刑事鑑定程序之研究─以鑑識會計為中心

CCUR > College of Law > Department of Law & Graduate Institute of Law > thesis > Item 987654321/45616

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://irlib.pccu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/45616

Title:	刑事鑑定程序之研究─以鑑識會計為中心 A Study on Expert Witnesses in Criminal Procedure─ Focusing on Forensic Accounting
Authors:	許庭禎
Contributors:	法律學系
Keywords:	鑑定專家證人對質詰問權強制取證權鑑識會計
Date:	2020
Issue Date:	2020-01-16 10:57:21 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	在經濟犯罪中，財報不實與否經常是訴訟攻防的焦點，又因為法院通常欠缺財務、會計等財經專業，因此需倚賴專業鑑識會計人員之判斷，作為認定財報真實性之依據。然而會計實務上編製財務報表所遵循的準則並非僅有一套，因此法院、檢察官針對財報選任鑑定單位，所作成之鑑定報告，並非無質疑、挑戰的空間存在。　　我國現行刑事訴訟法並未給予被告選任鑑定人之權限，即被告無權提出鑑定人挑戰法院、檢察官所提出之鑑定結果的機會，且現行法甚至規定鑑定人得以書面報告鑑定結果，僅在法院認為「必要時」始需傳喚鑑定人到庭以言詞報告。換言之，刑事訴訟法既未規定被告有自行委請鑑定人之權限，被告自行委請鑑定所得之鑑定報告，在我國證據法則中關於傳聞證據之規定下，均屬傳聞證據而無證據能力。實務非未意識到此問題，嘗試在現行法框架下尋求解決方法，然而實務扭曲的作法非但沒有解決困境，反而徒增不必要的爭議，招致學說見解的批評。因此，本文首先重新全面檢視現行鑑定制度，針對刑事訴訟法第206條之正當性基礎，以及賦予被告選任鑑定人權限之法理依據進行探討，並提出修法建議。 Among financial crimes, false financial statements or reports are often the focal points of the litigation. With Taiwan’s judicial system often lack professional expertise in finance and accounting, the courts often rely on the judgment of forensic accountants as the basis for determining the authenticity and accuracy of the financial statements or reports. However, in practice, there is more than one set of standards for the preparation of financial statements and reports. Therefore, the forensic financial reports produced by the experts designated by the court and prosecutors are not necessarily incontestable, and is challengeable. Under Taiwan’s current Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP), it does not provide the right for the Defendant to retain a forensic expert, that is, the Defendant is lack of right to challenge the result of the forensic financial reports produced by the court and prosecutors. Further, the current CCP not only allows the forensic expert to submit the result of the report in writing, but the court will also only subpoena the forensic expert when it considers it is “necessary” for its testimony. In other words, under the current Hearsay Evidence rules, the forensic financial reports produced by the experts commissioned by the Defendant would all be considered as hearsay and are not admissible as evidence. Under the current judicial practice, many have not realized such an issue and still tries to find a solution under the existing legal framework. However, such solutions not only did not solve the dilemma but increased unnecessary controversies and criticisms. Thus, based on the foregoing, this thesis will reference to the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and provides improving suggestions on how to amend the CCP.
Appears in Collections:	[Department of Law & Graduate Institute of Law ] thesis

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
index.html		0Kb	HTML	1279	View/Open

View Licence

Loading...