| 摘要: | 本文以貨幣作為支付工具的發展與監理政策的變遷作為研究，並從金融監管、刑事法角度切入，分析支付工具的特性、功能、種類，再比照外國加密貨幣監管如何規定，藉此比較我國監管方式。此外，針對加密貨幣的刑事犯罪，如何對犯罪行為人處罰及犯罪物品沒收，最後提出建議。
由於科技進步，數位貨幣、電子支付方式逐漸普及，使支付工具的使用方式發生顯著的變化，不僅提高交易的便捷性及效率，尚促使金融交易變得更加透明，使資金移轉過程能被追溯。此等新興數位貨幣的出現改變人類交易方式，將產生與現有的金融體系、金融監管政策法律適用的衝擊，蓋藉由數位貨幣的資金移轉便利性之特性犯罪，將可能造成更重大的財產損失與社會危害。
無論對支付工具進行如偽、變造、詐欺等犯罪或違反監管規定，若未符合監管機關如身分識別的要求均設有相應的處罰措施，手段不外乎剝奪犯罪行為人之自由、財產等權利。由於刑事處罰須遵循罪刑法定原則，僅有法律明確規定為犯罪的行為，始能受到相應的刑事處罰，在處理涉及支付工具的犯罪行為時，須遵循此一原則。由於目前我國現行法幾乎未將比特幣、以太幣等加密貨幣納入法律規定，僅能透過擴張解釋的方式對其提供保護，然而，刑事法對於擴張解釋的範圍極為嚴謹，為避免過度恣意條文規定及逾越立法者保護的框架，應盡速將加密貨幣明文的規定以填補法律的空白，否則將無法有效地保護受害者的權益或追究犯罪行為人的責任。
綜觀金融監管與財產犯罪的處罰規定，均歷經慘痛的代價才逐步建立與完善，因每次重大金融危機或大規模的財產犯罪事件，均暴露現有法律與監管框架的缺陷，如2008年的全球金融危機反應出金融市場監管的重大缺陷，使各國相繼制定嚴格的金融監管法規，及全球第二大的加密貨幣交易平台「FTX」破產，揭示數位貨幣市場中存在的風險和監管缺失，此等金融風險將促使立法者、監管機關對現行法律進行修法或另外立法。
惟，法律對支付工具所彰顯的財產價值提供保護固然重要，但相對地將產生法律明確性之問題，因此，須確立定義與範圍以避免法律適用上的模糊，亦即，應確保法律條文中對數位貨幣、電子支付、虛擬資產等概念的界定，並明確地規定不同情境下的適用範圍，始能對持有人之權利不受侵犯外，亦對此種新興數位貨幣之財產價值給予保護。
This thesis studies the development of currency as a payment tool and the changes in supervision policies, and analyzes the characteristics, functions, and types of payment tools from the perspectives of financial supervision and criminal law, and then compares the regulations of foreign cryptocurrency supervision to compare our country's supervision. Way. In addition, for criminal offenses involving cryptocurrency, suggestions are finally made on how to punish criminal perpetrators and confiscate criminal items.
Due to the advancement of science and technology, digital currency and electronic payment methods have gradually become more popular, which has caused significant changes in the use of payment tools. It not only improves the convenience and efficiency of transactions, but also makes financial transactions more transparent and enables the fund transfer process to be traced. . The emergence of these emerging digital currencies has changed the way humans trade and will have an impact on the existing financial system and financial regulatory policies and laws. In addition, crimes that take advantage of the convenience of fund transfer in digital currencies may cause more serious crimes. Property damage and social harm.
Regardless of whether the payment instrument is used for crimes such as counterfeiting, alteration, fraud, or other violations of regulatory regulations, if it fails to meet the requirements of the regulatory authorities such as identification, there will be corresponding punishment measures, and the means are nothing more than depriving the criminal offender of his freedom and property. rights. Since criminal penalties must follow the principle of statutory punishment, only acts that are clearly defined as crimes by law can be subject to corresponding criminal penalties. This principle must be followed when dealing with criminal acts involving payment instruments. Since China’s current laws have hardly included cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum into legal regulations, they can only be protected through expanded interpretations. However, the criminal law is extremely strict in the scope of expanded interpretations. In order to avoid excessively arbitrary provisions And beyond the protection framework of legislators, cryptocurrency should be explicitly stated as soon as possible to fill the gaps in the law. Otherwise, it will not be able to effectively protect the rights and interests of victims or hold criminal perpetrators accountable.
Looking at the financial supervision and property crime penalty regulations, they have been gradually established and improved at a painful cost. Because every major financial crisis or large-scale property crime incident has exposed the flaws of the existing legal and regulatory framework, such as the 2008 The global financial crisis reflected major flaws in financial market supervision, causing countries to successively enact strict financial regulatory regulations, and the bankruptcy of the world's second largest cryptocurrency trading platform "FTX", revealing the risks and regulatory deficiencies in the digital currency market. Such financial risks will prompt legislators and regulatory agencies to amend existing laws or create additional legislation.
However, it is important for the law to provide protection for the property value demonstrated by payment instruments, but it will relatively raise the issue of legal clarity. Therefore, the definition and scope must be established to avoid ambiguity in the application of the law, that is, it should ensure that the legal provisions Defining the concepts of digital currency, electronic payment, virtual assets, etc., and clearly stipulating the scope of application in different situations can not only protect the rights of holders from infringement, but also protect the property value of this emerging digital currency. |
