【摘要】：犯罪工具是指犯罪分子有意識(shí)地選擇對(duì)其實(shí)行行為或者犯罪成立起重大作用的財(cái)物。犯罪工具不同于違法所得和違禁品。違法所得是指被告人因?qū)嵤┓缸锘顒?dòng),而取得的全部錢或物等。如搶劫所得的金錢或者物品,盜竊和詐騙所得到的錢、物等;違禁品是指依據(jù)國家規(guī)定,公民不得私自留存、使用的物品。在犯罪工具的認(rèn)定上,域外相關(guān)立法主要采取的是直接專門理論和促進(jìn)理論。前者要求犯罪工具的使用與犯罪必須有直接關(guān)系,而且工具的選擇是專門為犯罪而準(zhǔn)備和使用的;后者要求認(rèn)定犯罪過程中出現(xiàn)的財(cái)物是否為犯罪工具必須對(duì)該財(cái)物是否與犯罪活動(dòng)有足夠的聯(lián)系或者密切聯(lián)系。在我國刑法學(xué)界,對(duì)犯罪工具的認(rèn)定主要應(yīng)當(dāng)堅(jiān)持犯罪性原則、緊密聯(lián)系性原則和功能性原則。對(duì)于沒收犯罪工具的性質(zhì),我國刑法理論上主要存在強(qiáng)制措施說、刑罰說、保安處分說、獨(dú)立的刑事實(shí)體處分措施說等學(xué)說。把沒收犯罪工具界定為強(qiáng)制措施、刑罰或者保安處分均存在理論上的瑕疵,界定為獨(dú)立的刑事實(shí)體處分措施比較合理。沒收犯罪工具應(yīng)堅(jiān)持比例性原則和第三人利益保護(hù)原則。前者要求在沒收犯罪工具時(shí)應(yīng)考慮到犯罪的危害程度與犯罪工具價(jià)值之間的比例關(guān)系;后者要求在沒收犯罪工具中應(yīng)注意保護(hù)第三人的合法利益。我國犯罪工具沒收保全程序的法律規(guī)定過簡(jiǎn)要,不僅司法機(jī)關(guān)操作空間過大,而且未明確保管犯罪工具的具體部門。針對(duì)這兩個(gè)問題,不僅應(yīng)當(dāng)建立司法審查制度,而且應(yīng)明確查封、扣押和凍結(jié)犯罪工具等涉案財(cái)物的具體標(biāo)準(zhǔn),同時(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)設(shè)立統(tǒng)一涉案財(cái)物保管中心。對(duì)于犯罪工具的處理如有異議,應(yīng)建立專門的救濟(jì)途徑。應(yīng)當(dāng)針對(duì)偵查、起訴和審判等不同訴訟環(huán)節(jié)建立相應(yīng)的救濟(jì)措施。如果辦案機(jī)關(guān)作出沒收犯罪工具的行為錯(cuò)誤,從而給當(dāng)事人帶來損失,可以選擇依據(jù)《中國人民共和國國家賠償法》的規(guī)定提出國家賠償。
[Abstract]:Criminal instrumentalities refer to the property that criminals consciously choose to act or commit crimes. Instruments of crime are different from illegal gains and contraband. Illegal income refers to all the money or things acquired by the defendant as a result of criminal activities. Such as robbery of money or goods, theft and fraud of money, goods and so on; contraband refers to according to the provisions of the state, citizens are not allowed to retain, use of goods. In the cognizance of crime instrument, the foreign related legislation mainly adopts the direct special theory and the promotion theory. The former requires that the use of criminal instrumentalities must have a direct relationship with crime and that the choice of instruments is specifically prepared and used for the purpose of crime; The latter requires that whether or not the property appearing in the course of the crime is a criminal instrument must have sufficient or close connection with the criminal activity. In the field of criminal law of our country, we should insist on the principle of crime, the principle of close connection and the principle of function. With regard to the nature of the confiscation of criminal instruments, there are mainly theories in the criminal law of our country, such as the theory of coercive measures, the theory of penalty, the theory of security measures, the theory of independent criminal entity measures, and so on. The confiscation of criminal instrument is defined as a coercive measure, and the penalty or security measure has theoretical defects, and it is more reasonable to define it as an independent criminal entity punishment measure. Confiscation of criminal instruments should adhere to the principle of proportionality and the protection of the interests of third parties. The former requires that the proportional relationship between the degree of harm of the crime and the value of the instrument should be taken into account when confiscating the criminal instrument, while the latter requires that attention should be paid to the protection of the legitimate interests of the third party in the confiscation of the criminal instrument. The legal provisions on the procedure of confiscation and preservation of criminal instrumentalities in our country are too brief, not only the operation space of judicial organs is too large, but also the specific department of custody of criminal instrumentalities is not clearly defined. In view of these two problems, we should not only establish the system of judicial review, but also make clear the specific standards for the seizure, seizure and freezing of criminal instrumentalities, and set up a unified custody center for the property involved in the case. If there are objections to the handling of criminal instrumentalities, a special remedy should be established. Corresponding relief measures should be established for different litigation links such as investigation, prosecution and trial. If the case handling organ makes the mistake of confiscating the criminal instrumentalities and thus brings losses to the parties, it may choose to propose the state compensation in accordance with the provisions of the State compensation Law of the people's Republic of China.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：河北大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D918.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張陽;郭小峰;;論“犯罪工具”的內(nèi)涵及其處理模式[J];昆明理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年05期

2 龐相梁;犯罪工具的沒收和處理[J];人民司法;1987年11期

3 鄒金偉;王勇哲;;論犯罪工具[J];公安大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);1989年04期

4 吳濤,金亮新;論犯罪工具[J];江蘇公安�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);1999年05期

5 王飛躍;;犯罪工具沒收研究[J];中外法學(xué);2010年04期

6 謝麗珍;葉揚(yáng);;論犯罪工具的沒收——兼評(píng)沒收“供犯罪所用的本人財(cái)物”規(guī)定的不足[J];溫州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2014年04期

7 寧詩敏,周建新;淡淡犯罪工具的證據(jù)作用及其認(rèn)定和處理[J];法治論叢;1993年04期

8 李錫海;;人性的創(chuàng)造性與犯罪[J];青少年犯罪問題;2014年01期

9 謝如程;論刑法中的犯罪方法[J];江蘇公安專科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);1997年03期

10 ;聲音[J];東西南北;2012年07期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 本報(bào)記者 趙陽;聾啞人為工作被操控成“犯罪工具”[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

2 本報(bào)記者 潘從武 本報(bào)通訊員 張?jiān)?微信尋友被不法分子利用成犯罪工具[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

3 茅億 茆素青;犯罪工具不應(yīng)由偵查機(jī)關(guān)沒收[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2006年

4 曾軍;犯罪工具一律沒收不妥[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2006年

5 許暉;“犯罪工具”不必一律沒收[N];民主與法制時(shí)報(bào);2007年

6 本報(bào)記者 游春亮 本報(bào)通訊員 關(guān)建勛 戎桂瑩;手機(jī)社交軟件竟成網(wǎng)絡(luò)色情犯罪工具[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2014年

7 江蘇省儀征市人民檢察院 程宏;以共有財(cái)產(chǎn)作為犯罪工具也應(yīng)沒收[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

8 本報(bào)記者 袁定波;“影子銀行”缺監(jiān)管淪為犯罪工具[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

9 茅億　茆素青;犯罪工具應(yīng)由法院判決沒收[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

10 虞又響;判決書應(yīng)當(dāng)載明犯罪工具沒收否[N];人民法院報(bào);2004年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 趙天陽;論應(yīng)予沒收的犯罪工具[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

2 賀成;我國犯罪工具沒收制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

3 范冰;刑法中特別沒收問題研究[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2015年

4 趙田茂;犯罪工具的認(rèn)定和處理[D];河北大學(xué);2017年

，

本文編號(hào)：2318699