【摘要】：判決后的財(cái)務(wù)開示制度是美國民事執(zhí)行的重要組成部分,該制度與藐視法庭和偽證罪組成的規(guī)則體系是美國保障執(zhí)行順利進(jìn)行的“達(dá)克摩斯之劍”,在這種嚴(yán)厲的法律規(guī)定面前,被執(zhí)行人將財(cái)務(wù)開示視為義務(wù),從而督促其自覺履行判決,這也是為什么美國不存在“執(zhí)行難”問題的重要原因。判決后的財(cái)務(wù)開示制度在聯(lián)邦民事訴訟規(guī)則之中并無明文規(guī)定,相反,眾多州的州法中卻有詳細(xì)規(guī)定和長時(shí)間的司法實(shí)踐。本文即是研究美國州法判決后財(cái)務(wù)開示制度,在美國,判決后的財(cái)務(wù)開示制度已經(jīng)在司法實(shí)踐中運(yùn)行了數(shù)十年,其制度早已逐步完善,在司法實(shí)踐過程中出現(xiàn)的問題,已被相關(guān)修正案和典型判例解決,該制度日益適應(yīng)司法實(shí)踐的需要。而我國自1997年初步確立了財(cái)產(chǎn)報(bào)告制度,發(fā)展至今仍然存在不完善的地方,導(dǎo)致司法適用的過程中產(chǎn)生歧義;2017年最高法院又出臺了《最高人民法院關(guān)于民事執(zhí)行中財(cái)產(chǎn)調(diào)查若干問題的規(guī)定》,但是該規(guī)定仍然比較籠統(tǒng),而且很多理論問題沒有澄清。比如,當(dāng)事人拒不報(bào)告相關(guān)財(cái)產(chǎn)信息嚴(yán)重者應(yīng)當(dāng)追究刑事責(zé)任,但司法解釋并沒有明確以何種罪名追究;最可能的罪名是拒不執(zhí)行判決裁定罪,但是司法解釋并未明確人民法院要求被執(zhí)行人報(bào)告財(cái)產(chǎn)信息時(shí)是否使用裁定,如果不是,就不能追究拒不執(zhí)行判決裁定罪。因此,本文首先詳細(xì)介紹美國州法判決后的財(cái)務(wù)開示制度,選取美國最具代表性的兩個(gè)州的民事訴訟法的相關(guān)規(guī)定進(jìn)行研究。厘清美國州法判決后財(cái)務(wù)開示制度的結(jié)構(gòu)體系,總結(jié)出判決后財(cái)務(wù)開示的程序、范圍、例外和救濟(jì)制度。然后,將我國執(zhí)行方面的制度同美國州法判決后的財(cái)務(wù)開示制度進(jìn)行比較研究,介紹我國財(cái)產(chǎn)報(bào)告制度的司法實(shí)踐運(yùn)行狀況。文章通過上述的研究論證,最后提出應(yīng)該如何借鑒美國州法判決后的財(cái)務(wù)開示制度的具體方法,比如,強(qiáng)化被執(zhí)行人主動報(bào)告財(cái)務(wù)信息;強(qiáng)調(diào)報(bào)告的財(cái)務(wù)信息與案件的相關(guān)性;建立獨(dú)立權(quán)威的執(zhí)行機(jī)構(gòu)等措施,以保障我國財(cái)產(chǎn)報(bào)告制度在司法實(shí)踐中順利運(yùn)行,進(jìn)而解決我國亟待解決的“執(zhí)行難”問題。
[Abstract]:The system of financial disclosure after judgment is an important part of civil enforcement in the United States, and the rule system composed of contempt of court and perjury is the "sword of Darkmoz" that the United States guarantees the execution of smoothly. In the face of such strict laws and regulations, the executor regards financial disclosure as an obligation to urge him to fulfill the judgment voluntarily, which is the important reason why the United States does not have the problem of "difficult to enforce". The system of financial disclosure after judgment is not expressly stipulated in the rules of federal civil procedure, on the contrary, many states have detailed regulations and long judicial practice in state law. This article is to study the financial disclosure system after the judgment of American state law. In the United States, the financial disclosure system after judgment has been running in judicial practice for decades, and its system has been gradually improved, and the problems in the process of judicial practice have emerged. It has been solved by relevant amendments and typical precedents, and the system is more and more suitable for the needs of judicial practice. The property reporting system has been established in China since 1997, and there are still some imperfections in its development, which leads to ambiguity in the process of judicial application. In 2017, the Supreme Court issued the "Supreme people's Court on several issues in the civil execution of property investigation", but the provisions are still relatively general, and many theoretical issues have not been clarified. For example, if the parties refuse to report the relevant property information seriously, they should be investigated for criminal responsibility, but the judicial interpretation does not make it clear what kind of charges to be investigated; The most likely charge is refusing to execute the judgment and ruling, but the judicial interpretation does not make it clear whether the people's court requires the executor to report property information or not. If not, he cannot be investigated for refusing to execute the judgment or not. Therefore, this paper firstly introduces the financial disclosure system after the judgment of American state law in detail, and studies the relevant provisions of the civil procedure law of the two most representative states in the United States. This paper clarifies the structure system of financial disclosure system after judgment in American state law, summarizes the procedure, scope, exception and relief system of financial disclosure after judgment. Then, the author makes a comparative study of the enforcement system of our country and the financial disclosure system after the judgment of American state law, and introduces the judicial practice of the property reporting system in our country. Through the above research and argumentation, the paper puts forward how to draw lessons from the financial disclosure system after the judgment of American state law, for example, to strengthen the executor's initiative to report the financial information, to emphasize the relevance between the financial information of the report and the case. In order to ensure the smooth operation of the property report system in judicial practice, we should establish an independent and authoritative executive body, and then solve the problem of "difficult execution" that needs to be solved urgently in our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D971.2;DD915.2;D925.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 張虎;;中美民事執(zhí)行程序中的“財(cái)產(chǎn)披露”制度比較研究[J];政治與法律;2013年11期

2 高春紅;;民事執(zhí)行中被執(zhí)行人財(cái)產(chǎn)報(bào)告制度的現(xiàn)狀與完善[J];法制與社會;2013年31期

3 王偉國;;誠信體系建設(shè)法治保障的探索與構(gòu)想[J];中國法學(xué);2012年05期

4 錢穎萍;;論我國被執(zhí)行人財(cái)產(chǎn)報(bào)告制度之完善[J];重慶理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會科學(xué));2011年05期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 何曉斐;我國被執(zhí)行人財(cái)產(chǎn)報(bào)告制度研究[D];河南大學(xué);2016年

2 裴成君;關(guān)于我國民事“執(zhí)行難”問題的幾點(diǎn)探討[D];云南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2015年

3 張磊;民事案件執(zhí)行難問題研究[D];山東大學(xué);2014年

4 羅婷婷;論執(zhí)行中的財(cái)產(chǎn)報(bào)告制度[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號：2304019