處分者，得以一日抵保安處分一日。（第2項）」
Article 47
A person, who intentionally commits an offense with a minimum punishment of imprisonment within five years after having served a sentence of imprisonment or having been pardoned after serving part of the sentence, is a recidivist. The principal punishment for a recidivist .shall be increased up to one half.
A person, who has fully served a forced labor or been remitted after serving part of the labor pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 98 regarding imprisonment remission for the labor, shall be deemed as a recidivist if he, within five years after having served the labor , intentionally commits an offense with a minimum punishment of imprisonment.
刑法第 47 條：「受徒刑之執行完畢，或一部之執行而赦免後，五年以內故意再犯有期徒刑以上之罪者，為累犯，加重本刑至二分之一。（第1項）第九十八條第二項關於因強制工作而免其刑之執行者，於受強制工作處分之執行完畢或一部之執行而免除後，五年以內故意再犯有期徒刑以上之罪者，以累犯論。（第2項）」
各國刑法英文版 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(1)刑法總則用語 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(2)刑法英文1-9 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(5)刑法英文10-11 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(3)刑法英文41-47 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(4)刑法英文48-56 、
刑法法條中文版、
Taiwan Law 、
刑法法條中文Taiwan Criminal Law(in chinese version)、
[刑法英文全文各章節 http://wanliyang.blogspot.tw/2009/10/blog-post.html ]
刑法英文版第1條至第9條中英對照 Taiwan criminal law
Article 41
In an offense that carries a maximum principal punishment of not more than five years’ imprisonment, if the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for not more than six months or short-term imprisonment, the punishment may be commuted to a fine at a daily rate of NTD one thousand, two thousand or three thousand. This provision does not apply to the cases in which the commutation of the pronounced punishment as imposed is manifestly of little corrective effect, or the legal order cannot be maintained.
The previous paragraph also applies to the cases of combined punishment for multiple offenses, and those in which the punishment to be executed does not exceed six months.
刑法第 41 條：「犯最重本刑為五年以下有期徒刑以下之刑之罪，而受六個月以下有期徒刑或拘役之宣告者，得以新臺幣一千元、二千元或三千元折算一日，易科罰金。但確因不執行所宣告之刑，難收矯正之效或難以維持法秩序者，不在此限。（第1項）依前項規定於數罪併罰，並應執行之行刑未逾六月者，亦適用之。（第2項）」
Article 42
A fine must be paid in full within two months after judgment has been finalized. If full payment is not made within the two-month period, a compulsory execution shall be ordered. If the offender cannot afford the payment, the fine shall be commuted to labor service. If his economic or credit condition does not allow him to pay within the prescribed two months, he may be allowed to pay by installments within a year after the expiration of the prescribed period. When one installment is delayed or not paid in full, the convicted may be forced to pay the rest amount of the fine. In this case, the fine may be commuted to labor service.
If the afore-mentioned compulsory execution is taken in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph and it is found that the convicted has no property for execution, the fine may directly be commuted to labor service.
The commutation of a fine to labor service shall be calculated at the rate of NTD one thousand, two thousand or three thousand a day but the period of labor service shall not exceed a year.
If the conversion rates for commuting a fine to labor service calculated according to subparagraph 7 of Article 51 are different, the rate for the longest period of labor service shall apply.
If the total amount of a fine calculated by the day exceeds the number of days of a year, the ratio of the total amount to the days of a year shall be used in the calculation and the time limit provided for in the preceding paragraph shall also apply.
The judgment on the fine shall include the conversion rate pursuant to the provisions of the two previous paragraphs.
A fractional part of a day resulting from the commutation of a fine to labor service shall not be considered.
If a payment is made during the period of labor service commuted from a fine, the amount paid shall be converted to days at the rate fixed in the judgment and these days shall be deducted from the period of labor service accordingly.
刑法第 42 條：「罰金應於裁判確定後二個月內完納。期滿而不完納者，強制執行。其無力完納者，易服勞役。但依其經濟或信用狀況，不能於二個月內完納者，得許期滿後一年內分期繳納。遲延一期不繳或未繳足者，其餘未完納之罰金，強制執行或易服勞役。（第1項）依前項規定應強制執行者，如已查明確無財產可供執行時，得逕予易服勞役。（第2項）易服勞役以新臺幣一千元、二千元或三千元折算一日。但勞役期限不得逾一年。（第3項）依第五十一條第七款所定之金額，其易服勞役之折算標準不同者，從勞役期限較長者定之。（第4項）罰金總額折算逾一年之日數者，以罰金總額與一年之日數比例折算。依前項所定之期限，亦同。（第5項）科罰金之裁判，應依前二項之規定，載明折算一日之額數。（第6項）易服勞役不滿一日之零數，不算。（第7項）易服勞役期內納罰金者，以所納之數，依裁判所定之標準折算，扣除勞役之日期。（第8項）」）
Article 43
A sentence to short-term imprisonment or a fine may be commuted to a reprimand when the motive for committing the offense is clearly excusable from the standpoint of public interest or justice.
刑法第4 3 條：「受拘役或罰金之宣告，而犯罪動機在公益或道義上顯可宥恕者，得易以訓誡。」
Article 44
When the execution of a punishment commuted to a fine, labor service or reprimand is completed, the punishment pronounced in the sentence is deemed to have been executed.
刑法第 44 條：「易科罰金、易服勞役或易以訓誡執行完畢者，其所受宣告之刑，以已執行論。」
Article 45
A period of punishment shall be calculated from the day on which the judgment becomes final.
Notwithstanding that the judgment has been finalized, the number of days during which the offender has not been held in custody shall not be included in the calculation of the period of punishment.
刑法第4 5 條：「刑期自裁判確定之日起算。（第項）裁判雖經確定，其尚未受拘禁之日數，不算入刑期內。（第2項）」
Article 46
Each day an offender is detained prior to the judgment shall be counted as a day of serving imprisonment or short-term imprisonment, or a converted fine determined according to paragraph 6 of Article 42.
Where the days of detention can not be deducted according to the preceding paragraph, each detained day may be counted as a day of the restriction on personal freedom if he is pronounced to a rehabilitative measure.
刑法第 46 條：「裁判確定前羈押之日數，以一日抵有期徒刑或拘役一日，或第四十二條第六項裁判所定之罰金額數。（第1項）羈押之日數，無前項刑罰可抵，如經宣告拘束人身自由之保安處分者，得以一日抵保安處分一日。（第2項）」
Article 47
A person, who intentionally commits an offense with a minimum punishment of imprisonment within five years after having served a sentence of imprisonment or having been pardoned after serving part of the sentence, is a recidivist. The principal punishment for a recidivist .shall be increased up to one half.
A person, who has fully served a forced labor or been remitted after serving part of the labor pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 98 regarding imprisonment remission for the labor, shall be deemed as a recidivist if he, within five years after having served the labor , intentionally commits an offense with a minimum punishment of imprisonment.
刑法第 47 條：「受徒刑之執行完畢，或一部之執行而赦免後，五年以內故意再犯有期徒刑以上之罪者，為累犯，加重本刑至二分之一。（第1項）第九十八條第二項關於因強制工作而免其刑之執行者，於受強制工作處分之執行完畢或一部之執行而免除後，五年以內故意再犯有期徒刑以上之罪者，以累犯論。（第2項）」
各國刑法英文版 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(1)刑法總則用語 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(2)刑法英文1-9 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(5)刑法英文10-11 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(3)刑法英文41-47 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(4)刑法英文48-56 、
刑法法條中文版、
Taiwan Law 、
刑法法條中文Taiwan Criminal Law(in chinese version)、
2009年4月10日 星期五
The U.S. IP Criminal Enforcement Legal Resources
1. US IPR criminal enforcement legal resources: By Haiyan LiuIndiana University-Bloomington Available from Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section, United States Department of Justice Web site. Retrieved from http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/iplaws.html
2. US IPR enforcement statistics (criminal + civil + sentencing info.):
A. General descriptive statistics on the criminal enforcement of IPR in the U.S.: U.S. Department of Justice. 1999-2005. Intellectual Property Crime Report from the Attorney General's Annual Reports. Available from Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section, United States Department of Justice Web site. Retrieved Sept. 1, 2008, from http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ippolicy.html#agannrep
B. Aggregate criminal and civil IP case statistics from 1994 to 2002: Motivans, Mark. 2004. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intellectual Property Theft, 2002. Washington, DC : U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ipt02.pdf
C. Additional criminal enforcement statistics:
the "standard analysis files" (SAF) at Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center website. The SAF datasets represent annual cohorts of suspects and defendants processed in the Federal criminal justice system, and are created from the case management files of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the Drug Enforcement Agency (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2006a, 2006b, 2006c). Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program. 2006a. Suspects in criminal matters concluded during fiscal year 2006: MAT06OUT [Data file].
Washington D.C. : The Urban Institute (distributor). Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program. 2006b. Defendants sentenced under the guidelines during fiscal year 2006: SC06OUT [Data file].
Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute (distributor). Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program. 2006c. Defendants in criminal cases terminated during fiscal year 2006: CAS06OUT [Data file].
Washington D.C. : The Urban Institute (distributor).
D. The most recent (after 2002) civil IP case statistics: Federal Judicial Center. 2006. FEDERAL COURT CASES: INTEGRATED DATA BASE, 2006 [Data file]. ICPSR04685-v2. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center [producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2007-10-09.
3. IP criminal cases in the U.S.:
Available from Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section, United States Department of Justice Web site. Retrieved from http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ipcases.html
PS: provied by Haiyan Liu
PhD CandidateCriminal JusticeIndiana University-Bloomington
2. US IPR enforcement statistics (criminal + civil + sentencing info.):
A. General descriptive statistics on the criminal enforcement of IPR in the U.S.: U.S. Department of Justice. 1999-2005. Intellectual Property Crime Report from the Attorney General's Annual Reports. Available from Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section, United States Department of Justice Web site. Retrieved Sept. 1, 2008, from http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ippolicy.html#agannrep
B. Aggregate criminal and civil IP case statistics from 1994 to 2002: Motivans, Mark. 2004. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intellectual Property Theft, 2002. Washington, DC : U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ipt02.pdf
C. Additional criminal enforcement statistics:
the "standard analysis files" (SAF) at Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center website. The SAF datasets represent annual cohorts of suspects and defendants processed in the Federal criminal justice system, and are created from the case management files of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the Drug Enforcement Agency (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2006a, 2006b, 2006c). Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program. 2006a. Suspects in criminal matters concluded during fiscal year 2006: MAT06OUT [Data file].
Washington D.C. : The Urban Institute (distributor). Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program. 2006b. Defendants sentenced under the guidelines during fiscal year 2006: SC06OUT [Data file].
Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute (distributor). Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program. 2006c. Defendants in criminal cases terminated during fiscal year 2006: CAS06OUT [Data file].
Washington D.C. : The Urban Institute (distributor).
D. The most recent (after 2002) civil IP case statistics: Federal Judicial Center. 2006. FEDERAL COURT CASES: INTEGRATED DATA BASE, 2006 [Data file]. ICPSR04685-v2. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center [producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2007-10-09.
3. IP criminal cases in the U.S.:
Available from Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section, United States Department of Justice Web site. Retrieved from http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ipcases.html
PS: provied by Haiyan Liu
PhD CandidateCriminal JusticeIndiana University-Bloomington
White Collar Crime Research Resources
White Collar Crime Research Resources
1. National White Collar Crime Center:
http://www.nw3c.org/overview/what_we_do.cfm
NW3C is a US non-profit membership organization that has been continuously funded through competitive grants for over three decades. Through a combination of training and critical support services, they equip state, local, Tribal and federal law enforcement agencies with skills and resources they need to tackle emerging economic and cybercrime problems.
For the US public, NW3C provides information and research so they too may become proactive in the prevention of economic and cyber crime. Victims of crimes can rely on NW3C to help them register Internet crime complaints through their website at www.ic3.gov and notify the appropriate authorities at local, state, and federal levels promptly, accurately, and securely.
2. White Collar Crime Research Consortium (WCCRC):
http://www.nw3c.org/research/white_collar_crime_consortium.cfm
The mission of WCCRC is to promote increased US public awareness of the impact and burden of white collar crime on society through dedicated research. NW3C established the WCCRC and continues to provide support to its efforts.
NW3C Economic and High-Tech Crime Papers, Publications, Reports
http://www.nw3c.org/research/site_files.cfm?mode=p
3. The World Bank Publications and Research on Governance and Anti-Corruption
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/EXTWBIGOVANTCOR/0,,contentMDK:20673872~menuPK:1740557~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:1740530,00.html
Research conducted at the WB Institute in Governance and Anti-corruption, often in collaboration with Bank Operations and/or outside academic institutions, contributes to the growing literature on the subject and is a key input to the learning products and action program formulation. The emphasis is on the concrete operationalization of new research findings, based on novel empirical approaches and a major effort to develop a worldwide database on governance indicators.
4. The World Bank Database on Governance and Anti-Corruption:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/EXTWBIGOVANTCOR/0,,contentMDK:20673879~menuPK:1742423~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:1740530,00.html
5. OECD section on Fighting Corruption:
www.oecd.org/corruption
Corruption threatens good governance, sustainable development, democratic process, and fair business practices. The OECD is a global leader in the fight against corruption, taking a multidisciplinary approach to combating corruption in business via the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, taxation, development aid, and governance in its member countries and beyond. Regional anti-corruption programs help the OECD reach out globally to curb corruption.
Statistics: http://www.oecd.org/statisticsdata/0,3381,en_2649_37447_1_119656_1_1_37447,00.html
Publications and Documents:
http://www.oecd.org/findDocument/0,3354,en_2649_37447_1_1_1_1_37447,00.html
1. National White Collar Crime Center:
http://www.nw3c.org/overview/what_we_do.cfm
NW3C is a US non-profit membership organization that has been continuously funded through competitive grants for over three decades. Through a combination of training and critical support services, they equip state, local, Tribal and federal law enforcement agencies with skills and resources they need to tackle emerging economic and cybercrime problems.
For the US public, NW3C provides information and research so they too may become proactive in the prevention of economic and cyber crime. Victims of crimes can rely on NW3C to help them register Internet crime complaints through their website at www.ic3.gov and notify the appropriate authorities at local, state, and federal levels promptly, accurately, and securely.
2. White Collar Crime Research Consortium (WCCRC):
http://www.nw3c.org/research/white_collar_crime_consortium.cfm
The mission of WCCRC is to promote increased US public awareness of the impact and burden of white collar crime on society through dedicated research. NW3C established the WCCRC and continues to provide support to its efforts.
NW3C Economic and High-Tech Crime Papers, Publications, Reports
http://www.nw3c.org/research/site_files.cfm?mode=p
3. The World Bank Publications and Research on Governance and Anti-Corruption
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/EXTWBIGOVANTCOR/0,,contentMDK:20673872~menuPK:1740557~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:1740530,00.html
Research conducted at the WB Institute in Governance and Anti-corruption, often in collaboration with Bank Operations and/or outside academic institutions, contributes to the growing literature on the subject and is a key input to the learning products and action program formulation. The emphasis is on the concrete operationalization of new research findings, based on novel empirical approaches and a major effort to develop a worldwide database on governance indicators.
4. The World Bank Database on Governance and Anti-Corruption:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/EXTWBIGOVANTCOR/0,,contentMDK:20673879~menuPK:1742423~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:1740530,00.html
5. OECD section on Fighting Corruption:
www.oecd.org/corruption
Corruption threatens good governance, sustainable development, democratic process, and fair business practices. The OECD is a global leader in the fight against corruption, taking a multidisciplinary approach to combating corruption in business via the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, taxation, development aid, and governance in its member countries and beyond. Regional anti-corruption programs help the OECD reach out globally to curb corruption.
Statistics: http://www.oecd.org/statisticsdata/0,3381,en_2649_37447_1_119656_1_1_37447,00.html
Publications and Documents:
http://www.oecd.org/findDocument/0,3354,en_2649_37447_1_1_1_1_37447,00.html
2009年4月7日 星期二
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(2)刑法英文1-9
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(2) 刑法英文1-9
[刑法英文全文各章節 http://wanliyang.blogspot.tw/2009/10/blog-post.html ]
刑法英文版第1條至第9條中英對照 Taiwan criminal law
Article 1
A conduct is punishable only when expressly so provided by the law at the time of commission. This also applies to a rehabilitative measure which puts restrictions on personal freedom.
刑法第1條：
行為之處罰，以行為時之法律有明文規定者為限。拘束人身自由之保安處分，亦同。
Article 2
When the law is amended after the commission of an offense, the law in force of its commission shall apply; provided when the amended law is favorable to the offender, the most favorable law shall apply.
For a rehabilitative measure that does not involve restrictions on personal freedom, the law in force at the time of judgment shall apply.
When a judgment has been finalized with a punishment or a rehabilitative measure but not yet executed or before the end of execution, and the law is amended into a state with no punishment or rehabilitative measure for the offense, the punishment or the rehabilitative measure shall be remitted.
刑法第2條：
行為後法律有變更者，適用行為時之法律。但行為後之法律有利於行為人者，適用最有利於行為人之法律。
非拘束人身自由之保安處分適用裁判時之法律。
處罰或保安處分之裁判確定後，未執行或執行未完畢，而法律有變更，不處罰其行為或不施以保安處分者，免其刑或保安處分之執行。
Article 3
This Code shall apply to any offense committed within the territory of the Republic of China. An offense committed on board a vessel or aircraft of the Republic of China outside the territory of the Republic of China shall be considered as an offense committed within the territory of the Republic of China .
刑法第3條：
本法於在中華民國領域內犯罪者，適用之。在中華民國領域外之中華民國船艦或航空器內犯罪者，以在中華民國領域內犯罪論。
Article 4
Where either the conduct or the result of an offense takes place within the territory of the Republic of China, the offense shall be considered as committed within the territory of the Republic of China .
刑法第4條
犯罪之行為或結果，有一在中華民國領域內者，為在中華民國領域內犯罪。
Article 5
This Code shall apply to any of the following offenses outside the territories of the Republic of China:
1.the offense of sedition specified in Article 100.
2.the offense of treason specified in Article 103.
3.the offenses of obstructing governmental operation specified in Article 135,136 or 138.
4.the offenses against public safety specified in Article 185-1 or 185-2.
5.the offenses of counterfeiting currency specified in Article 195 to 199.
6.the offenses of counterfeiting securities specified in Article 201 to 202.
7.the offenses of forgery specified in Article 211, 214, 218 or 216 in which only includes using forged official documents as specified in Articles 211, 213 or 214.
8.the drug offenses specified in Chapter 20, except for the offenses of drug abuse or possession of drug, seeds or application tools of drug.
9.the offenses against personal freedom specified in Article 296 or 296-1.
10.the offenses of piracy specified in Article 333 or 334.
刑法第 5 條
本法於凡在中華民國領域外犯下列各罪者，適用之：
一、內亂罪。
二、外患罪。
三、第一百三十五條、第一百三十六條及第一百三十八條之妨害公務罪。
四、第一百八十五條之一及第一百八十五條之二之公共危險罪。
五、偽造貨幣罪。
六、第二百零一條至第二百零二條之偽造有價證券罪。
七、第二百十一條、第二百十四條、第二百十八條及第二百十六條行使第二百十一條、第二百十三條、第二百十四條文書之偽造文書罪。
八、毒品罪。但施用毒品及持有毒品、種子、施用毒品器具罪，不在此限。
九、第二百九十六條及第二百九十六條之一之妨害自由罪。
十、第三百三十三條及第三百三十四條之海盜罪。
六、Article 6
This Code shall apply to any of the following offenses committed by any public official of the Republic of China outside the territory of the Republic of China :
1.the offenses of malfeasance specified in Article 121 to 123, 125, 126, 129, 131, 132, or 134.
2.the offense(s) of facilitating escape specified in Article 163.
3.the offense of forgery specified in Article 213.
4.the offense of embezzlement specified in Article 336, paragraph 1.
刑法第6條
本法於中華民國公務員在中華民國領域外犯左列各罪者，適用之：
一、第一百二十一條至第一百二十三條、第一百二十五條、第一百二十六條、第一百二十九條、第一百三十一條、第一百三十二條及第一百三十四條之瀆職罪。
二、第一百六十三條之脫逃罪。
三、第二百十三條之偽造文書罪。
四、第三百三十六條第一項之侵占罪。
Article 7
This Code shall apply where any national of Republic of China commits an offense which is not specified in one of the two preceding articles but is punishable for not less than 3 years of imprisonment outside the territory of the Republic of China; unless the offense is not punishable by the law of the place where the offense is committed.
刑法第7條：
本法於中華民國人民在中華民國領域外犯前二條以外之罪，而其最輕本刑為三年以上有期徒刑者，適用之。但依犯罪地之法律不罰者，不在此限。
Article 8
The provisions of the preceding article shall apply mutatis mutandis to an alien who commits an offense outside the territory of the Republic of China against a national of the Republic of China.
刑法第8條
前條之規定，於在中華民國領域外對於中華民國人民犯罪之外國人，準用之。
Article 9
An offense is punishable under this Code despite that a finalized judgment has been rendered by a foreign tribunal; where the punishment has been entirely or partly executed in the foreign country, the execution of the punishment in the Republic of China may be entirely or partly remitted.
刑法第9條
同一行為雖經外國確定裁判，仍得依本法處斷。但在外國已受刑之全部或一部執行者，得免其刑之全部或一部之執行。
各國刑法英文版
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(1)刑法總則用語
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(2)刑法英文1-9 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(5)刑法英文10-11 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(3)刑法英文41-47 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(4)刑法英文48-56 、
刑法法條中文版、
Taiwan Law 、
刑法法條中文Taiwan Criminal Law(in chinese version)
Wanli YANG 整理
[刑法英文全文各章節 http://wanliyang.blogspot.tw/2009/10/blog-post.html ]
刑法英文版第1條至第9條中英對照 Taiwan criminal law
Article 1
A conduct is punishable only when expressly so provided by the law at the time of commission. This also applies to a rehabilitative measure which puts restrictions on personal freedom.
刑法第1條：
行為之處罰，以行為時之法律有明文規定者為限。拘束人身自由之保安處分，亦同。
Article 2
When the law is amended after the commission of an offense, the law in force of its commission shall apply; provided when the amended law is favorable to the offender, the most favorable law shall apply.
For a rehabilitative measure that does not involve restrictions on personal freedom, the law in force at the time of judgment shall apply.
When a judgment has been finalized with a punishment or a rehabilitative measure but not yet executed or before the end of execution, and the law is amended into a state with no punishment or rehabilitative measure for the offense, the punishment or the rehabilitative measure shall be remitted.
刑法第2條：
行為後法律有變更者，適用行為時之法律。但行為後之法律有利於行為人者，適用最有利於行為人之法律。
非拘束人身自由之保安處分適用裁判時之法律。
處罰或保安處分之裁判確定後，未執行或執行未完畢，而法律有變更，不處罰其行為或不施以保安處分者，免其刑或保安處分之執行。
Article 3
This Code shall apply to any offense committed within the territory of the Republic of China. An offense committed on board a vessel or aircraft of the Republic of China outside the territory of the Republic of China shall be considered as an offense committed within the territory of the Republic of China .
刑法第3條：
本法於在中華民國領域內犯罪者，適用之。在中華民國領域外之中華民國船艦或航空器內犯罪者，以在中華民國領域內犯罪論。
Article 4
Where either the conduct or the result of an offense takes place within the territory of the Republic of China, the offense shall be considered as committed within the territory of the Republic of China .
刑法第4條
犯罪之行為或結果，有一在中華民國領域內者，為在中華民國領域內犯罪。
Article 5
This Code shall apply to any of the following offenses outside the territories of the Republic of China:
1.the offense of sedition specified in Article 100.
2.the offense of treason specified in Article 103.
3.the offenses of obstructing governmental operation specified in Article 135,136 or 138.
4.the offenses against public safety specified in Article 185-1 or 185-2.
5.the offenses of counterfeiting currency specified in Article 195 to 199.
6.the offenses of counterfeiting securities specified in Article 201 to 202.
7.the offenses of forgery specified in Article 211, 214, 218 or 216 in which only includes using forged official documents as specified in Articles 211, 213 or 214.
8.the drug offenses specified in Chapter 20, except for the offenses of drug abuse or possession of drug, seeds or application tools of drug.
9.the offenses against personal freedom specified in Article 296 or 296-1.
10.the offenses of piracy specified in Article 333 or 334.
刑法第 5 條
本法於凡在中華民國領域外犯下列各罪者，適用之：
一、內亂罪。
二、外患罪。
三、第一百三十五條、第一百三十六條及第一百三十八條之妨害公務罪。
四、第一百八十五條之一及第一百八十五條之二之公共危險罪。
五、偽造貨幣罪。
六、第二百零一條至第二百零二條之偽造有價證券罪。
七、第二百十一條、第二百十四條、第二百十八條及第二百十六條行使第二百十一條、第二百十三條、第二百十四條文書之偽造文書罪。
八、毒品罪。但施用毒品及持有毒品、種子、施用毒品器具罪，不在此限。
九、第二百九十六條及第二百九十六條之一之妨害自由罪。
十、第三百三十三條及第三百三十四條之海盜罪。
六、Article 6
This Code shall apply to any of the following offenses committed by any public official of the Republic of China outside the territory of the Republic of China :
1.the offenses of malfeasance specified in Article 121 to 123, 125, 126, 129, 131, 132, or 134.
2.the offense(s) of facilitating escape specified in Article 163.
3.the offense of forgery specified in Article 213.
4.the offense of embezzlement specified in Article 336, paragraph 1.
刑法第6條
本法於中華民國公務員在中華民國領域外犯左列各罪者，適用之：
一、第一百二十一條至第一百二十三條、第一百二十五條、第一百二十六條、第一百二十九條、第一百三十一條、第一百三十二條及第一百三十四條之瀆職罪。
二、第一百六十三條之脫逃罪。
三、第二百十三條之偽造文書罪。
四、第三百三十六條第一項之侵占罪。
Article 7
This Code shall apply where any national of Republic of China commits an offense which is not specified in one of the two preceding articles but is punishable for not less than 3 years of imprisonment outside the territory of the Republic of China; unless the offense is not punishable by the law of the place where the offense is committed.
刑法第7條：
本法於中華民國人民在中華民國領域外犯前二條以外之罪，而其最輕本刑為三年以上有期徒刑者，適用之。但依犯罪地之法律不罰者，不在此限。
Article 8
The provisions of the preceding article shall apply mutatis mutandis to an alien who commits an offense outside the territory of the Republic of China against a national of the Republic of China.
刑法第8條
前條之規定，於在中華民國領域外對於中華民國人民犯罪之外國人，準用之。
Article 9
An offense is punishable under this Code despite that a finalized judgment has been rendered by a foreign tribunal; where the punishment has been entirely or partly executed in the foreign country, the execution of the punishment in the Republic of China may be entirely or partly remitted.
刑法第9條
同一行為雖經外國確定裁判，仍得依本法處斷。但在外國已受刑之全部或一部執行者，得免其刑之全部或一部之執行。
各國刑法英文版
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(1)刑法總則用語
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(2)刑法英文1-9 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(5)刑法英文10-11 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(3)刑法英文41-47 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(4)刑法英文48-56 、
刑法法條中文版、
Taiwan Law 、
刑法法條中文Taiwan Criminal Law(in chinese version)
Wanli YANG 整理
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(1)刑法總則用語
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(1) 刑法總則用語
Taiwan criminal law(in Chinese version)
（一）刑法總則用語英譯部分：
1.死刑：death penalty。
２.無期徒刑：life imprisonment。
３.有期徒刑：imprisonment。
４.罰金：fine。
5.拘役：short-term imprisonment
6.重傷：serious physical injury
7.輕傷：physical injury
8.致人於死：if the offense results in death 或cause death。
9.第38條之「物」：thing。
（二）刑法分則用語英譯部分：
1.第257條第3項之「物」：object 或 property。
2.第258條第1項之「器具」：instrument
3.第259條第1項之「意圖營利」：with the intention of making a profit；總則之「故意」：intent
4.第266條第1項之「財物」，無須翻譯；至於第339條第1項之「物」，則須翻譯。
5.第294條之law, order或contract等字前，無須加冠詞。.
6.第296條之1第3項之「前二項」：provided in the preceding paragraphs（因前無其他項）；同條第6項之「第一項至第三項」：provided in paragraph 1 to 3。
7.第297條第2項之「前項」：the preceding paragraph
8.第320條第1項之「意圖為自己或第三人不法之所有」：with the intention to unlawfully possess 9.「公然」：openly。
10.「公務員」：public officials；「非公務員」：non-public officials
11.「加重其刑至三分之一」：aggregated by one-thirds。
12.「處死刑、無期徒刑或十年以上有期徒刑」：shall be sentenced to death penalty or life imprisonment, or imprisonment not less than ten years。
13.「處一年以上、七年以下有期徒刑」：shall be sentenced to imprisonment not less than one year but not more than seven years。
14.「科或併科一千元以下罰金」：in lieu thereof, or in addition thereto, a fine not more than one thousand yuan.
15.罰金一律按原條文之數額翻譯，惟應於法條後加註換算成新臺幣之數額。
各國刑法英文版
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(1)刑法總則用語
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(2)刑法英文1-9 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(3)刑法英文41-47 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(4)刑法英文48-56 、
刑法法條中文版、
Taiwan Law 、
刑法法條中文Taiwan Criminal Law(in chinese version)、
Taiwan criminal law(in Chinese version)
（一）刑法總則用語英譯部分：
1.死刑：death penalty。
２.無期徒刑：life imprisonment。
３.有期徒刑：imprisonment。
４.罰金：fine。
5.拘役：short-term imprisonment
6.重傷：serious physical injury
7.輕傷：physical injury
8.致人於死：if the offense results in death 或cause death。
9.第38條之「物」：thing。
（二）刑法分則用語英譯部分：
1.第257條第3項之「物」：object 或 property。
2.第258條第1項之「器具」：instrument
3.第259條第1項之「意圖營利」：with the intention of making a profit；總則之「故意」：intent
4.第266條第1項之「財物」，無須翻譯；至於第339條第1項之「物」，則須翻譯。
5.第294條之law, order或contract等字前，無須加冠詞。.
6.第296條之1第3項之「前二項」：provided in the preceding paragraphs（因前無其他項）；同條第6項之「第一項至第三項」：provided in paragraph 1 to 3。
7.第297條第2項之「前項」：the preceding paragraph
8.第320條第1項之「意圖為自己或第三人不法之所有」：with the intention to unlawfully possess 9.「公然」：openly。
10.「公務員」：public officials；「非公務員」：non-public officials
11.「加重其刑至三分之一」：aggregated by one-thirds。
12.「處死刑、無期徒刑或十年以上有期徒刑」：shall be sentenced to death penalty or life imprisonment, or imprisonment not less than ten years。
13.「處一年以上、七年以下有期徒刑」：shall be sentenced to imprisonment not less than one year but not more than seven years。
14.「科或併科一千元以下罰金」：in lieu thereof, or in addition thereto, a fine not more than one thousand yuan.
15.罰金一律按原條文之數額翻譯，惟應於法條後加註換算成新臺幣之數額。
各國刑法英文版
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(1)刑法總則用語
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(2)刑法英文1-9 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(3)刑法英文41-47 、
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯(4)刑法英文48-56 、
刑法法條中文版、
Taiwan Law 、
刑法法條中文Taiwan Criminal Law(in chinese version)、
2009年2月4日 星期三
各國刑法英文版
中華民國刑法暨其施行法英譯-各國刑法英文網站參考
世界各國刑法
http://legislationline.org/documents/section/criminal-codes
世界各國刑法
問題一: 主刑中就[拘役]部分的用語，似待決。
香港律政司雙語法例資料系統:
http://www.legislation.gov.hk/chi/index.htm (查詢全數法律)
http://www.legislation.gov.hk/eng/glossary/homeglos.htm (可以查詢檢索中英法律用語)
1.罰金(罰款)用語: Fine
2.有期徒刑: (1) determinate sentence 有期徒刑 475 22(1)(b) 、(2) commute - commuted from a sentence of life imprisonment to a determinate sentence 從終生監禁改為有期徒刑 475 22(1)(b)
3.無期徒刑(終身監禁): life imprisonment 終身監禁 241 3(1)
4.死刑: death penalty 死刑 525 5(3)(c)(ii)
5.查無拘役。用英文detention查詢之結果，為拘留(類拘禁、羈押)。
中華人民共和國刑法: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/newLaws/criminalLawENG.php
( 全文出處乃"美國國會及行政部門中國委員會"(Congressional Executive Commission on China, CECC))
第33條 主刑的種類如下：
(一)管制；(二)拘役；(三)有期徒刑；(四)無期徒刑；(五)死刑。
Article 33
The principal punishments are as follows: 1. public surveillance; 2. criminal detention; 3. fixed-term imprisonment; 4. life imprisonment; and 5. death penalty.
資料來源:
1.北大
2.www.21lawyer.cn
新加坡刑法: PENAL CODE Cap. 224
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/html/homepage.html (請按P，之後出現PENAL CODE )
紐約民事法庭房屋法庭(中文網):
https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/nyc/housing/housing_chinese/
中華民國全國法規資料庫(英文版): Taiwan Law
Laws and Regulations Database of The Republic of China
刑法(criminal law in Chinese version)
[刑法英文全文各章節 http://wanliyang.blogspot.tw/2009/10/blog-post.html ]
法國新刑法典: (法國刑法，法文版)
Full text of the penal code http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?dateTexte=20110307&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719&fastReqId=930254301&fastPos=1&oldAction=rechCodeArticle
各國刑法 http://www.legislationline.org/documents/section/criminal-codes
-----
各國刑法英文版 、中華民國刑法英譯(1)刑法總則用語 、刑法英譯1-9 、刑法英譯10-11 、刑法英譯 12-24 、刑法英文 25-31 、刑法英譯41-47 、刑法英譯48-56 、刑法法條中文版、Taiwan Law 、刑法法條中文Taiwan Criminal Law(in chinese version)、
-----
2009.2.6 Wan-Li Yang
2009年2月3日 星期二
Intellectual Property Rights in Taiwan
The Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Taiwan
如何研究台灣智慧財產權(智慧财产权)
1、參考書籍( Books):
(1)羅明通（2005）。《著作權法論》，上、下冊，6版。臺北：群彥。
(2)趙晉枚、蔡坤財、周慧芳、謝銘洋、張凱娜合著，智慧財產權入門，月旦出版社，台北，1998年11月。
(3)謝銘洋（1999）。《智慧財產權基本問題研究》，初版。臺北：翰蘆
基本之書籍如上，餘重要文獻大都散落在期刊當中。
2、網路期刊 (Journal):
(1)國家圖書館全球資訊網 - [ 国家图书馆全球信息网 ]
*全國博碩士論文資訊網 -[ 全国博硕士论文信息网 ]
http://etds.ncl.edu.tw/theabs/index.html
期刊文獻資訊網 -[ 期刊文献信息网 ]: http://www.ncl.edu.tw/journal/journal_docu01.htm
3、智慧財產局網站: (非常重要之入口網站)
經濟部智慧財產局 -Taiwan Intelletual Property Office -[ 经济部智慧财产局 ]
(1) 專利: 专利:
http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/NodeTree.aspx?path=2801
(2) 商標: 商标:
http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/NodeTree.aspx?path=57
商標案例彙編: [ 商标案例汇编 ]
http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/AllInOne_Show.aspx?path=3015&guid=5ea9e737-264b-49f0-be33-5afec5122b37&lang=zh-tw
(3)著作權法: 著作权法
http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/NodeTree.aspx?path=75
著作權法案例彙編[ 著作权法案例汇编]
http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/NodeTree.aspx?path=74
4、智慧財產權案件: [智慧财产权案件] Intellectual Property Right Cases including both civil and criminal one
Find Taiwan Court Cases
(1)司法院網站
(2)大法官會議解釋
(3)最高法院、高等法院與地方法院判決
5、統計數據:( legal analysis )
(1)司法統計 [司法统计]
(2)各地方法院以及各地方法院檢察署網站均提供相關數據。
District Prosecutors' Offices in Taiwan
(3)次級研究: 全國博碩士論文，均有就上開數據研究後所發表之論文。
6、相關法規：ACT著作權法：Copyright Act: http://law.moj.gov.tw/eng/News/news_detail.aspx?id=5058
商標法：Trademark Act ：http://law.moj.gov.tw/eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=J0070001
專利法：Patent Act ：http://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=J0070007
7.楊婉莉，司法實務上相關著作權案件之研究，台灣高雄地方法院檢察署印行，民國91年1月
2009.2.3 \2010.4.25 rewrite
Wanli YANG
如何研究台灣智慧財產權(智慧财产权)
1、參考書籍( Books):
(1)羅明通（2005）。《著作權法論》，上、下冊，6版。臺北：群彥。
(2)趙晉枚、蔡坤財、周慧芳、謝銘洋、張凱娜合著，智慧財產權入門，月旦出版社，台北，1998年11月。
(3)謝銘洋（1999）。《智慧財產權基本問題研究》，初版。臺北：翰蘆
基本之書籍如上，餘重要文獻大都散落在期刊當中。
2、網路期刊 (Journal):
(1)國家圖書館全球資訊網 - [ 国家图书馆全球信息网 ]
*全國博碩士論文資訊網 -[ 全国博硕士论文信息网 ]
http://etds.ncl.edu.tw/theabs/index.html
期刊文獻資訊網 -[ 期刊文献信息网 ]: http://www.ncl.edu.tw/journal/journal_docu01.htm
3、智慧財產局網站: (非常重要之入口網站)
經濟部智慧財產局 -Taiwan Intelletual Property Office -[ 经济部智慧财产局 ]
(1) 專利: 专利:
http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/NodeTree.aspx?path=2801
(2) 商標: 商标:
http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/NodeTree.aspx?path=57
商標案例彙編: [ 商标案例汇编 ]
http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/AllInOne_Show.aspx?path=3015&guid=5ea9e737-264b-49f0-be33-5afec5122b37&lang=zh-tw
(3)著作權法: 著作权法
http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/NodeTree.aspx?path=75
著作權法案例彙編[ 著作权法案例汇编]
http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/NodeTree.aspx?path=74
4、智慧財產權案件: [智慧财产权案件] Intellectual Property Right Cases including both civil and criminal one
Find Taiwan Court Cases
(1)司法院網站
(2)大法官會議解釋
(3)最高法院、高等法院與地方法院判決
5、統計數據:( legal analysis )
(1)司法統計 [司法统计]
(2)各地方法院以及各地方法院檢察署網站均提供相關數據。
District Prosecutors' Offices in Taiwan
(3)次級研究: 全國博碩士論文，均有就上開數據研究後所發表之論文。
6、相關法規：ACT著作權法：Copyright Act: http://law.moj.gov.tw/eng/News/news_detail.aspx?id=5058
商標法：Trademark Act ：http://law.moj.gov.tw/eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=J0070001
專利法：Patent Act ：http://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=J0070007
7.楊婉莉，司法實務上相關著作權案件之研究，台灣高雄地方法院檢察署印行，民國91年1月
2009.2.3 \2010.4.25 rewrite
Wanli YANG
2009年1月19日 星期一
Supreme Court loosens law on illegal searches
Supreme Court loosens law on illegal searches
01.14.2009
The Supreme court rules in a 5-4 opinion that evidence from an illegal search can be used if an officer makes an innocent mistake.
2009.1.14美國最高法院以五比四通過認為非法搜索所得之證物因為警員非惡意的錯誤，而有證據能力。
本件美國最高法院做出來的判決所透漏出來的訊息即為放寬證據法則的認定。首席大法官認為犯罪者不能因為警員間的電腦錯誤或誤解而逍遙法外( go free).
The Supreme Court pulled back on the "exclusionary rule" Wednesday and ruled that evidence from an illegal search can be used if a police officer made an innocent mistake.The 5-4 opinion signals that the court is ready to rethink this key rule in criminal law and restrict its reach. It will also give prosecutors and judges nationwide more leeway to make use of evidence that may have been seen as questionable before.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the guilty should not "go free" just because a computer error or a misunderstanding between police officers led to a wrongful arrest or search.
[案件背景]
The officer, Mark Anderson, had called and been told by a clerk in a neighboring county that Bennie Dean Herring had failed to appear in court on a felony charge. But minutes after Anderson found methamphetamine and a pistol in Herring's car, the clerk called back to say the arrest warrant had been withdrawn. This fact had not been entered into the sheriff's department's computer.
The warrant, still active in the neighboring Dale County Sheriff's Office, was supposed to have been recalled five months prior, however someone had accidentally failed to remove it from the computer system.
在2004年7月間，員警Mark因為經鄰近county的助理(clerk) 告知因為嫌疑人Herring就他之前所犯的重罪，經傳喚未到庭，所以法庭有發逮捕令arrest warrant.(註:美國法制在[經傳未到]的情形，就該[經傳未到]又會觸犯另外一個[經傳未到]之罪名。相對於台灣，經傳未到，僅會有是否構成拘提、通緝之事由爾) 因此警察即對該駕駛車輛之嫌疑人予以逮捕，且查獲毒品與槍枝，想不到，數分鐘過後，clerk又打來表示該令狀已經撤銷，但是該撤銷的訊息尚未進入警局電腦系統中。因此被告即主張本案適用證據排除法則。
一審(the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama)駁回被告之聲請。
二審(The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit) 維持一審判決。( illegally obtained evidence should only be suppressed when doing so could "result in appreciable deterrence" of future police misconduct.)
[本件五位法官]
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the chief justice.
[關鍵字 Key Word]
證據排除 證據排除法則 证据排除 证据规定
[網路意見]
1、本件根本非證據排除法則問題:因為就在現場執行之員警而言，根本沒有違法執行問題。there was no police misconduct to deter.
2、警員可以用此為藉口來托辭。
The police could always make some claim about believing there was a warrant after the fact. I am also more than a little puzzled that it seems like nearly all the Supreme Court decisions are decided 5 to 4.
資料來源:
1、http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_513/
2、Los Angeles Times
3、NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts
整理: By Wan-Li Yang
2009.1.19
01.14.2009
The Supreme court rules in a 5-4 opinion that evidence from an illegal search can be used if an officer makes an innocent mistake.
2009.1.14美國最高法院以五比四通過認為非法搜索所得之證物因為警員非惡意的錯誤，而有證據能力。
本件美國最高法院做出來的判決所透漏出來的訊息即為放寬證據法則的認定。首席大法官認為犯罪者不能因為警員間的電腦錯誤或誤解而逍遙法外( go free).
The Supreme Court pulled back on the "exclusionary rule" Wednesday and ruled that evidence from an illegal search can be used if a police officer made an innocent mistake.The 5-4 opinion signals that the court is ready to rethink this key rule in criminal law and restrict its reach. It will also give prosecutors and judges nationwide more leeway to make use of evidence that may have been seen as questionable before.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the guilty should not "go free" just because a computer error or a misunderstanding between police officers led to a wrongful arrest or search.
[案件背景]
The officer, Mark Anderson, had called and been told by a clerk in a neighboring county that Bennie Dean Herring had failed to appear in court on a felony charge. But minutes after Anderson found methamphetamine and a pistol in Herring's car, the clerk called back to say the arrest warrant had been withdrawn. This fact had not been entered into the sheriff's department's computer.
The warrant, still active in the neighboring Dale County Sheriff's Office, was supposed to have been recalled five months prior, however someone had accidentally failed to remove it from the computer system.
在2004年7月間，員警Mark因為經鄰近county的助理(clerk) 告知因為嫌疑人Herring就他之前所犯的重罪，經傳喚未到庭，所以法庭有發逮捕令arrest warrant.(註:美國法制在[經傳未到]的情形，就該[經傳未到]又會觸犯另外一個[經傳未到]之罪名。相對於台灣，經傳未到，僅會有是否構成拘提、通緝之事由爾) 因此警察即對該駕駛車輛之嫌疑人予以逮捕，且查獲毒品與槍枝，想不到，數分鐘過後，clerk又打來表示該令狀已經撤銷，但是該撤銷的訊息尚未進入警局電腦系統中。因此被告即主張本案適用證據排除法則。
一審(the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama)駁回被告之聲請。
二審(The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit) 維持一審判決。( illegally obtained evidence should only be suppressed when doing so could "result in appreciable deterrence" of future police misconduct.)
[本件五位法官]
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the chief justice.
[關鍵字 Key Word]
證據排除 證據排除法則 证据排除 证据规定
[網路意見]
1、本件根本非證據排除法則問題:因為就在現場執行之員警而言，根本沒有違法執行問題。there was no police misconduct to deter.
2、警員可以用此為藉口來托辭。
The police could always make some claim about believing there was a warrant after the fact. I am also more than a little puzzled that it seems like nearly all the Supreme Court decisions are decided 5 to 4.
資料來源:
1、http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_513/
2、Los Angeles Times
3、NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts
整理: By Wan-Li Yang
2009.1.19
2009年1月18日 星期日
內勤處理家暴案件流程
檢察官值班內勤處理家暴案件流程 (涉案嫌疑人部分)
ㄧ般狀況:1. 訊畢諭知:請回、限制住居、具保(金額)、聲請羈押。
2. 當庭交付檢察官命令(家暴法31)予被告收受，一份影印附卷。 命被告遵守：
(1)禁止實施家庭暴力。
(2)禁止對被害人為騷擾、接觸、跟蹤、通話、通信或其他非必要之聯絡行為。
(3)遷出被害人之住居所。
(4)遠離下列場所特定距離：被害人之住居所、學校、工作場所或其他被害人或其特定家庭成員經常出入之特定場所。
(5)其他保護被害人或其特定家庭成員安全之事項。
所附條件有效期間最長不得逾一年。
3. 由法警傳真命令予移送單位，並請移送單位:
(1)送達本件命令予被害人。
(2)加強被害人之保護。
(3)轉知(縣/市)社會處本件處理結果。
4.分案室分"家令"字，即分即結。
5.收有家令字之偵案，日後偵查完畢欲以緩起訴結案時，可斟酌依據同樣方式依刑事訴訟法第253條之2第1項第6款至第8款為緩起訴。
-----------------------------------------
特殊狀況:(嫌疑人結合有精神疾病情形)
依據精神衛生法第32條請警察機關護送前往就近適當醫療機構就醫。
因此警察機關會聯繫衛生主管機關視是否強制治療等(相關規定如下述附件)。
以台南地方法院檢察署為例，乃由安平區衛生所負責，因此白天可以聯絡安平區衛生所，公共衛生護士即會前往協助。此外亦可連絡 台南市衛生局062679751(晚上亦有值班人員; 另外台南縣部分 台南縣衛生局亦提供有066357716電話，晚上亦有值班人員)。
-----------------------------------------
偵查中:
依據刑法第19條、第87條，聲請監護處分，僅限於認定"不罰"時或刑之執行完畢或赦免後(由執行科檢察官聲請)。故以，可依據刑訴481條第2項於''不起訴處分"後，聲請"監護處分"，然此作法有缺點:
(1)偵查中羈押僅限2個月，且僅得延長一次，進行精神鑑定緩不濟急。
(2) 刑訴 第 481 條第2項(96.12修訂):檢察官依...第19條第1項而為不起訴之處分者，如認有宣告保安處分之必要，得聲請法院裁定之。因此為不起訴處分後，再行聲請，顯留有空窗期，例如，人犯在押情形不起訴處分後即必須撤銷羈押，之後聲請監護處分，此時顯有空窗存在。
惟可以視情節視是否送精神鑑定，決定是否利用"緩起訴"以附條件方式決定是否之。(刑事訴訟法
第 253-2 條)：
(1)完成戒癮治療、精神治療、心理輔導或其他適當之處遇措施。
(2)保護被害人安全之必要命令。
(3)預防再犯所為之必要命令。
可以聯繫法律扶助基金會幫忙。
而社會處身心障礙福利科(在被告因智能障礙無法完全陳述時，可以刑法35與身心障礙權益保障法84條聲請法院同意指派社工人員擔任輔佐人)。
-----------------------------------------
附件
精神衛生法 (第32條 第1項)
警察機關或消防機關於執行職務時，發現病人或有第三條第一款所定狀態之人有傷害他人或自己或有傷害之虞者，應通知當地主管機關，並視需要要求協助處理或共同處理；除法律另有規定外，應即護送前往就近適當醫療機構就醫。
精神衛生法 (第3條 第1款)
一、精神疾病：指思考、情緒、知覺、認知、行為等精神狀態表現異常，致其適應生活之功能發生障礙，需給予醫療及照顧之疾病；其範圍包括精神病、精神官能症、酒癮、藥癮及其他經中央主管機關認定之精神疾病，但不包括反社會人格違常者。
精神衛生法 第41條 第1至第3項
嚴重病人傷害他人或自己或有傷害之虞，經專科醫師診斷有全日住院治療 之必要者，其保護人應協助嚴重病人，前往精神醫療機構辦理住院。
前項嚴重病人拒絕接受全日住院治療者，直轄市、縣（市）主管機關得指定精神醫療機構予以緊急安置，並交由二位以上直轄市、縣（市）主管機關指定之專科醫師進行強制鑑定。但於離島地區，強制鑑定得僅由一位專科醫師實施。
前項強制鑑定結果，仍有全日住院治療必要，經詢問嚴重病人意見，仍拒絕接受或無法表達時，應即填具強制住院基本資料表及通報表，並檢附嚴重病人及其保護人之意見及相關診斷證明文件，向審查會申請許可強制住院；強制住院可否之決定，應送達嚴重病人及其保護人。
家庭暴力防治法 第 29 條 第1、2項
警察人員發現家庭暴力罪之現行犯時，應逕行逮捕之，並依刑事訴訟法第92條規定處理。
檢察官、司法警察官或司法警察偵查犯罪認被告或犯罪嫌疑人犯家庭暴力罪或違反保護令罪嫌疑重大，且有繼續侵害家庭成員生命、身體或自由之危險，而情況急迫者，得逕行拘提之。
家庭暴力防治法 第 30 條
檢察官、司法警察官或司法警察依前條第二項、第三項規定逕行拘提或簽發拘票時，應審酌一切情狀，尤應注意下列事項：
一、被告或犯罪嫌疑人之暴力行為已造成被害人身體或精神上傷害或騷擾，不立即隔離者，被害人或其家庭成員生命、身體或自由有遭受侵害之危險。
二、被告或犯罪嫌疑人有長期連續實施家庭暴力或有違反保護令之行為、酗酒、施用毒品或濫用藥物之習慣。
三、被告或犯罪嫌疑人有利用兇器或其他危險物品恐嚇或施暴行於被害人之紀錄，被害人有再度遭受侵害之虞者。
四、被害人為兒童、少年、老人、身心障礙或具有其他無法保護自身安全之情形。
-------
刑法第 19 條
行為時因精神障礙或其他心智缺陷，致不能辨識其行為違法或欠缺依其辨識而行為之能力者，不罰。
行為時因前項之原因，致其辨識行為違法或依其辨識而行為之能力，顯著減低者，得減輕其刑。
前2項規定，於因故意或過失自行招致者，不適用之。
刑法第 87 條
因第19條第1項之原因而不罰者，其情狀足認有再犯或有危害公共安全之虞時，令入相當處所，施以監護。
有第19條第2項及第20條之原因，其情狀足認有再犯或有危害公共安全之虞時，於刑之執行完畢或赦免後，令入相當處所，施以監護。但必要時，得於刑之執行前為之。
前2項之期間為五年以下。但執行中認無繼續執行之必要者，法院得免其處分之執行。
如何預防家庭暴力
酒癮結合家庭暴力
家庭暴力防治法
內勤處理家暴案件流程
家庭暴力之蒐證
精神疾病結合家庭暴力
By Wan-Li Yang
ㄧ般狀況:1. 訊畢諭知:請回、限制住居、具保(金額)、聲請羈押。
2. 當庭交付檢察官命令(家暴法31)予被告收受，一份影印附卷。 命被告遵守：
(1)禁止實施家庭暴力。
(2)禁止對被害人為騷擾、接觸、跟蹤、通話、通信或其他非必要之聯絡行為。
(3)遷出被害人之住居所。
(4)遠離下列場所特定距離：被害人之住居所、學校、工作場所或其他被害人或其特定家庭成員經常出入之特定場所。
(5)其他保護被害人或其特定家庭成員安全之事項。
所附條件有效期間最長不得逾一年。
3. 由法警傳真命令予移送單位，並請移送單位:
(1)送達本件命令予被害人。
(2)加強被害人之保護。
(3)轉知(縣/市)社會處本件處理結果。
4.分案室分"家令"字，即分即結。
5.收有家令字之偵案，日後偵查完畢欲以緩起訴結案時，可斟酌依據同樣方式依刑事訴訟法第253條之2第1項第6款至第8款為緩起訴。
-----------------------------------------
特殊狀況:(嫌疑人結合有精神疾病情形)
依據精神衛生法第32條請警察機關護送前往就近適當醫療機構就醫。
因此警察機關會聯繫衛生主管機關視是否強制治療等(相關規定如下述附件)。
以台南地方法院檢察署為例，乃由安平區衛生所負責，因此白天可以聯絡安平區衛生所，公共衛生護士即會前往協助。此外亦可連絡 台南市衛生局062679751(晚上亦有值班人員; 另外台南縣部分 台南縣衛生局亦提供有066357716電話，晚上亦有值班人員)。
-----------------------------------------
偵查中:
依據刑法第19條、第87條，聲請監護處分，僅限於認定"不罰"時或刑之執行完畢或赦免後(由執行科檢察官聲請)。故以，可依據刑訴481條第2項於''不起訴處分"後，聲請"監護處分"，然此作法有缺點:
(1)偵查中羈押僅限2個月，且僅得延長一次，進行精神鑑定緩不濟急。
(2) 刑訴 第 481 條第2項(96.12修訂):檢察官依...第19條第1項而為不起訴之處分者，如認有宣告保安處分之必要，得聲請法院裁定之。因此為不起訴處分後，再行聲請，顯留有空窗期，例如，人犯在押情形不起訴處分後即必須撤銷羈押，之後聲請監護處分，此時顯有空窗存在。
惟可以視情節視是否送精神鑑定，決定是否利用"緩起訴"以附條件方式決定是否之。(刑事訴訟法
第 253-2 條)：
(1)完成戒癮治療、精神治療、心理輔導或其他適當之處遇措施。
(2)保護被害人安全之必要命令。
(3)預防再犯所為之必要命令。
可以聯繫法律扶助基金會幫忙。
而社會處身心障礙福利科(在被告因智能障礙無法完全陳述時，可以刑法35與身心障礙權益保障法84條聲請法院同意指派社工人員擔任輔佐人)。
-----------------------------------------
附件
精神衛生法 (第32條 第1項)
警察機關或消防機關於執行職務時，發現病人或有第三條第一款所定狀態之人有傷害他人或自己或有傷害之虞者，應通知當地主管機關，並視需要要求協助處理或共同處理；除法律另有規定外，應即護送前往就近適當醫療機構就醫。
精神衛生法 (第3條 第1款)
一、精神疾病：指思考、情緒、知覺、認知、行為等精神狀態表現異常，致其適應生活之功能發生障礙，需給予醫療及照顧之疾病；其範圍包括精神病、精神官能症、酒癮、藥癮及其他經中央主管機關認定之精神疾病，但不包括反社會人格違常者。
精神衛生法 第41條 第1至第3項
嚴重病人傷害他人或自己或有傷害之虞，經專科醫師診斷有全日住院治療 之必要者，其保護人應協助嚴重病人，前往精神醫療機構辦理住院。
前項嚴重病人拒絕接受全日住院治療者，直轄市、縣（市）主管機關得指定精神醫療機構予以緊急安置，並交由二位以上直轄市、縣（市）主管機關指定之專科醫師進行強制鑑定。但於離島地區，強制鑑定得僅由一位專科醫師實施。
前項強制鑑定結果，仍有全日住院治療必要，經詢問嚴重病人意見，仍拒絕接受或無法表達時，應即填具強制住院基本資料表及通報表，並檢附嚴重病人及其保護人之意見及相關診斷證明文件，向審查會申請許可強制住院；強制住院可否之決定，應送達嚴重病人及其保護人。
家庭暴力防治法 第 29 條 第1、2項
警察人員發現家庭暴力罪之現行犯時，應逕行逮捕之，並依刑事訴訟法第92條規定處理。
檢察官、司法警察官或司法警察偵查犯罪認被告或犯罪嫌疑人犯家庭暴力罪或違反保護令罪嫌疑重大，且有繼續侵害家庭成員生命、身體或自由之危險，而情況急迫者，得逕行拘提之。
家庭暴力防治法 第 30 條
檢察官、司法警察官或司法警察依前條第二項、第三項規定逕行拘提或簽發拘票時，應審酌一切情狀，尤應注意下列事項：
一、被告或犯罪嫌疑人之暴力行為已造成被害人身體或精神上傷害或騷擾，不立即隔離者，被害人或其家庭成員生命、身體或自由有遭受侵害之危險。
二、被告或犯罪嫌疑人有長期連續實施家庭暴力或有違反保護令之行為、酗酒、施用毒品或濫用藥物之習慣。
三、被告或犯罪嫌疑人有利用兇器或其他危險物品恐嚇或施暴行於被害人之紀錄，被害人有再度遭受侵害之虞者。
四、被害人為兒童、少年、老人、身心障礙或具有其他無法保護自身安全之情形。
-------
刑法第 19 條
行為時因精神障礙或其他心智缺陷，致不能辨識其行為違法或欠缺依其辨識而行為之能力者，不罰。
行為時因前項之原因，致其辨識行為違法或依其辨識而行為之能力，顯著減低者，得減輕其刑。
前2項規定，於因故意或過失自行招致者，不適用之。
刑法第 87 條
因第19條第1項之原因而不罰者，其情狀足認有再犯或有危害公共安全之虞時，令入相當處所，施以監護。
有第19條第2項及第20條之原因，其情狀足認有再犯或有危害公共安全之虞時，於刑之執行完畢或赦免後，令入相當處所，施以監護。但必要時，得於刑之執行前為之。
前2項之期間為五年以下。但執行中認無繼續執行之必要者，法院得免其處分之執行。
如何預防家庭暴力
酒癮結合家庭暴力
家庭暴力防治法
內勤處理家暴案件流程
家庭暴力之蒐證
精神疾病結合家庭暴力
By Wan-Li Yang
2009年1月16日 星期五
Anti-Corruption and Transparency Expert Task Force (ACT)
APEC's Anti-Corruption and Transparency Expert Task Force (ACT) is made up of law enforcement officials from APEC member economies. ACT Task Force
1.Korea 韓國: KICAC Korean Independent Commission against Corruption
http://www.kicac.go.kr/PORTAL/Eng/index.jsp
南韓廉政公署 根據2001.1.7反貪污法，南韓廉政公署於2002.1.25成立。南韓廉政公署共有九位委員，並由其中一人擔任主席。九位委員分別由總統、國會及最高法院首席法官各舉薦三人出任，每人任期三年，之後可獲委連任。南韓廉政公署的行政與運作由秘書處負責，其下設有政策規劃處、公共關係及協作局、舉報審查局及15個其他部門。目前，南韓廉政公署的僱員合共139人。
南韓廉政公署是一個獨立運作的機構，以不偏不倚的態度致力防止貪污。工作範圍包括處理貪污舉報、研究體制改革措施、制定反貪政策及評估其成效，以及舉辦教育及宣傳活動。
南韓廉政公署的網站 (http://www.kicac.go.kr/)。
積極參與國際反貪工作。2002.11南韓廉政公署主辦了首屆「反貪機構研討會」，與來自澳洲、香港、馬來西亞及新加坡的反貪機構代表，分享打擊貪污的經驗和心得。
「亞太經合組織會議2005」於韓國舉行。為了把反貪議題納入APEC議程，南韓廉政公署於是建議在2005召開首次「反貪專家小組會議」(ACT)。亞太經合組織成員國領袖於2003年的領袖宣言中，承諾會致力提高透明度及打擊貪污；各成員國大可利用「反貪專家小組會議」的機會，商討實現承諾的方法。
2. Thailand 泰國 :NCCC, Thailand National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC)
http://www.icac.org.hk/newsl/issue22eng/button2.htm
3.Singapore 新加坡:Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau http://app.cpib.gov.sg/newcpib/user/default.aspx?pgID=21
4.Malaysia 馬來西亞: the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC)
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission - Wikipedia, the free ...
證人保護法相關法案:
The Whistleblower Protection Act 2010, formulated to curb corruption, had been implemented on December 15 2010. 證人保護法英文全文： http://www.bheuu.gov.my/pdf/Akta/Act%20711.pdf
5.Indonesia 印尼 : Corruption Eradication Commission
Corruption Eradication Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.icac.org.hk/newsl/issue22eng/button3.htm
印度均由反貪委員會KPK(Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi)派員出席ACT會議，KPK是根據印尼第30/2002號法律《印度反貪委員會法》成立的。KPK成立之前，只有印尼警方和檢察官有權執行反貪工作，所根據的法律有兩項：第31/1999號法律《反貪罪行法》（經第20/2001號法修訂），以及第28/1999號法律《國家官員廉正法》。
KPK的職能及權力包括：協調及監管其他有反貪污職能的機構﹔對貪污行為進行預查、調查及檢控工作﹔推行預防工作和監察政府的管理。
KPK通過檢察官辦公室、警方以及多個金融監管機構協調其活動，以便設置有利於反貪匯報制度﹔向有關機構索取反貪工作的資料﹔與有反貪職能的機構進行座談或召開會議以及向有關機構索取預防貪污的報告。
在預防工作方面，KPK負責：核查國家官員的財產﹔ 審查貪污檢舉﹔ 在各級學校推行反貪教育計劃﹔ 設計及推廣社會性消除貪污計劃﹔ 為民眾舉辦反貪活動﹔ 研究所有國家和政府機關的管理制度，旨在改善有關制度以減低潛在的貪污風險。
(資料來源：中國大陸國家預防腐敗局)
7.澳洲:
主要由AUSTRAC, The ACCC, ASIC and APRA這幾個部門來統籌。ACCC, ASIC兩個均為獨立機構。
8.China 中國:監察部
9.ICAC 香港廉政公署
香港自2006開始推動「誠信領導計畫」。
10.Negara Brunei Darussalam 汶萊
The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB)- established in 1982 http://www.icac.org.hk/newsl/issue33eng/button5.htm
11.美國政府倫理署(U.S.Office of Government Ethics)
有關證人保護法令
In the United States, legal protections vary according to the subject matter of the whistleblowing, and sometimes the state in which the case arises.
Lloyd-La Follette Act (1912)
Water Pollution Control Act (1972)
Safe Drinking Water Act (1974)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (also called the Solid Waste Disposal Act) (1976)
Toxic Substances Control Act (1976)
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (through 1978 amendment to protect nuclear whistleblowers)
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or the Superfund Law) (1980)
Clean Air Act (1990)
Surface Transportation Assistance Act (1982)
Pipeline Safety Improvement Act (PSIA) (2002)
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (“AIR 21″)
Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) (for corporate fraud whistleblowers)
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) (for Securities whistleblowers)
Military Whistleblower Protection Act
12. Papua New Guinea
PNG has established the National Fraud and Anti-Corruption Directorate as the main criminal investigation unit that enforces the Criminal Code on fraud and corruption. It works in close liaison with the Police Prosecutions Unit and the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Guest Member
歐盟反詐騙公署(OLAF)
世界銀行 World Bank
亞洲開發銀行(ADB)及經濟合作暨發展組織(OECD
Transparency International (TI)
The ethics regulations of Chinese Taipei
(1)Ethics Directions for Public Servants:
公務員廉政倫理規範條文(doc檔案)
(2)The Amendment of The Public Servants Assets Disclosure Act:
公職人員財產申報法
(3)The Public Servants Conflict of Interest Prevention ACT: 公職人員利益衝突迴避法
其他組織:
國際反貪污大會 (International Anti-Corruption Conference -- IACC)
http://zh-hk.facebook.com/posted.php?id=254344965260&share_id=321775087463&comments=1
IACC是國際性非官方專業研討會，每兩年舉行一次。它是世界各國、各地區反貪污專家、學者深入研究這一國際社會普遍存在的現象及其對策的重要會議，也是各國和各地區司法人員、政府官員交流經驗、尋求國際合作以遏制貪污現象的重要場所。舉辦宗旨是推動各國及各地區的反貪污工作，預防和懲治貪污犯罪，維護社會穩定和經濟發展。
國際反貪局聯合會(IAACA)
The International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities (“IAACA”)
APEC 21國:加拿大、美國、智利、墨西哥、秘魯、日本、韓國、Chinese Taipei、菲律賓、汶萊、印尼、巴布亞新磯內亞、澳大利亞、新西蘭、中國、香港、越南、泰國、馬來西亞、新加坡、俄羅斯
整理: By Wan-Li Yang
2009.1.19
rewrite 2010.3.14
1.Korea 韓國: KICAC Korean Independent Commission against Corruption
http://www.kicac.go.kr/PORTAL/Eng/index.jsp
南韓廉政公署 根據2001.1.7反貪污法，南韓廉政公署於2002.1.25成立。南韓廉政公署共有九位委員，並由其中一人擔任主席。九位委員分別由總統、國會及最高法院首席法官各舉薦三人出任，每人任期三年，之後可獲委連任。南韓廉政公署的行政與運作由秘書處負責，其下設有政策規劃處、公共關係及協作局、舉報審查局及15個其他部門。目前，南韓廉政公署的僱員合共139人。
南韓廉政公署是一個獨立運作的機構，以不偏不倚的態度致力防止貪污。工作範圍包括處理貪污舉報、研究體制改革措施、制定反貪政策及評估其成效，以及舉辦教育及宣傳活動。
南韓廉政公署的網站 (http://www.kicac.go.kr/)。
積極參與國際反貪工作。2002.11南韓廉政公署主辦了首屆「反貪機構研討會」，與來自澳洲、香港、馬來西亞及新加坡的反貪機構代表，分享打擊貪污的經驗和心得。
「亞太經合組織會議2005」於韓國舉行。為了把反貪議題納入APEC議程，南韓廉政公署於是建議在2005召開首次「反貪專家小組會議」(ACT)。亞太經合組織成員國領袖於2003年的領袖宣言中，承諾會致力提高透明度及打擊貪污；各成員國大可利用「反貪專家小組會議」的機會，商討實現承諾的方法。
2. Thailand 泰國 :NCCC, Thailand National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC)
http://www.icac.org.hk/newsl/issue22eng/button2.htm
3.Singapore 新加坡:Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau http://app.cpib.gov.sg/newcpib/user/default.aspx?pgID=21
4.Malaysia 馬來西亞: the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC)
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission - Wikipedia, the free ...
證人保護法相關法案:
The Whistleblower Protection Act 2010, formulated to curb corruption, had been implemented on December 15 2010. 證人保護法英文全文： http://www.bheuu.gov.my/pdf/Akta/Act%20711.pdf
5.Indonesia 印尼 : Corruption Eradication Commission
Corruption Eradication Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.icac.org.hk/newsl/issue22eng/button3.htm
印度均由反貪委員會KPK(Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi)派員出席ACT會議，KPK是根據印尼第30/2002號法律《印度反貪委員會法》成立的。KPK成立之前，只有印尼警方和檢察官有權執行反貪工作，所根據的法律有兩項：第31/1999號法律《反貪罪行法》（經第20/2001號法修訂），以及第28/1999號法律《國家官員廉正法》。
KPK的職能及權力包括：協調及監管其他有反貪污職能的機構﹔對貪污行為進行預查、調查及檢控工作﹔推行預防工作和監察政府的管理。
KPK通過檢察官辦公室、警方以及多個金融監管機構協調其活動，以便設置有利於反貪匯報制度﹔向有關機構索取反貪工作的資料﹔與有反貪職能的機構進行座談或召開會議以及向有關機構索取預防貪污的報告。
在預防工作方面，KPK負責：核查國家官員的財產﹔ 審查貪污檢舉﹔ 在各級學校推行反貪教育計劃﹔ 設計及推廣社會性消除貪污計劃﹔ 為民眾舉辦反貪活動﹔ 研究所有國家和政府機關的管理制度，旨在改善有關制度以減低潛在的貪污風險。
(資料來源：中國大陸國家預防腐敗局)
7.澳洲:
主要由AUSTRAC, The ACCC, ASIC and APRA這幾個部門來統籌。ACCC, ASIC兩個均為獨立機構。
8.China 中國:監察部
9.ICAC 香港廉政公署
香港自2006開始推動「誠信領導計畫」。
10.Negara Brunei Darussalam 汶萊
The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB)- established in 1982 http://www.icac.org.hk/newsl/issue33eng/button5.htm
11.美國政府倫理署(U.S.Office of Government Ethics)
有關證人保護法令
In the United States, legal protections vary according to the subject matter of the whistleblowing, and sometimes the state in which the case arises.
Lloyd-La Follette Act (1912)
Water Pollution Control Act (1972)
Safe Drinking Water Act (1974)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (also called the Solid Waste Disposal Act) (1976)
Toxic Substances Control Act (1976)
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (through 1978 amendment to protect nuclear whistleblowers)
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or the Superfund Law) (1980)
Clean Air Act (1990)
Surface Transportation Assistance Act (1982)
Pipeline Safety Improvement Act (PSIA) (2002)
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (“AIR 21″)
Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) (for corporate fraud whistleblowers)
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) (for Securities whistleblowers)
Military Whistleblower Protection Act
12. Papua New Guinea
PNG has established the National Fraud and Anti-Corruption Directorate as the main criminal investigation unit that enforces the Criminal Code on fraud and corruption. It works in close liaison with the Police Prosecutions Unit and the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Guest Member
歐盟反詐騙公署(OLAF)
世界銀行 World Bank
亞洲開發銀行(ADB)及經濟合作暨發展組織(OECD
Transparency International (TI)
The ethics regulations of Chinese Taipei
(1)Ethics Directions for Public Servants:
公務員廉政倫理規範條文(doc檔案)
(2)The Amendment of The Public Servants Assets Disclosure Act:
公職人員財產申報法
(3)The Public Servants Conflict of Interest Prevention ACT: 公職人員利益衝突迴避法
其他組織:
國際反貪污大會 (International Anti-Corruption Conference -- IACC)
http://zh-hk.facebook.com/posted.php?id=254344965260&share_id=321775087463&comments=1
IACC是國際性非官方專業研討會，每兩年舉行一次。它是世界各國、各地區反貪污專家、學者深入研究這一國際社會普遍存在的現象及其對策的重要會議，也是各國和各地區司法人員、政府官員交流經驗、尋求國際合作以遏制貪污現象的重要場所。舉辦宗旨是推動各國及各地區的反貪污工作，預防和懲治貪污犯罪，維護社會穩定和經濟發展。
國際反貪局聯合會(IAACA)
The International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities (“IAACA”)
APEC 21國:加拿大、美國、智利、墨西哥、秘魯、日本、韓國、Chinese Taipei、菲律賓、汶萊、印尼、巴布亞新磯內亞、澳大利亞、新西蘭、中國、香港、越南、泰國、馬來西亞、新加坡、俄羅斯
整理: By Wan-Li Yang
2009.1.19
rewrite 2010.3.14
2009年1月6日 星期二
Judge Urged To Jail Madoff Without Bail 審前羈押馬多夫?
Judge Urged To Jail Madoff Without Bail 審前羈押馬多夫?
美國檢察官2008.1.5日天要求Magistrate Judge(預審法官) 將被控涉及金融詐騙案的華爾街掮客馬多夫（BernardMadoff）予以羈押(審前羈押)候審，並且指控他違反保釋規定。
目前紐約聯邦Magistrate Judge (預審法官)說，在檢視檢察官和被告及其辯護律師提出更多資料後，他將再做裁決。
70歲的馬多夫據傳坦承利用「龐氏騙局」，又稱老鼠會手法吸金數10億，導致投資人、銀行、慈善團體及大學等客戶損失慘重，他於2008年12月11日被警方以涉嫌詐欺罪名逮捕，但卻於日前以1000萬美元交保候傳。
「華爾街日報」（Wall Street Journal）報導，檢察官於2009.1.5指出，馬多夫於獲得交保後，將價值約1百萬美金的手錶、珠寶及其他貴重物品送給他的兄弟、兒子及佛羅里達州一對夫婦，違反保釋相關條件，因此聯邦檢察官要求法官將馬多夫予以羈押(審前羈押)且不予交保。
馬多夫的辯護律師碩金（Ira Sorkin)告訴法院，這些物品被送出去只是「無心之失」，並沒有違反保釋規定。
by Jim Zarroli/ NPR/ January 6, 2009 ·
Prosecutors in New York are asking a judge to put Bernard Madoff behind bars without bail. They told the judge Monday that the disgraced financier had violated bail conditions by mailing about $1 million worth of jewelry and other assets to relatives. At roughly the same time in Washington, a House hearing got under way on how regulators missed the alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme Madoff is accused of running.
本案ㄧ開始馬多夫乃是在2008.12.11經逮捕(逕行拘提)的，不過當時尚無法預知馬多夫騙局之受害金額大小，而且當天馬多夫只是被指控ㄧ項證券詐欺的罪名，因此當時的預審法官依據Law.com的資料顯示是有經過檢方同意，而以1000萬元美金以及馬多夫位於佛州的房屋作為擔保而同意讓馬多夫具保釋放。不過，顯然預審法官這樣的決定，觸犯了眾怒，畢竟馬多夫幕後的詐欺騙局如滾雪球般一ㄧ浮出檯面，甚至有報導指出受害金額已經高達美金500億元，爲了彌補，預審法官馬上在2008.12.17修改其交保條件，要求馬多夫佩帶電子監控器與其他限制等補救措施。
Arrested on Dec. 11 on a single count of securities fraud, Madoff was released, with the government's consent, on a $10 million bond secured by his apartment in New York City and property in his wife's name on Long Island and in Florida.
Those conditions were later modified to include more restrictive home detention, electronic monitoring and a 24-hour security guard on the couple's apartment, with the service to be paid for by Mrs. Madoff.
不過顯然縱使檢察官、預審法官力求平衡，但是馬多夫案已經延燒到美國國會，美國國會就在2008.1.5開春就首次針對此案召開聽證會，眾院兩黨議員甚至表示，這個事件反映了聯邦證券管理委員會（SEC）整個體制存在嚴重問題，因為SEC十幾年來已經數度接獲檢舉，卻遲無反應，亦未調查。更恰好的是聯邦檢察官也再同一天(2008.1.5)請求預審法官以違反保釋條件(交保條件)，將馬多夫予以羈押(審前羈押)。
馬多夫的律師，認為依據美國聯邦羈押保釋改革法案，只有在有逃亡之虞、對社會有潛在性危險等要件的情形下，讓被告可以在候審期間(pending trial)自由在外。
At issue was the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §§3141-3150. Sorkin, Defense attorney, said the act contemplates only the risk of flight and potential danger to the community as factors in deciding whether a defendant should be allowed to stay at liberty pending trial. The public, he said, is in no danger if his client stays out of jail until the case is resolved.
不過聯邦檢察官則認為既然2008.1.18預審法官將not to dissipate assets當成是具保條件(保釋條件)，被告卻在保釋期間將價值甚鉅之珠寶等物贈與，即屬於妨害司法之行為，此其ㄧ。並且引用保釋改革法案原初的立法意旨以及司法委員會意在擴大對社會危險性的定義，認為馬多夫詐騙之金額如此巨大即有逃亡之危險，而且馬多夫此ㄧ情形維持下去，等同於讓政府繞道去計算受害金額與清查有價值之財產(因為凍結財產前仍必須逐一清查究竟有何等財產)根本就不實際。
On Dec. 18, Madoff was ordered by Southern District of New York Judge Louis Stanton not to dissipate assets in an action brought against him and his firm by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Litt said the shipment amounts to obstruction of justice. Litt countered by citing legislative history -- that the Senate Judiciary Committee intended to adopt a "broader definition" of community safety in shaping the reform act. He also said Madoff remains a flight risk and that is it "simply impractical for the government to go around and collect anything of value." "The most significant thing is, in the face of a direct and clear order of which the defendant was aware, he violated that order," Litt said.
Sorkin insisted that circumstances had not changed to a degree to warrant pretrial detention.
當然，馬多夫的辯護律師Sorkin仍舊堅持馬多夫縱使有於保釋期間將珠寶等貴重物品予以贈與支情形，此情形仍未達到應予審前羈押的程度。
目前法官仍要求檢辯雙方提出: 預審法官能否就 保釋條件重新審查(a de novo review of bail conditions)的意見。就此點，聯邦檢察官已經表示:預審法官當然能針對什麼是最適當的條件來自由判斷，更何況，目前的情況來看已經與當初交保的情形有所不同了。
Magistrate Judge Ellis also wanted the two sides to brief whether he can conduct a de novo review of bail conditions.Litt responded that the judge is "free to evaluate what the appropriate conditions are," and Ellis can always examine "the totality of the circumstances" in deciding whether to detain Madoff, and those circumstances have changed.
2008.12.11 arrested
2008.12.17 changed conditions
2009.1.5 Assistant U.S. Attorney Marc Litt of the Southern District of New York told a magistrate judge Monday that Madoff and his wife Ruth mailed in excess of $1 million in valuables late last month despite a court order in a related civil case requiring the accused mastermind of a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme not to dissipate assets.
note:
1. NPR:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99036129
2.Mark Hamblett,Prosecutor Seeks to Revoke Madoff's Bail for Mailing Valuables to Others,New York Law JournalJanuary 6, 2009,http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202427230037 2009.1.7
3.eTaiwan News - Taiwan（中央社紐約5日法新電）
4.【聯合報╱國際中心／綜合華盛頓5日外電報導2009.01.07 04:04 am】馬多夫騙局 「證管會大疏失」http://udn.com/NEWS/WORLD/WOR6/4675713.shtml
By Wan-Li Yang 2009.1.7
美國檢察官2008.1.5日天要求Magistrate Judge(預審法官) 將被控涉及金融詐騙案的華爾街掮客馬多夫（BernardMadoff）予以羈押(審前羈押)候審，並且指控他違反保釋規定。
目前紐約聯邦Magistrate Judge (預審法官)說，在檢視檢察官和被告及其辯護律師提出更多資料後，他將再做裁決。
70歲的馬多夫據傳坦承利用「龐氏騙局」，又稱老鼠會手法吸金數10億，導致投資人、銀行、慈善團體及大學等客戶損失慘重，他於2008年12月11日被警方以涉嫌詐欺罪名逮捕，但卻於日前以1000萬美元交保候傳。
「華爾街日報」（Wall Street Journal）報導，檢察官於2009.1.5指出，馬多夫於獲得交保後，將價值約1百萬美金的手錶、珠寶及其他貴重物品送給他的兄弟、兒子及佛羅里達州一對夫婦，違反保釋相關條件，因此聯邦檢察官要求法官將馬多夫予以羈押(審前羈押)且不予交保。
馬多夫的辯護律師碩金（Ira Sorkin)告訴法院，這些物品被送出去只是「無心之失」，並沒有違反保釋規定。
by Jim Zarroli/ NPR/ January 6, 2009 ·
Prosecutors in New York are asking a judge to put Bernard Madoff behind bars without bail. They told the judge Monday that the disgraced financier had violated bail conditions by mailing about $1 million worth of jewelry and other assets to relatives. At roughly the same time in Washington, a House hearing got under way on how regulators missed the alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme Madoff is accused of running.
本案ㄧ開始馬多夫乃是在2008.12.11經逮捕(逕行拘提)的，不過當時尚無法預知馬多夫騙局之受害金額大小，而且當天馬多夫只是被指控ㄧ項證券詐欺的罪名，因此當時的預審法官依據Law.com的資料顯示是有經過檢方同意，而以1000萬元美金以及馬多夫位於佛州的房屋作為擔保而同意讓馬多夫具保釋放。不過，顯然預審法官這樣的決定，觸犯了眾怒，畢竟馬多夫幕後的詐欺騙局如滾雪球般一ㄧ浮出檯面，甚至有報導指出受害金額已經高達美金500億元，爲了彌補，預審法官馬上在2008.12.17修改其交保條件，要求馬多夫佩帶電子監控器與其他限制等補救措施。
Arrested on Dec. 11 on a single count of securities fraud, Madoff was released, with the government's consent, on a $10 million bond secured by his apartment in New York City and property in his wife's name on Long Island and in Florida.
Those conditions were later modified to include more restrictive home detention, electronic monitoring and a 24-hour security guard on the couple's apartment, with the service to be paid for by Mrs. Madoff.
不過顯然縱使檢察官、預審法官力求平衡，但是馬多夫案已經延燒到美國國會，美國國會就在2008.1.5開春就首次針對此案召開聽證會，眾院兩黨議員甚至表示，這個事件反映了聯邦證券管理委員會（SEC）整個體制存在嚴重問題，因為SEC十幾年來已經數度接獲檢舉，卻遲無反應，亦未調查。更恰好的是聯邦檢察官也再同一天(2008.1.5)請求預審法官以違反保釋條件(交保條件)，將馬多夫予以羈押(審前羈押)。
馬多夫的律師，認為依據美國聯邦羈押保釋改革法案，只有在有逃亡之虞、對社會有潛在性危險等要件的情形下，讓被告可以在候審期間(pending trial)自由在外。
At issue was the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §§3141-3150. Sorkin, Defense attorney, said the act contemplates only the risk of flight and potential danger to the community as factors in deciding whether a defendant should be allowed to stay at liberty pending trial. The public, he said, is in no danger if his client stays out of jail until the case is resolved.
不過聯邦檢察官則認為既然2008.1.18預審法官將not to dissipate assets當成是具保條件(保釋條件)，被告卻在保釋期間將價值甚鉅之珠寶等物贈與，即屬於妨害司法之行為，此其ㄧ。並且引用保釋改革法案原初的立法意旨以及司法委員會意在擴大對社會危險性的定義，認為馬多夫詐騙之金額如此巨大即有逃亡之危險，而且馬多夫此ㄧ情形維持下去，等同於讓政府繞道去計算受害金額與清查有價值之財產(因為凍結財產前仍必須逐一清查究竟有何等財產)根本就不實際。
On Dec. 18, Madoff was ordered by Southern District of New York Judge Louis Stanton not to dissipate assets in an action brought against him and his firm by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Litt said the shipment amounts to obstruction of justice. Litt countered by citing legislative history -- that the Senate Judiciary Committee intended to adopt a "broader definition" of community safety in shaping the reform act. He also said Madoff remains a flight risk and that is it "simply impractical for the government to go around and collect anything of value." "The most significant thing is, in the face of a direct and clear order of which the defendant was aware, he violated that order," Litt said.
Sorkin insisted that circumstances had not changed to a degree to warrant pretrial detention.
當然，馬多夫的辯護律師Sorkin仍舊堅持馬多夫縱使有於保釋期間將珠寶等貴重物品予以贈與支情形，此情形仍未達到應予審前羈押的程度。
目前法官仍要求檢辯雙方提出: 預審法官能否就 保釋條件重新審查(a de novo review of bail conditions)的意見。就此點，聯邦檢察官已經表示:預審法官當然能針對什麼是最適當的條件來自由判斷，更何況，目前的情況來看已經與當初交保的情形有所不同了。
Magistrate Judge Ellis also wanted the two sides to brief whether he can conduct a de novo review of bail conditions.Litt responded that the judge is "free to evaluate what the appropriate conditions are," and Ellis can always examine "the totality of the circumstances" in deciding whether to detain Madoff, and those circumstances have changed.
2008.12.11 arrested
2008.12.17 changed conditions
2009.1.5 Assistant U.S. Attorney Marc Litt of the Southern District of New York told a magistrate judge Monday that Madoff and his wife Ruth mailed in excess of $1 million in valuables late last month despite a court order in a related civil case requiring the accused mastermind of a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme not to dissipate assets.
note:
1. NPR:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99036129
2.Mark Hamblett,Prosecutor Seeks to Revoke Madoff's Bail for Mailing Valuables to Others,New York Law JournalJanuary 6, 2009,http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202427230037 2009.1.7
3.eTaiwan News - Taiwan（中央社紐約5日法新電）
4.【聯合報╱國際中心／綜合華盛頓5日外電報導2009.01.07 04:04 am】馬多夫騙局 「證管會大疏失」http://udn.com/NEWS/WORLD/WOR6/4675713.shtml
By Wan-Li Yang 2009.1.7
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)