Taiwan Forfeiture Procedure

The Challenge of Taiwan Forfeiture Procedure
Background

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/

Chinese Version
背景
經濟犯罪目前在台灣是一個逐漸攀升的問題。而追討犯罪所得是我們用以降低經濟犯罪動機的主要目標之ㄧ。臺灣相關法律至少提供了兩種執行沒收程序的管道，非司法措施與司法措施等。例如海關可以沒入非法或走私進口的產品，這類情形檢察官就不會參與。另一方面，一旦涉及司法程序，也有刑事與民事措施可以供檢察官利用。

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。

在台灣被告的刑事判決除了犯罪行為被起訴外，另外合併請求宣告沒收等，均由檢察官證明無合理可疑。因此就刑事沒收而言，被告必須被起訴。因此基於書面判決，刑事執行部門(執行科)才能進行最終的沒收程序。

在台灣刑事程序中並無所謂的豁免制度，但是在偵查階段，處分、職權處分、緩起訴與認罪協商都可以利用，就傳統犯罪而言這些相關措施已經十分充足。然則，就財產犯罪，尤其是涉及公開發行的上市公司，就甚少行認罪協商的情形，更遑論豁免程序。

澳洲:CONFISCATION OF CRIMINAL ASSETS ACT 2003 Australia

2008.7.11
By Wan-Li Yang