失落的行賄外國公務員罪—輪廓的描繪與界限的重構

Abstract

1977年，美國制定了《海外反腐敗法（FCPA）》，此一世界上首部明確禁止個人、企業於境外行賄外國公務員之規範，並進一步推動1997年經合組織《禁止在國際貿易中行賄外國公務員公約》之誕生。我國亦於2003年相應制定行賄外國公務員罪。 然而，本罪尚未明確揭示其保護法益之具體內涵、形成回應外國賄賂之實質理由，以及建立起一套具體而明確之規範架構。因此，有針對其輪廓再次描繪與對其構成要件界限重新建構之必要。 本文透過對於本罪設立目的之考察、比較法之參照，以及構成要件之限縮，而確定本罪應是保護公平競爭秩序此一保護法益。 而公平競爭秩序，係在交易市場經濟體系下，經濟活動的基本排序模組，並為支撐該體系運作可能之核心要素。因其非為自然秩序狀態，而有必要透過規範對其加以確保。其中，確保競爭秩序之可持續性運作，不僅有助於實現資源最適配置亦能使競爭市場發揮實現人民社會生活之機能，而得作為適格的保護法益；行賄外國公務員，即是為換取公權力介入市場，而透過對於市場資源、條件與行為之高權支配，進而干擾、影響競爭秩序之穩定運行。 而本罪之所以需回應外國賄賂情況，並以此守護外國競爭秩序，其理由在於確保競爭秩序之可持續性運作將有助於海外市場有效、穩定提供外國人民必要基本條件，並在公平自由的基礎上形成促進其實現基本權利的空間；然在全球化下，人權危害情況之產生，往往超出個別國家的控制能力，及應置於全球化視角理解其產生流程。於此，需要基於國際團結理念之跨領域合作協助，以跨領域實現普世人權，並維護有助於實現權利之制度秩序。其中，國際團結合作不僅改善外國在地條件，也應有助於提升各國的整體利益，而應符合各國之理性自利；且要求國家進行國際團結合作非純粹之道德訴求，而正是國家履行域外保護義務，此一具體之國家域外人權保障國際法義務的展現。其要求國家透過制裁等多種國家手段，針對其可得控制或管轄之非國家行為者，防堵其所可能造成的人權危害情況。而禁止可得管轄之行賄行為人輸出對他國經濟體系之有害風險，正式履行此義務之具體事例。 在本罪之適用上，需具體反映行為人所形成的市場運作失靈危險與侵害人類基本權利間之損害關聯性，而尚需觀察公權力介入市場對外國人民賴以實現權利的基本條件之影響程度。以體現本罪是為守護外國人民之基本條件與基本權利所進行的國際團結合作，而是我國對於域外人權保障義務之具體履行。 構成要件上，外國公務員身分須由實質觀點認定，以反映個人與國家間之權力賦予關係，且其職務權限需具有高權性質，而得以對外產生變動效用；關於職務行為，除於解釋時需掌握公務員之行為活動必須能夠落入其有決定處理權限之事務領域。尚需劃定一條職務執行方式之可容許界線，以確立該方式確有干擾競爭秩序之可能；將行賄事項限縮於與商業市場競爭有關，係為將職務行為行使場域明確限定於競爭市場，以反映其對競爭秩序之影響；此外，若構成要件行為受外國當地成文法明文承認、允許，應增設阻卻違法事由以包容各領域市場透過規範所明文呈現之容許行為界限歧異，而不否定於外國市場具體運作框架中所蘊含之價值選擇，並不阻礙外國之所以調整市場運作框架之公共利益目的實現；而針對不符合刑事制裁最低程度要求之提供疏通費行為，應得認其不具可罰違法性。 關於本罪之管轄權，我國僅能就發生於我國境內之行賄行為，以及基於境外行為人具我國國籍身分，而認為我國與該涉外賄賂案件間具有實在關聯，亦即具有足夠的利益連結關係，從而於國際法上，得以據此建立對其管轄之正當權限。 並且，為避免行使涉外管轄權所可能帶來之各種風險與問題，於國內法層次需對管轄權為進一步之合理限縮適用。

In 1977, the United States enacted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the world’s first statute that explicitly prohibited individuals and companies from bribing foreign public officials abroad. This pioneering legislation further spurred the adoption of the 1997 OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. In response to this international development, our country likewise established the offense of bribing a foreign public official in 2003. Nevertheless, the specific protected legal interest (Rechtsgut) of this offense has yet to be clearly defined, nor have the substantive justifications for addressing foreign bribery and the establishment of a concrete and coherent normative framework been adequately articulated. Hence, it is necessary to redraw the contours of this offense and reconstruct the boundaries of its constituent elements. Through an examination of the legislative purpose of this offense, reference to comparative law, and a narrowing of its constituent elements, this article identifies the order of fair competition as the appropriate protected legal interest of the offense. The order of fair competition serves as the basic sequencing module for economic activity within a market-exchange economy and constitutes a core element that sustains the operation of such a system. Because it is not a naturally occurring order, it requires regulatory safeguards. Ensuring the sustainable functioning of the competitive order not only promotes the optimal allocation of resources but also enables the competitive market to fulfill its social function of supporting the people’s economic and social life, thereby qualifying it as an appropriate object of legal protection. Bribing a foreign public official represents an exchange of benefits designed to induce public power to intervene in the market; by exercising high-handed control over market resources, conditions, and conduct, such intervention disrupts and affects the stable operation of the competitive order. The need for this offense to respond to foreign bribery—and thereby to safeguard the competitive order in foreign jurisdictions—lies in the reasoning that ensuring the sustainable functioning of the competitive order enables the overseas market to provide essential basic conditions to foreign populations effectively and stably, thereby creating—on the foundation of fairness and freedom—a space conducive to the realization of their fundamental rights. Under globalization, however, the emergence of human-rights harms often exceeds the regulatory capacity of individual states and must be understood in the context of globalized processes. In this regard, cross-sectoral cooperation grounded in the principle of international solidarity is necessary to achieve universal human rights across domains and to maintain the institutional order essential for realizing these rights. International solidarity and cooperation should not merely improve local conditions in foreign jurisdictions but also enhance the collective interests of all states, thus aligning with each country’s rational self-interest. Moreover, requiring states to engage in such cooperation is not merely a moral appeal; it constitutes a concrete manifestation of the state’s extraterritorial obligation to protect, an international legal obligation concerning the protection of human rights abroad. This duty obliges a state, through various measures such as supervision and sanctions, to prevent human-rights harms that may be caused by non-state actors under its control or jurisdiction. The prohibition against readily controllable bribe-payers exporting harmful risks to the economic systems of other countries represents a concrete example of fulfilling this obligation. In the application of this crime, it is essential to specifically reflect the causal nexus to harm between the risk of market failure created by the actor and the basic rights of humanity. This requires observing the degree to which the intervention of public power in the market affects the basic conditions upon which foreign individuals rely for the realization of their rights. This demonstrates that the crime is a measure of international solidarity cooperation undertaken to safeguard the basic conditions and fundamental rights of foreign members, thus representing this jurisdiction's concrete fulfillment of its extraterritorial human rights protection obligation. Regarding the constituent elements, the status of the foreign public official must be determined from a substantive perspective to reflect the relationship of power endowment between the individual and the state. Furthermore, the official authority must be of a sovereign (hoheitlicher) nature, capable of producing external legal effects. With respect to the official duty act, interpretation must ensure that the official’s conduct falls within the scope of matters over which they possess decision-making and managerial authority. It is also necessary to delineate a permissible boundary for the mode of performing the duty in order to confirm that the method employed indeed has the potential to interfere with the competitive order. Limiting the subject matter of the bribe to matters related to commercial market competition serves to explicitly confine the exercise of official authority to the competitive market, thereby reflecting its impact on the competitive order. Furthermore, where the conduct constituting the offense is expressly recognized or permitted under the written law of the local jurisdiction, a ground of justification should be introduced to accommodate the diverse boundaries of permissible conduct reflected in different market regulations. This approach prevents the negation of the value choices embedded in the concrete operational framework of the foreign market and avoids obstructing the realization of the public-interest objectives underlying the regulatory adjustments of that market framework. Moreover, acts involving facilitating payments that do not meet the minimum threshold for criminal sanctions should be regarded as lacking punishable unlawfulness. With respect to jurisdiction, our country may exercise jurisdiction only over acts of bribery that occur within our national territory and, with regard to acts committed abroad by individuals of our nationality, where there exists a genuine connection—namely, a sufficient nexus of interest—between our country and the foreign bribery case. On this basis, jurisdiction can be legitimately established under international law. Furthermore, to avoid the various risks and issues that may arise from exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction, a further reasonable limitation on the application of jurisdiction is required at the domestic law level.