38 ⇤Vol.23 2006 海巡雙月刊

壹、前言

95年6月19日第十三（布袋）海巡隊雲林

麥寮分隊剛成軍進駐之百噸級編號PP-10026巡

防艇執行「安海專案」勤務時，於彰化王功外

海15浬處發現中國籍越界捕魚漁船成群，分別

為閩獅漁6302號、7926號、7968號、7972號、

7983號等五艘，未經許可侵入我國禁止海域從

事漁撈行為，登檢後將5艘漁船及船員計27員

帶案行政處分，進入雲林麥寮工業專用港留置

偵訊，全案依「台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係

條例」第32條暨施行細則第42、43、45條處

罰，移請當地漁業主管機關雲林縣政府農業局

漁業課，將其漁網、漁具沒入、漁獲則進行海

拋，5艘漁船驅離至限制水域外。

貳、現況分析

中國大陸沿海由於過去過度濫捕，導致漁

業資源枯竭，其沿海漁民便不斷向外擴張作業

海域，因此不時有大陸漁船違法越界至我限制

論中國漁船越界捕魚之處分以布袋海巡隊為例The penalty on the fi shing vessels from Mainland China to cross-boarder fi shing activities-Case of Bu-Dai Coast Patrol Corps

　　☉ 文、圖｜李應冠　　☉ Article, photos｜Li Ying-guani

Part I. Forewords

On June 19, 2006, the Mei-Liao, Yun-Lin Squad, Maritime Patrol Crops

13th (Bu-Dai) initiated to use 100-ton PP-10026 patrol boat to execute the

task of“Ann-Hai project”. Outside the coastal area that was 15 miles away

from Wang-Kung, Zhang-Hwa, many fi shing vessels clustered crossing the

border line, which were Ming-Shi fi shing vessels No. 6302, No. 7926, No.

7968, No. 7972, No. 7983. Without any permission, they intruded into our

coastal areas for fi shing activities. After investigating on board, fi ve fi shing

vessels and 27 fi shermen were taken back to the maritime Patrol Corps and

detected in the Mei-Liao industrial reserved area, Yun-Lin. The penalty

was based on regulation 32 of“Cross-straits People's relations Act”and

its execution bylaw, regulation 42, regulation 43, regulation 45. The case

then transferred to local fi shery administrative unit, the fi shery section,

agriculture bureau of Yun-Lin County Government, the fi shing net, fi shing

equipment were confi scated. The fi sh were released. The fi ve fi shing vessels

were constrained to the outside of restricted waters.

Maritime Forum

2006 海巡雙月刊 Vol.23 ⇥ 39

或禁止水域使用滾輪式拖網及流剌網從事漁撈

作業，造成臺灣地區周遭海域漁業資源面臨重

大浩劫，加速海洋生物資源耗損。近年來中國

政府漁政機關為保護日漸枯竭漁業資源，沿海

省份每年6月至8月（有些省份5月即開始）實

施禁漁措施，導致部份不肖漁民進而航越台灣

海峽越界至台灣禁限制水域捕魚，如此似狼群

式獵殺惡捕，最終將造成海洋漁業資源枯竭之

最大原因，而長期以來我方（海巡署）對中國

籍越界捕魚漁船均以「驅離」及「帶案行政處

分」等方式處置，沒入漁具、漁獲，但沒入後

之處理程序則有因地方政府配合態度而有不同

處置方式，有時未免流以形式，發揮不了嚇阻

作用。

參、大陸籍漁船越界捕魚之法律探討

台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例乃是為

了規制台灣地區與大陸地區人民之權利關係，

是一項特別之規定，該條例第一條亦明確揭

示：「本條例未規定者，適用其他相關法令之

規定。」

一、 台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例暨施行

細則

目前處理大陸漁船進入臺灣地區限制或禁

止水域為防止大陸漁船越區捕魚，所採之方式

為驅離及行政處分之模式。依據台灣地區與大

陸地區人民關係條例第32條規定：「大陸船舶

未經許可進入台灣地區限制或禁止水域，主管

機關得逕行驅離或扣留其船舶、物品，留置其

人員或為必要之處置。」台灣地區與大陸地區

人民關係條例施行細則第42條規定：「大陸船

舶未經許可進入台灣地區限制或禁止水域，主

管機關依下列規定處置：

（一） 進入限制水域者，予以驅離；可疑

者，命令停船，實施檢查。驅離無

效或涉及走私者，扣留其船舶、物

品及留置其人員。

Part II. Analysis of current situation

Since the fi shing vessels from Mainland China caught fi sh in excess,

the fi shing resources vanished. Therefore, the fi shermen tried to expand

their fi shing area to other waters outward. The cross-boarder fi shing

activities occurred. They even adopted the rolling-wheel net and thorn net

to catch fi sh in the restricted or forbidden waters, which made the fi shery

resources in the coastal area lapse into danger and lose large amount of

marine resources. Recently, the government in Mainland China aimed to

protect the fi shery resources that exhausted gradually. From June to August,

the coastal provinces（some provinces started from May）implemented

the measure of forbidding fi shing activities, which resulted in the illegal

cross-boarder fi shing activities by some fi shermen. Such selfi sh activities

were the major reason that caused the depletion of maritime resources.

For a long time, the Coast Guard Administration adopted the measures

of“dispel”and“administrative penalty”against these fi shing vessels

fi shing in the forbidden areas and confi scated the fi shing equipment. After

the confi scation, the process procedure varied according the different local

government. Therefore, the effects were not so evident. It couldn't achieve

the effect of threat.

PArt III、 Exploration of law issues on the illegal fi shing

activities in the forbidden areas

The Cross-strait People's Relations Act was stipulated to confi ne

the rights between people in Taiwan and in Mainland China, which was a

specifi c regulation. The fi rst act was to declare that“Those that were not

confi ned in the Act applied to other relevant regulations”

I、Regulations of the Cross-strait People's Relations Act

Currently, the measures of dispel and administrative penalty were

the two ways to prevent the fi shing vessels from Mainland China from

fi shing in the restricted or forbidden waters. According to the regulation

32 of the Cross-strait People's Relations Act：“If the fi shing vessels from

Mainland China intruded the forbidden waters without any permission,

the authorities concerned could dispel immediately or detain the fi shing

vessel, fi shing equipment and fi shermen.”. The regulation 42 of the

execution bylaw of the Cross-strait People's Relations Act stipulated：“If

the fi shing vessels from Mainland China intruded the forbidden waters

without any permission, the authorities concerned could execution the

following measures：

(1) Dispel the fi shing vessels intruding the restricted waters；Stop

and check the fi shing vessels f any suspicious action was found.

Pertaining to the ineffective dispelling or smuggling activities,

the authorities concerned could detain the fi shing vessel, fi shing

equipment and faculties.

Maritime Forum

40 ⇤Vol.23 2006 海巡雙月刊

（二） 進入禁止水域者，強制驅離；可疑

者，命令停船，實施檢查。驅離無

效、涉及走私或從事非法漁業行為

者，扣留其船舶、物品及留置其人

員。

（三） 進入限制、禁止水域從事漁撈或其

他違法行為者，得扣留其船舶、物

品及留置其人員。

（四） 前三款之大陸船舶有拒絕停船或抗

拒扣留之行為者，得予警告射擊；

經警告無效者，得直接射擊船體強

制停航；有敵對之行為者，得予以

擊燬。」

台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例施行細

則第44條規定：「本條例第32條第1項所稱主

管機關，指實際在我水域執行安全維護、緝私

及防衛任務之機關。

本條例第32條第2項所稱主管機關，指海

岸巡防機關及其他執行緝私任務之機關。」

由前述台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例

及施行細則可以了解，大陸船舶進入台灣地區

限制或禁止水域從事漁業活動，主管之海岸巡

防機關依法得扣留其船舶、物品及留置其人

員。在此條例內所稱之主管機關乃海岸巡防署

海洋巡防總局。

對大陸船舶進入限制、禁止水域行政處

分，主管機關為海岸巡防機關，因此主管機關

僅能依據台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例及

施行細則之規定，對扣留之物品屬違禁、走私

物品、用以從事非法漁業行為之漁具或漁獲物

者及用以從事漁撈或其他違法行為之漁具或漁

獲者，得沒入之。而對沒入後之違禁、走私物

品、漁具、漁獲等及違法情節重大沒入扣留之

船舶之後續處理方式，則依據行政院公告之「

大陸船舶未經許可進入台灣地區限制禁止水域

案分工事項表」及「大陸船舶未經許可進入台

灣地區限制或禁止水域問題後續分工事項表」

交由行政院農業委員會或其他主管單位負責，

(2) Compel to leave if the fi shing vessel intruded the forbidden

waters；Stop and check the fi shing vessels if any suspicious

action was found. Pertaining to the ineffective dispelling or illegal

fi shing activities, the authorities concerned could detain the

fi shing vessel, fi shing equipment and faculties.

(3) The fi shing vessels intruded into the restricted or forbidden waters

for fi shing activities or other illegal activities, the authorities

concerned could detain the fi shing vessel, fi shing equipment and

faculties.

(4) If the fi shing vessels refused to obey the previous regulations,

the shooting as a warning was allowed；If the warning was

ineffective, the authorities concerned is allowed to shoot the

fi shing vessel. If the antagonist action occurred, it is allowed to

shoot down the fi shing vessels.”

The regulation 44 of the execution bylaw of the Cross-strait People's

Relations Act stipulated：“The said authorities concerned in the fi rst item

of regulation 32 of this Act means those authorities practically execute the

tasks of protecting, investigating and defending in the waters. The said

authorities concerned in the second item of regulation 32 of this Act means

the Coast Guard authorities and other relevant authorities that executed the

task of smuggling.”

Based on the Cross-strait People's Relations Act and its execution

bylaw, it was clear that if the fi shing vessels from Mainland China intruded

the restricted or forbidden waters, the coast guard authorities concerned

could detain the fi shing vessel, fi shing equipment and faculties. The

authority concerned here said is the Maritime Patrol Directorate General,

Coast Guard Administration.

The administrative penalty on the fi shing vessels from Mainland

China to cross-boarder fi shing activities is administered by the coast guard

authorities. Therefore, based on the Cross-strait People's Relations Act those

goods detained and are forbidden, smuggled goods, fi shery equipments

used for illegal fi shery activities or the fi sh and fi shery equipments used for

fi shing or the fi sh, could be confi scated. As for dealing with the confi scation

of illegal and smuggling items, fi shing equipment, it was based on the

Executive Yuan announced “Task allocation list of the fi shing vessels from

Mainland China intruding the forbidden waters”and the “follow-up task

allocation list of the fi shing vessels from Mainland China intruding the

forbidden waters”, would be in charge by the agriculture council, Executive

Yuan or other administrative units concerned. The follow-up procedure of

confi scating fi shing equipment and fi shing vessels would be in charge by

fi shery administration sections in local city or county government which

the coast guard unit located.

II、Fishery law

The fi shing equipments used by the fi shing vessels from Mainland

Maritime Forum

2006 海巡雙月刊 Vol.23 ⇥ 41

其中沒入之漁具、漁獲、船舶部分則交由當地

海巡機關所在地之縣市政府漁政單位負責後續

處理問題。

二、漁業法

大陸漁船進入限制或禁止水域從事漁撈行

為，使用的漁具多為滾輪式拖網或流網作業，

依據漁業法第44條第1項第3款公告有關規定漁

具、漁法之限制或禁止，及行政院農業委員會

訂定之「流網漁業管理要點」之規定，滾輪式

拖網或流網作業乃違反漁業法第44條及61條之

規定，可處6月以下有期徒刑、拘役或科或併科

新台幣3萬元以下罰金。

依據漁業法第6條之規定：「凡欲在公共

水域及與公共水域相連之非公共水域經營漁業

者，應經主管機關核准並取得漁業證照後，始

得為之。」違反此規定而經營漁業者，依據漁

業法第64條之規定處新台幣6萬元以上30萬以下

罰鍰。

參照上述漁業法之相關規定，大陸漁船進

入台灣地區限制或禁止水域從事違法漁業行

為，主政之行政院農業委員會漁業署理應依法

對違法之大陸漁船處以行政處分，及適用該法

規中之行政刑法移送管轄，並無疑義。但就執

行層面而言，在查獲違法越界從事違法漁業活

動之大陸漁船，對於違反漁業法第44條第1項第

3款公告有關規定漁具、漁法之限制或禁止之

相關規定時，其相關認定鑑驗機關為何必須事

先釐清，由專業鑑驗機關判定是否構成違法要

件，始能進行對從事違法漁業行為之大陸人民

科處刑責。

台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例乃規制

大陸地區與台灣地區人民之權利關係，其法

律性質與其他法律間形成特別法與普通法的關

係，國內著名學者黃異教授認為大陸地區人民

在台灣地區限制或禁止海域從事漁業活動，非

依漁業法予以取締及予以制裁，而是依據台灣

地區與大陸地區人民關係條例中有關違反限制

及禁止海域之處置規定而處理。且特定行政法

China in the restricted or forbidden waters were rolling-wheel net and

thorn net. According to the limitation and prohibition of fi shery equipments

and fi shery methods announced in item 3, regulation 1 of Fishery Act 44

and the“essentials of managing fi shing net”stipulated by the agriculture

council, Executive Yuan, such fi shing methods as the rolling-net or thorn

net were against regulation 44 and regulation 61 of Fishery Act and would

be fi ned NTD 30,000 and penalized less than six-month imprisonment or

apprehension.

According to the regulation 6 of Fishery Act：“Those who would

like to involve fi shing activities in the public waters or in the none-public

waters connecting with public waters must get certifi cates from the

authority concerned.”Those who are against the regulation must be fi ned

from NTD 60,000 to NTD 300,000, based on the regulation 64 of Fishery

Act.

The relevant regulations listed above could be viewed as references.

If the fi shing vessels from Mainland China intruded the restricted or

forbidden waters for fi shing activities, the agriculture council must execute

the administrative penalty based on the relevant laws. However, as for

the aspect of execution, after investigating those fi shing vessels that are

involving the illegal fi shing activities, the authority concerned must verify

those detained fi shing equipment and fi shing methods based the item 3,

regulation 1 of fi shery act 44. The verifi cation institutions must be clarifi ed

in advance. The right judgment to ensure whether it was against the laws

must be made by a professional verifi cation institution thus the penalty

could be decided at the fi nal stage.

The Cross-strait People's Relations Act stipulates people's rights

between Taiwan and Mainland China. The feature of the Cross-strait

People's Relations Act was functioned as special law, compared with other

common laws. Mr. Yi Huang, the famous professor in Taiwan indicated

that fi shing vessels from Mainland China engage in fi shing activities

in the restricted or forbidden sea area are not clamped down based

Maritime Forum

42 ⇤Vol.23 2006 海巡雙月刊

規在限制及禁止海域內外排除適用，則該行

政法規中之刑事制裁（行政刑罰），亦當不

適用【註1】。然而實務上大陸漁船於台灣地

區限制或禁止水域從事違法漁業行為時，其觸

犯漁業法中之行政刑罰（如電漁），經海岸巡

防機關查獲後移送司法機關進行司法審判【註

2】。

海岸巡防機關於海上查緝違法案件時，對

於管轄之法院認定往往取決於查緝犯罪海域之

相對於陸上位置而認定，（例如嘉義縣西方外

海海域亦是澎湖縣東方海域）而海巡隊所轄之

海域經常跨越數縣市，海巡單位需要經常與所

轄內不同之檢察機關保持聯繫，以利案件之偵

辦。同理，在偵辦大陸籍漁船違法越界從事違

法漁業活動涉及刑事罰時，首先必須請示檢察

官報告案情及處理方式，取得檢察官之認同再

行偵辦，以免發生雙方不同調之窘境。

肆、結論與建議

一、 大陸漁船進入台灣地區限止或禁止水

域從事漁撈行為，其行為觸犯了中華

民國之漁業法、中華民國專屬經濟海

域及大陸礁層法、台灣地區與大陸地

區人民關係條例暨施行細則，其中除

牽涉行政罰之外，尚有行政刑罰之論

處。長久以來對於越區捕魚之大陸漁

船多由海岸巡防機關依據台灣地區與

大陸地區人民關係條例暨施行細則進

行帶案行政處分，漁政單位並未介入

針對違反漁業法部分進行裁處。

二、 近年來我國漁船頻遭日本、菲律賓等

國以入侵他國經濟水域從事捕撈漁業

資源為由，對我漁船進行緊追、強行

登檢扣留船舶裁處鉅額罰鍰，漁民團

體反彈聲浪頗大，各界紛紛指責政府

護漁不力，不顧漁民權利。反觀我國

處理大陸籍漁船越區捕漁之方式與我

國漁船遭日、菲等國扣船罰款之情

事，不成比例相距懸殊。事，不成比例相距懸殊。

on the fi shery act, but based on the some regulations in the Cross-strait

People's Relations Act. Besides, specifi c administrative regulations are

excluded in the restricted or forbidden sea area thus its criminal penalty（

administrative penalty）in the administrative regulations should not be

applicable, either【reference 1】. However, practically the fi shing vessels

from Mainland China when intruded the restricted or forbidden waters

for fi shing activities and violated the administrative penalty（such as the

fi shing activities by means of electricity）, could be handed over to the

jurisdiction organizations for judicial trial once caught by Coast Guard.【

reference 2】

When the coast patrol organizations investigated the illegal fi shing

activities, how to decide the court in charge of the case was to compare the

location where the fi shing vessel was founded to the coast position. (For

example, the western coastal area of Jia-Yi is also the eastern coastal area

of Penghu) The sea areas in charge by the Maritime Patrol Corps usually

covered several counties and cities. The coast guard sections should contact

with various procuratorial organs, which could prompt the execution of

investigation. Similarly, when dealing with these cases of illegal fi shing

activities involved with criminal penalty by the fi shing vessels from

Mainland China, the details of the case and process procedure must fi rstly

be reported to the prosecutor. It aimed to get the confi rmation from the

prosecutors before the detection in order to prevent the occurrence of

confl icts.

Part IV、Conclusion and suggestion

I、 The fi shing vessels from Mainland China that intrude the restricted

or forbidden waters for fi shing activities are against the Fishery

Act of R.O.C., the R.O.C. exclusive economic zone and China

Reef Act, the Cross-strait People's Relations Act and its execution

bylaw. Beside the administrative penalty it may associate with

the criminal penalty. For a long time, the fi shing vessels from

Mainland China that were against the laws were penalized based

on the Cross-strait People's Relations Act by Coast Guard units.

The fi shery administration organizations didn't execute the

penalty based on the Fishery Act.

II、 Recently, our fi shing vessels were repeatedly chased, forced to

be boarded and inspected, detained and fi ned with big amount

by Japan and Philippines for intruding their exclusive economic

sea area to fi sh. The fi shermen group rebounded greatly.

Complaints aroused from various fi elds, which condemned the

ineffective actions of the government to protect the fi shermen. On

the contrary, our country paid more attention to deal with the

intrusion of fi shing vessels from Mainland China in a manner

incomparably.

III、 The most effective investigation action was executed by the

Penghu County Government in coordination with Penghu

Maritime Forum

2006 海巡雙月刊 Vol.23 ⇥ 43

Maritime Patrol Corps. The Penghu County Government

compelled to demolish the fi shing equipment and fi shing nets,

which could truly prevent the fi shing vessels from crossing

the border. Because of the cooperation with the Penghu

County Government, the Maritime Patrol Corps could quickly

execute the confi scation of fi shing equipment and fi sh without

following problems. When the Maritime Patrol Corps executed

the investigation activities in the western coastal area of

Taiwan, the fi shery organizations didn't provide any assistance.

The Maritime Patrol Corps was in charge of every detailed

investigation, which could not bring any intimidating effects.

IV、 In order to intimidate the illegal fi shing activities, it was hoped

that the government could clarify the current situation and

management models. The more aggressive actions could be

taken into consideration, besides contemplating only on“Cross-

strait People's Relations Act”. Other relevant regulations and

laws could be considered to penalize the illegal Mainland

China fi shing vessels in order to balance the treatment that our

fi shing vessels faced in other countries. Meanwhile, it could

also demonstrate that the government would like to protect the

fi shing industry in every aspect.

Reference 1： Huang Yi, the management of coastal area and

administration laws, Shen-Chou publishing co. June,

2003, p.p.365~376。

Reference 2： Concise adjudication statement, procuratorate of

Penghu local court No. 124, 2004.

（The author is currently with the "Bu- Dai" Offshore Flotilla 13 ,Maritime

Patrol Directorate General）

Maritime Forum

三、 在查緝大陸籍漁船違法越界捕魚成效三、 在查緝大陸籍漁船違法越界捕魚成效

最為良好之處應屬澎湖縣政府配合澎最為良好之處應屬澎湖縣政府配合澎

湖海巡隊實施強制拆除漁具及沒入漁湖海巡隊實施強制拆除漁具及沒入漁

網等執行方式，成效良好，明顯遏止網等執行方式，成效良好，明顯遏止

越區作業之大陸漁船。該地區由於當越區作業之大陸漁船。該地區由於當

地縣政府高度配合下，海巡隊對違法地縣政府高度配合下，海巡隊對違法

越界捕魚之大陸漁船帶案行政處分越界捕魚之大陸漁船帶案行政處分

時，對查扣沒入之漁具、漁獲得以

迅速執行且無後續處理問題。其他台

灣本島西部之海巡隊在處理違法越界

捕魚之大陸漁船帶案行政處分時，多

數當地漁業機關並未派人協助處理配

合，一切皆由海巡隊包辦，造成查緝

結果流於形式發揮不了嚇阻功效。

四、 為有效嚇阻大陸籍漁船越區從事漁業

活動，是否可突破目前思維及作業模

式，採取更為強烈之手段，跳脫「台

灣地區與大陸大區人民關係條例」之

思考模式，適用其他相關法令對違法

之大陸籍漁船科處刑罰或鉅額罰鍰，

衡平我國漁船遭受他國之待遇，以展

現政府對於護漁之決心。

註1： 黃異，海域管理與行政法，神州圖

書出版有限公司，2003年06月，頁

365~376。

註2： 93年度偵字第124號臺灣澎湖地方法

院檢察署檢察官聲請簡易判決處刑

書。

（本文作者任職於海洋總局第十三（布袋）海

巡隊）