泰國洗錢防制法之研究

Abstract

泰國洗錢防制法之制定，其背後動機乃是為了防制毒品犯罪而來。泰國的毒品犯罪問題猖獗，雖然制定有防制毒品犯罪的法律，例如1991年「毒品危害防制法」 (Act on Measures for the Suppression of Offenders in an Offence Relating to Narcotics B.E. 2534)，但在實踐上一直不見成效，泰國的販賣與運輸毒品犯罪之案件，仍然是有增無減。究其原因，一方面是追究毒品犯罪之相關證據難求，未被逮捕的販毒同黨仍然眾多，販毒組織的首腦逍遙法外而無所懼怕；另一方面，乃是販毒者將販賣毒品所獲得的利益與財產，不斷地投入販毒組織，支持著販毒集團的運作。 為了阻止毒品犯罪繼續橫行，泰國政府認為應制定更能扼止毒品犯罪之法律，擴大警察及檢察官之執法權力，且應另立沒收財產之新法，使政府可以沒收販毒者與毒品有關之所得利益，以避免毒販利用販毒所得危害社會。故泰國政府於1999年制定了「洗錢防制法」(Anti-Money Laundering B.E. 2542)，以擴大犯罪不法所得之扣押與沒收。此外，亦制定了金融服務業標準、瞭解你的客戶政策，反洗錢和反恐怖主義融資方針。 泰國洗錢防制法之特色，乃參考美國「對物沒收」之程序，將洗錢案件分為兩個區塊，亦即刑事案件以及民事案件部分。刑事案件主要用以追訴懲罰洗錢罪之犯行；民事案件則是用以宣告沒收與犯罪有關之財產，防範犯罪人以犯罪獲取的不法利益，再拿來進行下一次的犯罪。 泰國洗錢防制法運用民事訴訟進行沒收財產之程序，採此制度之理由在於，因待證事實係關於財產，財產所有人理應最為熟悉，警察及檢察官自然不如財產所有人知悉其財產狀況，因此，將証明之責任轉予被告，較能達到沒收財產之成效。如此，檢察官之義務只須向民事法庭證明被告之行為是否關乎重大犯罪或洗錢罪，但就財產是否源自於犯罪所得，則不須達到100%證明其真實性之程度。此一制度固然可以減少警察及檢察官舉證之負擔，且將舉證責任轉換，由被告證明自己之財產與犯罪無關，以達快速沒收犯罪財產之效；然而，本制度亦有違反無罪推定與不自證己罪之嫌，且可能會有侵害人民接受公平審判權利與侵害人民財產權之虞。

The motive behind Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Act of 1999 is the prevention of drug-related crimes. Drugs and crime are rampant in Thailand. Despite the development of drug-related crime control laws, such as the “Act on Measures for the Suppression of Offenders in an Offence Relating to Narcotics B.E. 2534” in 1991, in practice, they have not been effective. Thailand’s criminal cases related to trafficking and transport of drugs remain unabated. The reasons for this fearlessness is that evidence for investigating drug-related crimes is hard to find, many drug partners have not been arrested, and drug syndicate leaders are still fearlessly at large. Additionally, traffickers continue to put profit and property into their drug trafficking syndicate to support its operation. In order to put a stop to the rampant drug-related crimes, the Thai government believes more effective laws to contain drug-related crimes should be developed, while empowering the law enforcement powers of the police and prosecutors. Additionally, the new law for confiscating property should be revised to allow the government to confiscate profits made by traffickers from drug trafficking and to disable traffickers from drug trafficking that harms the society. In view of this, the Thai government set up “Anti-Money Laundering B.E. 2542” in 1999 to seize and confiscate dirty money at an extended level. Furthermore, the aim of the Thai government is to develop financial services industry standards, Know Your Customers policies, anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing guidelines. The Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Act was developed in reference to the U.S. “in rem forfeiture” procedures, through which money laundering cases are divided into two parts: criminal cases and civil cases. Criminal cases are intended to punish money-laundering offenses; civil cases are intended to declare the forfeiture of property related to crime and prevent perpetrators from committing crimes to acquire illegal interests and use them for the next crime. Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Act is applied in civil lawsuits for property forfeiture procedures. The reason for adopting this system is that the alleged facts pertain to property, and property owners should be most familiar with these facts, compared to the police and prosecutors. Hence, the obligation of providing proof is transferred to the defendant to better be able to achieve effective confiscation of property. This way, the obligation of the prosecutor is to prove to the civil court whether the defendant’s act is a serious crime or money laundering crime. As far as whether property comes from criminal acts is concerned, there is no need to provide 100% authenticity. Although this system lessens the burden of proof for the police and prosecutors, the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant for him to prove his property has nothing to do with crime. This will in turn achieve prompt and effective confiscation of criminal property. However, this system is also suspected of being in violation of the presumption of innocence and no self-incrimination. Additionally, it may be against people’s right to a fair trial and be an infringement of the people’s property rights.