本文選題：證明標準　切入點：對物沒收　出處：《法學(xué)論壇》2013年02期

【摘要】：刑訴法新增的違法所得沒收程序與英美法系國家的民事沒收程序有共同之處,即兩者的對象為物而非人,由此決定了違法所得沒收程序的證明標準應(yīng)是民事性的。但違法所得沒收程序參與各方的地位嚴重失衡,法院的權(quán)威性不足,犯罪嫌疑人、被告人財產(chǎn)權(quán)保障制度匱乏等"中國因素"又決定了英美等國普遍采用的優(yōu)勢證據(jù)證明標準并不完全適用于我國。在違法所得沒收程序中設(shè)置二元化的證明標準更為現(xiàn)實。申請人的證明標準原則上應(yīng)確定為明顯優(yōu)勢,同時,有無利害關(guān)系人的參與等因素要求對該標準進行靈活的、多層次的把握。為利害關(guān)系人確立優(yōu)勢證據(jù)證明標準則與其在程序中的地位和處境相契合。
[Abstract]:The new procedure of confiscation of illegal income in the Criminal procedure Law has something in common with the civil confiscation procedure in common law countries, that is, the object of both is the object rather than the person. Therefore, it is decided that the standard of proof of illegal income confiscation procedure should be civil. However, the status of the parties involved in the illegal income confiscation procedure is seriously out of balance, the authority of the court is insufficient, and the criminal suspect, The "Chinese factors" such as the lack of the defendant's property right guarantee system also decide that the standard of proof of superiority generally used in the United States and the United States and other countries is not fully applicable to our country. The dualistic standard of proof is set in the procedure of confiscation of illegal income. More realistic. The applicant's standard of proof should, in principle, be determined to be a distinct advantage, At the same time, the participation of interested parties and other factors require a flexible and multi-level grasp of the standard, and the establishment of evidence proof standards for the interested parties is consistent with their position and situation in the procedure.
【作者單位】： 四川大學(xué)法學(xué)院;
【分類號】：D915

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 牟軍;民事證明標準論綱——以刑事證明標準為對應(yīng)的一種解析[J];法商研究;2002年04期

2 汪顏芬;重構(gòu)我國民事訴訟證明標準[J];集美大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2004年01期

3 郝振江;民事訴訟證明標準[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2000年05期

【共引文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 徐瑩;;我國民事訴訟證明標準之重構(gòu)[J];太原師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2006年01期

2 牟聰,郭s，

本文編號：1667611