The issues of assets forfeiture have historic origins from long time ago both in domestic and abroad. In recent years, countries are keenly engaged in eradicating the economical incentives of obtaining huge illicit profits from criminal activities through establishing international conventions and domestic legislations in order to combat the crimes by way of confiscating the proceeds of crime. According to the provisions of the Criminal Code of this country, assets forfeiture is one of the accessory punishments. It is all regarded as the nature of criminal punishment and security measures in both of theories or practices, even more recently regarded as “similar to the restitution of improper benefit claim”.
Those three ideas have different explanations to assets forfeiture regime and sanction boundaries. This thesis therefore tries firstly to analyze the nature of assets forfeiture in order to clarify the boundaries, and secondly to explain the recent legislations of confiscating proceeds of crime in this country being expanded from a concrete material to intangible property interests and the third party beyond the offenders in order to effectively confiscate the proceeds of crimes. Moreover, assets forfeiture has three controversy viewpoints in practical operation, including whether: 1) should be net cost; 2) should be joint and several liability; 3) the timing to indemnify substitute assets. In general, this thesis is based on the exploration and review to the nature of assets forfeiture for clarifying the related controversy issues of legislation and practical operation.