國際上多以凍結之方式保全金融帳戶內之債權，然我國卻常以刑訴法之一般扣押或洗錢防制法第 9 條禁止處分之規定保全之。關於前者，該扣押通常以物為限，並不擴及債權；後者，事實上僅針對該筆洗錢之交易，並不能擴及金融帳戶內之所有債權。至於針對詐欺（恐嚇）取財之警示帳戶，雖能達到暫停該帳戶全部交易之功能，但卻有違反憲法保障財產權或程序正義之虞，亟待從國際公約有關凍結之立法趨勢的觀點，補強相關的法理論。如此，一方面能消極地避免實務單位適用上之混淆；另一方面若能進一步提供修法重點及方向，則能積極地促進國際刑事司法互助之請求與執行，更確保被害人之損害回復或沒收等之執行。據此，本文首先探討金融帳戶與特定財產犯罪之關係，特別是人頭金融帳戶內財產權益之歸屬。其次，分析國際公約的凍結、我國刑訴法的扣押、刑事特別法的酌量財產扣押、洗錢防制法的禁止處分及以銀行法為法源之警示帳戶的法制及施行情況。再者，探討保全目的之扣押及羈押之關聯、合理之扣押期間；論述保全目的之扣押是否違反無罪推定原則及憲法保障財產權之問題；並指摘禁止處分及警示帳戶之缺失。最後，在解釋論觀點之分析方面，釐清扣押之概念、執行客體之競合、損害回復及國際合作等爭點；在立法論觀點之思考方面，則針對當前財產扣押及禁止處分之缺失，提出改善問題之建議，以期拋磚引玉，在維護國家行使刑罰權的利益與當事人合法財產權益之間，找出一個既能保障財產權；又能促進社會及被害人之公平正義的平衡點。

It is freezing that is routinely utilized in lots of parts of the world to secure the creditor’s rights for banking accounts whereas in Taiwan, to secure the same creditors’ rights, we resort to the general seizure as regulated in the Law of Criminal Procedure or the prohibition of disposition - the 9th Clause as stated in the Anti-Money-Laundry Law. The former is applied exclusively to property without being able to extend to the creditor’s rights; the latter, however, aims to the very trade related to money laundry without being able to cover all the creditor’s banking rights. As for the warning accounts involved in frauds ( or
blackmailing ) of money, they could be temporarily closed - which in turn are likely to fall into a trap in violation of constitutional protection of property or of procedural justice. It thereafter turns out to be mandatory to patch the relevant legal status pro from the internationally accepted point of view: the freezing of accounts. This way, we can avoid the confusion caused by executive units in practice, and on the other hand if we focus on the importance and direction of legislation further, we can stay in a more aggressive position to perform internationally judicial assistance and execution. Ultimately, we can ensure the damage recovery or processes required by confiscation approaches. In this paper, we first discuss the mutual relationship between banking accounts and the crimes committed in relation to specific properties, especially the legitimacy and the ownership of the surrogate accounts. Next, we have a full reflective analysis on the following themes: the freezing of accounts held by the international agreements, the seizure as regulated by the Criminal Procedure Law, the property seizure as required by Special Criminal Law, the disposition of prohibition in the Anti-Money-Landry Law and the warning accounts which foundation are laid to the Banking Law. Later, we also discuss the relations between seizure for the purpose of property security and an order of arrest as well as reasonable temporal duration of seizure. Also included on the list is: Do the seizure processes for the purpose of property security violate the principles as far as the presumption of innocence and the property protection ordered by the Constitution are concerned? In addition, we also point out some of the shortcomings in company with disposition prohibition and warning accounts. Last but not the least, from the explanatory view point, we discuss the concepts of seizure and the applicable objects as well as damage recovery and international cooperation. From the aspect of legislation, we offer feasible approaches to solve the problems in relation to property seizure and disposition
prohibition. It is our sincere hope that a well-balanced point can be achieved where legitimate property can be solidly secured and the justice required by the individual victims and the society as a whole can be rendered justified.