미국의 범죄피해재산에 대한 형사몰수제도와 우리 법제와의 비교

Korea has shown a lukewarm attitude toward protecting the rights of crime victims against organized fraud and large-scale property crimes. Recovery from the property of the victim caused by crimes was a problem that the victim had to resolve himself through civil procedures, because the state with public power was not supposed to intervene in the judicial process. However, it is almost impossible to get the return of property through a civil procedure with individual abilities, and as a result, a lot of criminal proceeds are left in the hands of criminals. In this article, based on these problems, I examined the criminal forfeiture system of the United States. The biggest difference between the forfeiture of crime-damaged property between the United States and Korea is that the State's intervention is allowed as an exception under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Confiscation and Recovery of Stolen Assets whereas in the United States, in principle, the state actively intervenes in the forfeiture of the property of the victim of a predicate offense. This is not only in terms of protecting victims, but also seems to have the purpose of preventing the reality that numerous criminal proceeds are left in criminals if the victim cannot recover the damaged property from the criminal. In addition, it was verified that there is no significant difference between the forfeiture system with the Act on Special Cases Concerning Confiscation and Recovery of Stolen Assets in the procedures for preserving forfeiture, forfeiture of crime-damaged property of the accused, and forfeiture of crime-damaged property of a third party. This appears to be derived from the theoretical similarity of the judicial system of criminal forfeiture. However, there is a big difference with regard to the crime victim property of a third party. The United States presumes the malice of a third party who acquired property through a transaction after the criminal act. The burden of proof is shifting by having a third party prove their good intentions. For improvement, the state can intervene to forfeiture of crime-damaged property in principle and to ease the burden of proof of state institutions that have to prove malicious intent against crime-damaged property of a third party.