2009 年4 月26 日簽署的《互助協議》在協議的性質、適用範圍、實施主體、內容、遣返原則、遣返方式、司法互助模式、協議行文特徵等方面繼承和發展了《金門協議》。但是，由於受到兩岸政治關係的影響，結合一年多來的執行情況來看，該協議仍存在諸多問題亟待解決。這些問題主要包括容易受到兩岸政治因素和法律衝突的影響以及協議自身的缺陷等，其中協議自身的缺陷主要體現在《互助協議》的法律效力、體系和措詞、雙重犯罪原則之例外、協助偵查和人員遣返、預審合作、罪犯移管（接返）以及其他相關問題。這些問題的存在可能會在一定程度上制約和影響了兩岸刑事司法合作的正常開展。兩岸有必要尊重歷史、正視現實，秉持法域平等原則，本著最大誠意和信任，善意地解釋和履行該協議。而隨著大陸與臺灣地區的經濟貿易交往日益頻繁，臺灣地區偽造人民幣的犯罪活動也日益增多。兩岸在有關偽造貨幣犯罪的罪名、刑罰等實體法上的差異，刑事管轄權、證據制度等程序法上的差異，以及目前兩岸在司法互助協議上僅有的框架性規定，都影響了兩岸打擊偽造貨幣犯罪的效果。對此，我們可以通過擱置政治上的分歧，強調司法獨立運作；解決司法管轄權衝突；細化司法互助協議內容等幾個方面，從源頭上遏制偽造貨幣犯罪的發生。

On April 26, 2009 the “mutual agreement” was signed by mainland China and Taiwan. The agreement, in the nature, scope, implementation of the subject, content, the principle of repatriation, repatriation, mutual legal assistance mode, the agreement language features etc. was inherited and developed from the “Kinmen Agreement” 1990. As a result of the impact of cross-strait political relations, with more than a year to look at the implementation of the agreement, there are still many problems to be solved. With the mainland China and Taiwan have become increasingly frequent economic and trade exchanges, counterfeit RMB in Taiwan are also
increasing criminal activities. We can set aside political differences,
emphasizing the independence of judiciary, resolve jurisdictional conflicts, detailed agreement on mutual legal assistance and other
aspects, from the source to curb counterfeit currency crimes.