本文選題：違法所得沒收 + 適用范圍��； 參考：《遼寧大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：《北京反腐敗宣言》明確將違法所得沒收程序作為法定的追贓方式,違法所得沒收程序逐漸凸顯出在域外追贓中的程序性價(jià)值。本文主要從違法所沒收程序設(shè)立的背景、價(jià)值及性質(zhì),我國(guó)違法所得沒收程序在域外追贓中的問題,相關(guān)國(guó)家法律制度的對(duì)比和借鑒,相關(guān)問題的完善等方面對(duì)域外追贓背景下違法所得沒收程序問題進(jìn)行全面分析、研究。運(yùn)用對(duì)比研究的方式對(duì)實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)的問題進(jìn)行深入分析,找出解決問題的完善建議。本文首先通過對(duì)比傳統(tǒng)的追贓方式,引入違法所得沒收程序。對(duì)違法所得沒收程序的介紹包括:該程序的設(shè)立背景及作用、該程序的性質(zhì)定位之爭(zhēng)、筆者關(guān)于該程序性質(zhì)的認(rèn)識(shí)。其次本文借助違法所得沒收程序的國(guó)內(nèi)運(yùn)行和域外執(zhí)行兩個(gè)大的方面概括出其在域外追贓背景下的困境:關(guān)于適用問題,其存在適用條件苛刻、啟動(dòng)主體裁量權(quán)過大、管轄法院不足的問題;關(guān)于配套制度問題,其存在客觀行為的判斷過于片面、明知的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不符合司法實(shí)踐、政府間協(xié)助過于空洞化的問題;關(guān)于權(quán)利保障問題,其存在被指控人代理權(quán)限制過多、庭審方式不合理的問題;關(guān)于域外執(zhí)行,其存在缺乏相互承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行制度,缺乏涉案資產(chǎn)分享機(jī)制的問題。再次通過對(duì)不同國(guó)家關(guān)于違法所得沒收程序的設(shè)立及域外執(zhí)行制度的對(duì)比研究,比較與評(píng)析了各種立法模式的特點(diǎn)以及它們對(duì)我國(guó)的借鑒意義。最后針對(duì)上述問題,提出相關(guān)改進(jìn)建議。建議優(yōu)化程序適用,明確適用條件、限制啟動(dòng)主體的裁量權(quán)以及明確法院的管轄;完善相關(guān)配套制度,增加判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、細(xì)化明知的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)以及統(tǒng)籌理論和實(shí)踐層面的協(xié)助;健全權(quán)利保障途徑,強(qiáng)化被指控人的代理權(quán)以及強(qiáng)化開庭審理;違法所得沒收程序序域外執(zhí)行體系構(gòu)建,建議承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行外國(guó)沒收裁決的立法設(shè)計(jì);費(fèi)用補(bǔ)償制度的設(shè)立。
[Abstract]:The Beijing Anti-Corruption Declaration explicitly regards the procedure of confiscation of illegal proceeds as a statutory way of recovering stolen goods, and the procedure of confiscation of illegal gains gradually highlights the procedural value of recovering stolen goods outside the country. This article mainly from the illegal confiscation procedure set up the background, the value and the nature, our country illegal income forfeiture procedure in the overseas recovery stolen goods question, the correlation national legal system contrast and the use for reference, The improvement of the related issues on the background of illegal proceeds confiscation under the background of comprehensive analysis, research. This paper analyzes the problems in practice by means of comparative study, and finds out the perfect suggestions to solve the problems. Firstly, this paper introduces the procedure of confiscation of illegal gains by comparing the traditional methods of collecting stolen goods. The introduction to the procedure of confiscation of illegal income includes: the background and function of the procedure, the dispute about the nature of the procedure, and the author's understanding of the nature of the procedure. Secondly, with the help of the domestic operation and the extra-territorial implementation of the illegal income confiscation procedure, this paper summarizes its predicament under the background of the extraterritorial pursuit of stolen goods: on the issue of application, its application conditions are harsh, and the discretion to start the subject is too large. The problem of insufficient jurisdiction of the court; on the issue of the matching system, the judgment of the existence of objective acts is too one-sided, the criterion of knowing that the determination standard is not in line with judicial practice, the question of the emptiness of intergovernmental assistance; and the question of the protection of rights, There are too many restrictions on the power of attorney of accused persons and unreasonable trial methods, and there is a lack of mutual recognition and enforcement system, and a lack of asset sharing mechanism involved in the case. Thirdly, through the comparative study on the establishment of illegal income confiscation procedure and the system of extra-territorial implementation in different countries, this paper compares and evaluates the characteristics of various legislative models and their reference significance to our country. Finally, to solve the above problems, some suggestions for improvement are put forward. It is suggested that the procedure should be optimized, the applicable conditions should be clarified, the discretion of the starters should be limited and the jurisdiction of the court should be defined, the relevant supporting system should be perfected, the judgment standard should be added, the standard of cognizance of knowledge should be refined, and the assistance of theory and practice should be integrated. Perfect the right safeguard way, strengthen the accused person's agency right and strengthen the court hearing; construct the illegal income confiscation procedure order extraterritorial execution system, propose the legislative design of recognizing and executing the foreign confiscation award; establish the expense compensation system.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D997.9

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 謝雄偉;;論刑事違法所得沒收的本質(zhì)、內(nèi)涵與計(jì)算方法[J];法學(xué)論壇;2016年05期

2 簡(jiǎn)樂偉;;違法所得沒收程序適用中的問題與應(yīng)對(duì)[J];暨南學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年01期

3 毛興勤;;違法所得沒收裁定的域外執(zhí)行:機(jī)遇、挑戰(zhàn)與進(jìn)路[J];法治研究;2014年03期

4 張書琴;;違法所得特別沒收程序與刑事缺席審判比較研究[J];學(xué)術(shù)探索;2013年11期

5 馬康;;試論法違法所得沒收程序的性質(zhì)及證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];安徽警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年06期

6 熊秋紅;;從特別沒收程序的性質(zhì)看制度完善[J];法學(xué);2013年09期

7 趙秉志;;論我國(guó)反腐敗刑事法治的完善[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2013年03期

8 周曉永;;檢察機(jī)關(guān)適用違法所得特別沒收程序的思考[J];人民檢察;2013年06期

9 向燕;;論刑事沒收及其保全的對(duì)象范圍[J];中國(guó)刑事法雜志;2013年03期

10 陳衛(wèi)東;;論新《刑事訴訟法》中的判決前財(cái)產(chǎn)沒收程序[J];法學(xué)論壇;2012年03期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 魏雨o，

本文編號(hào)：1850989