打擊組織型的財經犯罪，為世界各國面臨的重要挑戰。由於此類犯罪往往涉及大量資金移轉，如未能阻止犯罪收益透過洗錢管道漂白，將持續給予犯罪行為人繼續犯罪的誘因，更可能資助後續犯罪的發生。為此，美國國會於1986年通過洗錢控制法，惟因「犯罪收益」一詞未經定義，而造成各級法院適用上見解分歧。一派認為收益一詞係指扣除犯罪成本後之所得，另一派則認為犯罪收益不應扣除犯罪成本方能有效阻斷不法誘因。本文藉由分析美國聯邦最高法院United States v. Santo乙案，釐清近期美國洗錢防制法制中因「犯罪收益」一詞所引發之重大爭議，並對國會後續做出之修法回應予以評述，期能藉此作為我國未來財經犯罪防制之參考。

How to prevent and combat large-scale financial crimes has become the most critical criminal issue in many countries. To combat financial crimes, U.S. Congress passed Money Laundering Control Act of 1986, which prohibits the use of the proceeds of criminal activities for various purposes, including engaging in, and conspiring to engage in, transactions intended to promote the carrying on of unlawful activity. However, what proceeds mean was undefined in the act. Various interpretations of proceeds by the Circuits caused the disorder of law enforcement. This article analyzes the latest issue of the Money Laundering Control Act through analyzing U.S. v. Santos and the following response from the U.S. Congress, and hopes to respond to the challenges of financial crimes in the contemporary Taiwanese society.