English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113313/144292 (79%)
Visitors : 50943704      Online Users : 923
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 期刊論文 >  Item 140.119/129272


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/129272


    Title: 累犯與處斷刑加重之裁量：評大法官釋字第775 號解釋暨後續實務裁判
    Recidivists and the Decision of Aggravated Discretionary Punishment: Comments on the J.Y. Interpretation No.755 and the Subsequent Judicial Practice
    Authors: 許恒達
    Hsu, Heng-Da
    Contributors: 法律系
    Keywords: 洗錢罪;特殊洗錢罪;人頭帳戶;車手;司法權限;透明金流
    Recidivist;Discretioary Punishment;Aggravated Unlawfulness;Warning
    Date: 2019-11
    Issue Date: 2020-04-17 16:23:00 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本文討論新修正洗錢防制法後，如何解釋同法第 14 條的普通洗錢罪與 第 15 條特殊洗錢罪的問題，並以我國實務上最重要的兩類案例：人頭帳戶 提供者與車手是否構成洗錢罪作為中心，以保護法益為中心檢討普通洗錢罪 與特殊洗錢罪的合理性，並提出本文對於這兩則罪名的解釋建議： (1) 普通或特殊洗錢罪，均保護前置犯罪的司法權能，此即前置犯罪追 訴、定罪、處罰等效果的有效實現；所謂透明金流的保護，僅屬反射利益， 而非核心的保護內涵。 (2) 普通洗錢罪應該以掩飾隱恐犯罪所得作為基本行為態樣，而移轉、 變更、收受、持有、使用犯罪所得均為其具體類型； (3) 特殊洗錢罪則以無特定前置犯罪作為適用前提，其行為必須達到實 行各款所要求的異常金融交易行為，否則不成立特殊洗錢罪。 (4) 人頭帳戶提供者至多構成移轉型普通洗錢罪的幫助犯，但須以提供 者知悉洗錢行為內容為前提。 (5) 車手不成立特殊洗錢罪。至若構成詐欺罪幫助犯，則不應再論洗錢 罪名，若不成立詐欺罪幫助犯，則可考慮成立收受型洗錢罪。
    This article aims to discuss the constitutionality of recidivists illustrated under the J.Y. Interpretation No.755 and the explanatory directions resulted from the subsequent judicial practice. Serious disputes over whether to uniformly aggravate the discretionary punishment’s lower limit for recidivists have occurred as the Interpretation failed to clarify the legal reasoning for such punishment, and even the Grand Justices have provided different suggestions for judicial interpretations in the concurring or dissenting opinions. This article opines that we should amend the law to abrogate recidivists and determine whether to aggravate the upper and lower limits for recidivists in each case based on the satisfaction of dual aggravation causes (i.e. aggravated unlawfulness and culpability) before such amendment.
    Relation: 月旦法學雜誌, 294, 5-32
    Data Type: article
    DOI 連結: https://doi.org/10.3966/102559312019110294001
    DOI: 10.3966/102559312019110294001
    Appears in Collections:[法律學系] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    46.pdf624KbAdobe PDF2344View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback