洗錢罪之解釋與判決研究

Abstract

2016年底的洗錢防制法修正是本論文研究的契機，面對大幅度的修正，我們必須了解其構成要件如何解釋才能正確適用新法，但在進入構成要件的研究前，必須先對洗錢罪的發展歷史、保護法益及外國法有所認識，才能確保對洗錢罪的理解是正確的。 洗錢罪從起源到今天不過30年，學者對其是否應入罪化及保護法益為何爭論還是很大，所以本論文先簡述洗錢罪的發展歷史，接著再探討本罪所保護法益為何，藉由法益的確定以輔助思考構成要件的解釋方向。 因為新法大量援引公約內容，所以本論文從維也納及巴勒摩公約的洗錢罪談起，接著再將觸角伸到英國及美國的洗錢罪，特別是主觀要件如何解釋，希望藉由比較公約及外國法了解我國法的構成要件應如何解釋，在解釋完構成要件之後緊接著討論洗錢罪與其他罪如何競合。 除了構成要件的解釋之外，適用法條以解決現實案例也是很重要的，本論文透過大量的英國及美國判決檢視我國實務適用法條與外國有何不同，在論文的最後探討三則台灣的不動產洗錢案例，而會選擇不動產洗錢的原因為這是較難認定是否成罪的洗錢態樣，研究方式為篩選類似的外國案例以比較外國法院的心證與我國是否相同，如有不同應如何解釋。由於新法上路後還沒有不動產洗錢的判決，所以本論文討論的判決是修法前之判決，先討論法院的心證是否合理，再用新法討論應如何裁判。 本次修法是改變舊見解以符合國際標準的契機，希望從人民到實務都能更勇敢的適用新法，跟上國際反洗錢的浪潮，讓髒錢無所遁逃。

The amendment of the Money Laundering Act in 2016 is an opportunity for the study of this paper. We must understand how to interpret the elements of crime in order to correctly apply the new law. However, before starting the research on the elements, we must first understand the history of the crime of money laundering, the protection of legal interests and foreign laws, in order to ensure that the understandings are correct. The crime of money laundering has only been 30 years since its origin. Today, scholars are still very controversial about whether it should be criminalized and which interest to be protected. Therefore, this paper first briefly describes the development history of money laundering crimes, and then discusses which legal interests are protected. Determining the legal interests will help us interpreting the elements. Because the new law cites the contents of the Conventions in a large amount, this paper starts from the introduction of Vienna and Palermo Conventions. Then I will extend the tentacles to the money laundering crimes in the United Kingdom and the United States, especially how to explain the subjective elements. I hope that by comparing the provisions of the Conventions and foreign laws, I will understand how to interpret the elements. After interpreting the elements, I immediately discuss the concurrent relationships of money laundering crimes. In addition to the interpretation of the elements, it is also very important to apply the law to solve the real cases. Through a large number of British and American judgments, this paper compares the differences between Taiwanese courts and foreign countries. At the end of the paper, three cases of money laundering through real estates in Taiwan are discussed. The reason for choosing this type of crime is that which is more difficult to proving guilty. I search for similar foreign cases to compare whether the judgments of the foreign courts are same as ours. If they’re different, what makes the differences? Since there is no judgment on money laundering through real estate after the implementation of the new law, the judgments discussed in this paper are convicted before the revision of the law. First, I discuss whether the court's judgments are reasonable, then I use the new law to discuss how to judge. This revision is an opportunity to change old insights to meet international standards. I hope that we can apply the new laws more courageously, keep up with the standards of international trends, and let dirty money flee.