The Commission against Corruption （hereinafter designated as CCAC） of Macau SAR is a public entity responsible for fighting against corruption and assuming the ombudsman role. In accordance with article 59 of the "Basic Law of the Macau Special Administrative Region", a Commission against Corruption shall be established in the Macau SAR, and it shall function independently. Its Commissioner shall be accountable to the Chief Executive. Among its functions, the anti-corruption work of CCAC is particularly important, lawmakers has empowered the Commissioner against Corruption to carry out acts and undertake measures within its scope of activity,through the article no. 11 of Law no. 4/2012 Amend 10/2000 《Commission Against Corruption of the Macao Specail Administrative Region》 （hereinafter designated as “Organic Law of the Commission against Corruption”）. The Commissioner against Corruption is given the power of searches and seizures under article no. 4 of the same legislature, to which the Public Prosecutions Office （hereinafter designated as PPO） is empowered, when the investigations are ran by the CCAC under its scope of activity. Thus we can see that, the independence function of the CCAC is protected in a constitutional level by article 59 of the "Basic Law of the Macau Special Administrative Region". In addition, relevant regulations of the “Organic Law of the Commission against Corruption” has also empowered the CCAC its unique scope of activities and powers. As mentioned above, the Commissioner against Corruption possesses the power to direct criminal investigations under its scope of activities, but lawmakers have reserved the power of accusation entirely to the PPO. This type of “Separation of Accusation Power” system not only can ensure that the decision of accusation will not base on the judgement of the CCAC solely, but can also effectively prevent the abuse of power. The “Separation of Accusation Power” system is a good balancing system between powers, and it is in accordance with the current criminal procedure 頁 5 / 50 system of Macau, when under normal circumstances, the decision of accusation would lie on the PPO. The separation of the power of investigation and the power of accusation, may also lead to a series of problems due to the conflicts of competence between the PPO and the CCAC. Furthermore, some of the regulations in the actual “Criminal Procedure Law” and the “Organic Law of the Commission against Corruption”, haven’t yet fully determined the relation between the two on certain powers. For this reason, the 1st part of this thesis introduces the scope of activity, powers, and independency of the CCAC, through analyzing the content and characteristics of its powers （namely the power to direct criminal investigations）. The 2nd part introduces the scope of activity, powers, and independency of the PPO, followed by an analysis of the content and characteristics of its powers （namely the power of accusation）. The 3rd discusses the relation between the CCAC and the PPO in criminal proceedings, which includes the conflicts of competence between the CCAC and the PPO in the investigating and accusation stage, a few problems when supplementary investigation is to be conducted, the extending problems caused by the power to direct criminal investigation and the power of accusation, and a certain questions regarding the power to close proceedings of CCAC,etc. The 4th explores the past history of Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, on how their system for a clean government was built and its current situation, and the installment of the system of the power of investigation and the power of accusation. Then through comparative study, compares the systems of which the four places （including Macau） used to build a clean government. At the end, I will provide a general conclusion of this thesis, and present some of my opinions on the related issues. Key words: The Commission against Corruption（CCAC）, Public Prosecutions Office （PPO）, The Power to Direct Criminal Investigation , The Power of Accusation

澳門特別行政區廉政公署是專責反貪及行政申訴工作的公共機關。根據 《澳門特別行政區基本法》第 59 條規定，澳門特別行政區設立廉政公署，獨立 工作，廉政專員對行政長官負責。其中，廉政公署的反貪工作尤其重要，立法 者透過第 4/2012 號法律修改《第 10/2000 號法律〈澳門特別行政區廉政公署〉》（下 稱《廉署組織法》）第 11 條第 2 款賦予廉政專員可就廉政公署的職責範圍內作出 的行為及措施負責，廉政專員擁有屬其職責範圍內案件的領導偵查權，同條第 4 款賦予廉政公署擁有屬檢察院權限的搜查、搜索及扣押。由此可見，《澳門特別 行政區基本法》第59條規定是從憲法性層面保障廉政公署獨立行使職權的體現； 此外，《廉署組織法》的相關規定亦賦予廉政公署獨有的職責與權限。 如上所述，廉政專員擁有屬其職責範圍內案件的領導偵查權，但立法者把 提出控訴權完整保留予檢察院，這種“檢控權分立”的設置可以確保不會單以 澳門廉政公署的判斷而作出控訴決定，更能有效地防止濫權；“檢控權分立” 的設置為一種良好的權力平衡制度，亦符合本澳刑事訴訟制度一般情況下由檢 察院提出控訴的現狀。然而，這種把偵查權及控訴權分立的設置，亦可能引申 出檢察院和廉政公署之間權限衝突的種種問題。而現階段《刑事訴訟法典》及 《廉署組織法》的相關規定，仍未能完全釐定兩者之間某些權限上的關係。 為此，本文第一部份簡介澳門廉政公署職責、權限及獨立性，並分析廉政 公署的權限（尤其是領導偵查權）的內容與特點；第二部份簡介澳門檢察院職 責、權限及獨立性，並分析檢察院的權限（尤其是控訴權）內容與特點；第三 部份探討廉政公署與檢察院在刑事訴訟程序之中的關係，當中包括探討廉政公 署與檢察院偵查與控訴階段的權限衝突、補充偵查的若干問題、領導偵查權及 控訴權的延伸問題以及廉政公署歸檔權限的若干問題等等；第四部份簡介中國 內地、香港及台灣廉政建設制度沿革與現狀、偵查權與控訴權的設置，再透過 比較研究的方式綜合對比兩岸四地廉政建設制度，最後對本文作概括性結論並 發表本人對相關問題的看法。 關鍵字：澳門廉政公署，澳門檢察院，領導偵查權，控訴權