| Abstract: | 2009年4月26日第三次江陳會談，兩岸雙方在南京簽署《海峽兩岸金融合作協議》、《海峽兩岸空運補充協議》、《海峽兩岸共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協議》等３項協議，本論文研究動機與目的，兩岸共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協議已簽署，外界質疑兩岸簽署協議的效用不彰，最重要是對於這些指標性經濟犯罪遣返問題未能立竿見影。
近年來詐騙案件層出不窮，許多民眾被詐騙損失了許多的金錢，臺灣日後再遇重大詐騙、貪污、洗錢、重大刑案等犯罪，是否可以請大陸共同偵辦並提供金流、帳戶等證據，供我方治安機關突破案情。本論文藉由兩岸共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協議的內容及相關統計數據，驗證兩岸打擊犯罪與司法互助，真正對於民眾生命、財產的安全及權益的保障有實際的幫助。
大陸當局對於潛逃歐美的經濟犯問題也很困擾，目前大陸與東協與歐美接觸洽談引渡協議如何可做為參考，此外大陸於2009年5月14日頒布最高人民法院法釋[2009]第4號「關於人民法院認可台灣地區有關法院民事判決的補充規定」兩者之差異，以及對於兩岸民事裁判的認可有何重大的影響。
本論文從國際間司法互助之背景與沿革導入，探討國際間司法互助模式，進一步討論兩岸打擊犯罪與司法互助之內容，提供建議做為參考。從兩岸刑事差異性，探討未來兩岸是否可以解決相互認可的問題，達成兩岸全面司法合作之目標。
The third Chiang-Chen talks were held at Nanjing on April 26,2009 and the two sides signed three Cross-strait Agreements on cross-strait financial cooperation, regular cross-strait flights,and cross-strait joint crime-fighting and mutual judicial assistance. The purpose of this essay is focusing on the society is querying the efficiency of the agreement after the Cross-strait Agreements on cross-strait joint crime-fighting and mutual judicial assistance was signed, especially thedeficiency of representing economic criminal repatriating problem.
Recently, lots of fraud cases occur across the strait, causing many civilians were swindling out of their saving. Our public security institution wonder the possible cross-strait cooperation and evidence sharing such as money tracking or saving account providing for us crackdown the crime when there is any major fraud, corruption, money-laundering, or significiant crime occur. This research verifies the practical protection of cross-strait joint crime-fighting and mutual judicial assistance for prople’s life, property and their rights on the basis of the contents of agreement and related statistics.
The government of mainland China is perplexed the economic criminals abscond to Europe or USA, referring to the mainland is negotiating extradition treaty with Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Europe, and USA. In addition, the mainland Promulgated No.4 “additional regulations about the People''s court approves civil judgment of the Taiwan court,” affecting capitally the validation of cross-stait civil judgment.
This essay is inducted from the background and history of international judicial assistance and discuss the pattern of international judicial assistance. Futhermore, analyzes the contents of cross-strait joint crime-fighting and mutual judicial assistance agreement and offers suggestions for reference. At last, comparing the differences of cross-strait criminal system, discuss the problem of mutual acception across the strait in order to reach the goal of thoroughly cross-strait mutual judicial assistance. |
