沒收之保全扣押：以德國法為比較對象

Abstract

德國沒收保全扣押法制，包括扣押與假扣押之區分、與實體沒收請求權間之對應、對被害人的賠償機制、命令與執行的層次劃分，以及跨領域間的整合等五大面向，在歷史發展上，並與犯罪利得剝奪的促進習習相關。我國2016年6月刑事訴訟法修法，同樣為促進犯罪利得剝奪，仿德國法修正我國扣押法制後，德國又於2017年4月修正新法，兩者相較下，我國基於對追徵的誤解以及命令與執行間的區分不清，新增保全追徵扣押時欠缺「價額」概念，以致於在後續執行問題及協助被害人之機制，乃至於跨領域間的銜接，與德國法相較有其矛盾與不精確之處。

The German legal system of the freezing measures in criminal process, which secure furture execution of confiscation, contains five main aspects: difference between seizure and attachment, correspondence with the conditions of confiscation, the compensation model for criminal victims, the sequence of ordering and enforcing, and the cross-field legal integration. From historical perspective, the modification of the legal system in Germany has been closely related to the deprivation of illegal proceeds. 2016 June amendment of criminal confiscation process law in Taiwan, which is mainly referred to the German law, is also aimed at strengthening the legal instruments of illegal proceeds deprivation. However, as to freezing measures of confiscation, the legal system in Taiwan not only omits the concept of monetary value, but also keeps ordering and enforcing undistinguished, as a result, the legal system is full of contradictions and inaccuracies.