本文選題：未定罪沒收 + 民事沒收�。� 參考：《西南政法大學》2015年博士論文

【摘要】：為打擊貪污賄賂、恐怖活動等重大犯罪和有效沒收涉案財物,2012年《刑事訴訟法》建立了未定罪沒收制度。該制度是指在未對犯罪嫌疑人、被告人定罪情形下,經具有沒收申請權的主體申請,由法院裁定是否沒收違法所得及其他涉案財物的特殊制度。本文由引言、正文和結語部分組成,正文分為五章。引言部分交代了寫作緣由和目的、國內外研究現(xiàn)狀、理論意義及實踐價值、研究方法以及創(chuàng)新之處。第一章為未定罪沒收制度概述。未經定罪的沒收制度在各國有不同稱謂。我國將其稱為未定罪沒收制度更為恰當。這體現(xiàn)該制度不以定罪為沒收基礎的特征,并有利于與域外類似制度銜接。國內外對未定罪沒收程序的屬性存在爭議。美國聯(lián)邦最高法院判例認為民事沒收程序屬于民事程序,歐洲人權法院及英國、澳大利亞的部分判例亦持此種觀點。但《聯(lián)合國反腐敗公約》及《英國2002年犯罪收益追繳法》認為其屬性刑民兼具。我國未定罪沒收程序規(guī)定于刑事訴訟法中,不僅立法目的體現(xiàn)了懲罰性,而且程序參與者與普通刑事訴訟程序基本相同,故其應屬于刑事訴訟程序。但是該程序的適用案件和財物范圍及適用的前提條件具有特殊性,故應屬于刑事訴訟特別程序。未定罪沒收制度的設立具有正當性基礎。有觀點認為該制度侵犯了嫌疑人、被告人的人權,影響了程序公正并且僅是為解決實踐難題而創(chuàng)設。此外,罪刑未定而先行對涉案財物沒收違反無罪推定原則。其實,未定罪沒收制度是權衡公正與效率價值的結果,是對正當程序的必要限度減損。該制度的確立符合矯正正義的要求。該制度的良好運行能夠充分保證涉案人員的合法財產權。該制度將涉案財物的處理與嫌疑人的罪責確定分離,故不違背無罪推定原則。未定罪沒收并非刑罰手段,即使未定罪沒收程序與刑事程序并行,也不違背“一事不再理原則”。英美等國的民事沒收(追繳)制度以及德國、我國臺灣地區(qū)的單獨沒收制度等,與我國未定罪沒收制度具有類似的功能。民事沒收(追繳)制度的適用目的、適用財產范圍和適用前提與我國類似。單獨沒收制度與我國未定罪沒收制度在適用財物范圍和適用前提方面具有一定相似性,但在適用目的及適用案件范圍方面都存在不同。第二章為未定罪沒收程序的啟動及相關問題。未定罪沒收程序因沒收申請的提出而啟動。針對程序的啟動條件,美國民事沒收程序為有合理懷疑財產與犯罪相關;英國民事追繳程序為存在刑事違法行為且有沒收違法所得的必要性;澳大利亞罰金令等三種民事追繳程序的啟動條件為有合理根據懷疑特定財物屬于特定犯罪之收益;我國臺灣地區(qū)單獨沒收程序為是否存在違禁品及犯罪所得等財物;德國單獨沒收程序為在無法對被追訴者進行追訴和裁判時存在應當沒收的財產;新加坡單獨沒收程序為貪污賄賂等罪的被追訴者逃匿或者死亡時存在應予沒收的財物。我國應當從以下方面完善啟動條件:準確界定“逃匿”、“通緝不能到案”、“犯罪嫌疑人、被告人死亡”的含義;刪除通緝需要達到“一年未能到案”的限制條件;明確共同犯罪中的啟動條件;將因犯罪已過追訴時效期限或經特赦令免除刑罰的作為未定罪沒收適用的情形。我國未定罪沒收的啟動主體為地市級檢察機關,受理主體為中級法院。美國民事沒收程序的啟動主體是司法部,財政部和郵政服務部等,受理主體為享有沒收管轄權的法院。英國民事追繳程序的啟動主體為資產追繳局局長、蘇格蘭大臣,受理主體為高等法院或蘇格蘭最高民事法院。澳大利亞民事追繳程序啟動主體為檢察官辦公室主任或檢察官,受理主體為擁有收益追繳管轄權的法院。德國單獨沒收程序的啟動主體為檢察院或自訴人,受理主體為擁有管轄權的法院。借鑒域外法律規(guī)定及我國普通刑事訴訟中被害人自訴權的規(guī)定,我國未定罪沒收程序應賦予被害人特定情形下的程序啟動權及申訴權等。在受理主體方面,我國應當堅持由中級法院作為受理和審理主體。未定罪沒收程序適用的案件范圍與程序啟動密切相關。針對適用的案件范圍,美國民事沒收適用于絕大多數(shù)的聯(lián)邦犯罪行為等;英國民事追繳程序適用于在本國發(fā)生的刑事違法行為或者在域外發(fā)生的符合雙重原則的犯罪行為等;澳大利亞民事追繳程序適用于可公訴罪或者嚴重的犯罪等。我國適用的案件范圍規(guī)定不清晰。針對刑事訴訟法的規(guī)定,應當準確界定“貪污賄賂犯罪”、“恐怖活動犯罪”的范圍,將毒品犯罪及洗錢罪列入法條重點列舉的罪名范圍,將“等重大犯罪”理解為兜底規(guī)定。針對最高法的司法解釋,應按照法定刑等方式確定“可能判處無期徒刑以上刑罰”的犯罪,從危害后果的影響及涉案或造成損失的金額確定“較大影響”,并刪除“其他重大犯罪案件”的規(guī)定。存在應沒收的財物是啟動未定罪沒收程序的前提。美國、英國和澳大利亞民事沒收(追繳)適用的財物范圍是犯罪收益及犯罪工具等財物。臺灣單獨沒收適用于違禁品和專科沒收財物。而我國適用的財物范圍不明確且法律術語界定不清晰,應當從廣義范疇認定“犯罪行為所取得的財物”;將“供犯罪所用的本人財物”界定為犯罪預備、未遂及既遂中的犯罪工具;從狹義角度界定“違禁品”,并以裁判時確定是否屬于“違禁品”。最后應在該程序中建立贓物善意取得制度,并將其排除在未定罪沒收適用的范圍之外。健全的財產保全制度是未定罪沒收程序順利進行的重要保障。域外各國民事沒收(追繳)程序突出財產保全的司法控制和財產保全措施的恰當性,并建立了財產托管、財產擔保等配套制度。我國司法審查原則及比例原則缺失,配套制度不健全。我國應確立對物強制性措施的司法令狀原則,明確適用具體保全措施的標準、批準的主體及令狀適用范圍。此外,我國還應建立財物托管制度、財產保全的異議制度、財產分割及返還制度、涉案財產擔保制度等配套制度。第三章為未定罪沒收程序的運行。美國民事沒收程序類似于我國一審的階段分為簡易程序和司法審理程序兩類。適用司法審理程序的民事沒收案件包含庭前調查、申請審查及審理階段,并可適用陪審團審理。澳大利亞民事追繳程序中,沒收申請?zhí)岢龊髴蚶骊P系人發(fā)出通知,如有人提出異議則進入司法程序。域外各國均注重對利害關系人的權利保護。我國一審程序的程序設置不完善,對嫌疑人、被告人及利害關系人的權利保障不充分。我國應當準確界定利害關系人的范圍,明確必須開庭審理的審理方式,縮短審理期限。從完善公告制度和回轉程序規(guī)定、建立指定訴訟代理制度等方面加強對嫌疑人、被告人的權利保障;從完善對其權利告知方式和庭審權利、賦予其申請法律援助權以及明確未定罪沒收案件應當公開審理等方面加強對利害關系人的權利保障。針對未定罪沒收的二審程序,英國民事追繳程序中規(guī)定申請方和權利主張方在不同區(qū)域,可分別向刑事法院、最高民事法院等提起上訴�！�2002年犯罪收益追繳法》規(guī)定的刑事沒收類似于未定罪沒收,資產追繳局局長及檢察官、權利主張人針對該類沒收可分別向上訴法院及上議院上訴。澳大利亞民事追繳程序中,檢察官及權利主張人可針對沒收令等提出上訴。我國二審程序中規(guī)定的上訴和抗訴提起期限不恰當,未賦予上一級檢察機關撤回抗訴權且未明確規(guī)定二審的審理方式。因此,我國應將上訴和抗訴期限延長為10日,賦予上一級檢察機關撤回抗訴權并明確規(guī)定二審應當開庭審理。未定罪沒收的救濟程序有利于保障參與各方的權利。英國民事追繳程序從錯誤的認定、申請主體及提出救濟的期限等方面規(guī)定如何對生效的裁決進行救濟。德國刑事訴訟法規(guī)定了對生效的單獨沒收裁定如何救濟及第三人對生效裁定擁有異議權。我國救濟程序中財產回轉程序的規(guī)定不完善,未規(guī)定其他利害關系人的申訴權及一審檢察機關提請抗訴權。因此,我國應當完善財產回轉程序的運行主體和錯誤沒收財產的返還及賠償措施,規(guī)定其他利害關系人的申訴權以及賦予一審檢察機關提請抗訴權等。第四章為未定罪沒收的證明制度。美國和英國民事沒收(追繳)程序中的主要證明對象是存在違法犯罪行為和應沒收的財物,以及違法犯罪行為與應沒收財物之間具有實質聯(lián)系。我國未定罪沒收程序中的證明對象應包括適格犯罪嫌疑人、被告人存在犯罪事實、財產屬于應沒收的范圍及證據的合法性等程序性事實。美國、澳大利亞民事沒收(追繳)程序中證明責任分配的基本原則是誰主張,誰舉證。德國單獨沒收程序規(guī)定了利害關系人的舉證責任。英國民事追繳程序確立了特定情況下的舉證責任倒置。《反腐敗公約》等國際公約針對有組織犯罪和腐敗犯罪規(guī)定了對財產合法性問題的舉證責任倒置。我國未定罪沒收程序應當規(guī)定利害關系人對沒收財物主張權利時,對該異議承擔舉證責任;對貪污賄賂類犯罪中的財產合法性問題適用舉證責任倒置。未定罪沒收程序適用的證明標準存在較大爭議。美國、愛爾蘭、新西蘭、加拿大、南非、澳大利亞和英國民事沒收(追繳)程序均適用優(yōu)勢證據的證明標準。我國未定罪沒收程序中適用優(yōu)勢證據的證明標準能夠保障程序的獨立性,避免未定罪沒收與定罪沒收混淆,便于我國未定罪沒收程序與域外類似程序的銜接。而且該證明標準體現(xiàn)了未定罪沒收程序作為刑事訴訟特別程序的特殊性,體現(xiàn)了該程序作為對“物的訴訟”的特殊性。該證明標準有利于確保程序的有效運行、保障公民合法財產權及有效追繳違法所得,體現(xiàn)了未定罪沒收程序兼顧訴訟公正與訴訟效率的理念。故我國應當確立該證明標準。第五章為未定罪沒收裁定執(zhí)行的國際協(xié)助。從立法現(xiàn)狀來看,雖然簽訂《反腐敗公約》等國際條約為我國未定罪沒收裁定執(zhí)行的司法協(xié)助提供了部分法律依據,但我國缺乏針對該問題的完整法律體系。這導致未定罪沒收裁定的國際司法協(xié)助缺乏指引規(guī)范,造成公約和協(xié)定對相關法律術語表述及沒收適用的財產范圍規(guī)定不一致等問題。資產分享機制及費用補償機制的缺失影響未定罪沒收域外執(zhí)行力。此外,我國承認與執(zhí)行域外沒收裁決的制度不完善,導致未定罪沒收裁定域外執(zhí)行缺乏互惠對等的基礎。我國應統(tǒng)一公約和協(xié)定中與沒收相關的法律術語及未定罪沒收適用的財物范圍,明確未定罪沒收裁決作為國際司法協(xié)助的依據。我國應在國內立法及簽訂國際公約和對外協(xié)定時,以對等待遇的資產分享標準確立資產分享機制,確立未定罪沒收國際協(xié)助的費用補償機制。我國還應確定應予承認和執(zhí)行的域外沒收裁決的范圍,并完善對應的司法審查制度。我國應當完善資產轉移監(jiān)測制度,避免違法所得轉移至境外或去向不明,保障未定罪沒收裁定國際司法協(xié)助順利進行。最后為結語部分。對全文進行歸納總結,并對我國未定罪沒收制度的發(fā)展及研究前景進行展望。
[Abstract]:In order to combat major crimes such as corruption, bribery, terrorist activities and the effective confiscation of the property involved, the system of unconvicted confiscation was established in the criminal procedure law in 2012. This system refers to the application of the subject of confiscation with the subject of confiscation and the confiscation of illegal income and other related property in the case of the conviction of the accused and the accused. This article is composed of the introduction, the text and the conclusion part, and the text is divided into five chapters. The introduction explains the reason and purpose of writing, the present situation at home and abroad, the theoretical significance and practical value, the research method and the innovation. The first chapter is an overview of the unconvicted confiscation system. The unconvicted confiscation system has different appellations in various countries. It is more appropriate for the state to call it a confiscation system. It embodies the characteristics of the system, which is not the basis of confiscation, and is conducive to a similar system with extraterritorial applications. There is a dispute over the property of the confiscation procedure at home and abroad. Some of the jurisprudence of Australia also holds this view. But the United Nations Convention against corruption and the 2002 law on the recovery of the proceeds of crime in the United Kingdom believe that they have both the property and the penalty. The procedure for the confiscation of non convictions in our country is stipulated in the criminal procedure law, which not only embodies the punitive nature of the legislative purpose, but also the procedural participants are basically the same as the ordinary criminal procedure. It should be a criminal procedure. However, the application of the case, the scope of the property and the premise of its application are special, so it should belong to the special procedure of the criminal procedure. The establishment of the system of confiscation of the crime of impartiality has a legitimate basis. It is believed that the system violates the human rights of the suspect and the accused, and affects the procedural justice and only It is created to solve the practical problems. In addition, the confiscation of the criminal and criminal property is in violation of the principle of presumption of innocence. In fact, the system of unconvicted confiscation is the result of balancing the value of justice and efficiency, and is a loss of the necessary limits of due process. The establishment of the system conforms to the requirements of Jiao Zhengzheng's righteousness. The good operation of the system can be fully implemented. The system ensures the legal property rights of the persons involved in the case. The system separates the handling of the property involved and the criminal responsibility of the suspect, so it does not violate the principle of presumption of innocence. The confiscation of the crime is not a means of punishment. Even if the procedure for the confiscation of the conviction is parallel to the criminal procedure, it is not contrary to the "principle of no longer". The civil confiscation (recovery) system of Britain and the United States and other countries As well as Germany, the separate confiscation system in the Taiwan area of our country has similar functions to our country's non convicted confiscation system. The application purpose of the civil confiscation system and the application of the property scope and application premise are similar to that of our country. The second chapter is the start of the procedure for the confiscation of the offense and the related issues. The proceedings of the confiscation of the non convictions are initiated because of the application of confiscation. In view of the starting conditions of the procedure, the civil confiscation procedure in the United States is related to the reasonable suspicion of property and the crime; the British civil pursuit is pursued. The procedure is the necessity of the existence of criminal offenses and the confiscation of illegal income; the starting conditions for the three civil pursuit procedures, such as the Australian fine order, are reasonable based on the suspicion that the specific property belongs to the income of a specific crime; the separate confiscation procedure in the Taiwan region of our country is the existence of the property that violates the prohibited goods and the proceeds of the crime; Germany alone does not. The collection procedure is the property that should be confiscated when it is unable to prosecute and judge the accused; Singapore's separate confiscation procedure is the confiscated property to be confiscated when the accused of corruption and bribery, such as corruption and bribery, should be confiscated. The meaning of the death of a criminal suspect or the defendant; the deletion of the arrest warrant required to reach a "one year failure to the case"; to clarify the conditions for the initiation of a joint crime; the case of an un convicted confiscation due to the limitation period of the prosecution or the special amnesty. The main body of the civil confiscation procedure in the United States is the Ministry of justice, the Ministry of Finance and the postal service, etc. the subject of the admissibility is the court of confiscation of jurisdiction. The main body of the civil pursuit procedure in the United Kingdom is the director of the asset recovery Bureau, the minister of Scotland, the subject of the high court or the highest civil in Scotland. The main body of the Australian civil pursuit procedure is the chief or prosecutor of the office of the prosecutor. The main body of the admissible subject is the jurisdiction of the court. The main body of the German confiscation procedure is the procuratorate or the self-prosecution, the subject of the admissible subject is the court of jurisdiction. According to the provisions of the victim's right of appeal, the procedure for the non convictions and confiscation of our country should give the victim the right to start the procedure and the right to appeal. In the subject of acceptance, our country should adhere to the intermediate court as the subject of acceptance and trial. The scope of cases applicable to the non convictions confiscation procedure is closely related to the initiation of the procedure. The civil confiscation of the United States is applicable to most of the federal criminal acts; the British civil pursuit procedure applies to criminal offences in the country or the criminal acts that occur in the extraterritorial manner; the Australian civil pursuit procedure is applicable to the crime of public prosecution or a serious crime. According to the provisions of the criminal procedure law, the scope of "crime of corruption and bribery", the scope of "terrorist crime" should be defined, the scope of drug crime and money laundering are included in the scope of the emphasis listed in the law, and "such major crimes" should be understood as the stipulation of the bottom of the pocket. To determine the "possible sentence of the above sentence of life imprisonment", from the impact of the consequences and the amount involved in the case or the amount of the loss to determine the "greater impact", and delete the provisions of "other major criminal cases". The applicable scope of the property is the property of the proceeds of crime and the tools of the crime. Taiwan is confiscated on a separate basis and the confiscation of the property of the specialist. However, the scope of the applicable property in our country is not clear and the definition of the legal terms is not clear. It should be identified from the broad scope of the "property obtained by the crime"; and the "property for the crime used" should be bounded. It is defined as a criminal preparation, attempted and accomplished criminal tool; defined "contraband" from a narrow sense and determined whether it belongs to "contraband" at the time of the referee. In the end, it should establish a system of bona fide acquisition of stolen goods and exclude it from the scope of the confiscation of unconvicted confiscation. A sound property preservation system is an unconvicted confiscation process. The civil confiscation (recovery) procedure of foreign countries highlights the judicial control of property preservation and the appropriateness of property preservation measures, and establishes a supporting system for property trusteeship and property guarantee. The principle of judicial review and the principle of proportion in our country are missing and the matching system is not perfect. The principle of law, the standard of the concrete preservation measures, the subject of approval and the scope of the application of the warrant. In addition, our country should also establish the system of property trusteeship, the dissenting system of property preservation, the system of property division and return, and the system of property guarantee involving the case. The third chapter is the operation of the unconvicted confiscation procedure. The order of the first instance in China is divided into two categories: summary procedure and judicial trial procedure. Civil confiscation cases applicable to judicial proceedings include a pre court investigation, application for review and trial, and can be applied to jury trial. In the Australian civil pursuit procedure, a notification should be issued to the stakeholders after the application of confiscation, such as someone. The objection comes into the judicial procedure. All the countries outside the country pay attention to the protection of the rights of the interested persons. The procedure setting of the first instance of our country is not perfect, and the rights of the suspects, the accused and the interested persons are not fully guaranteed. Time limit. To strengthen the protection of the rights of the suspects and the defendants from the improvement of the notice system and the provisions of the revolving procedure and the establishment of the system of designated litigation and agency; to strengthen the interests of the interested persons from the aspects of improving the right to inform and the court, giving it the right to apply for legal aid and the clear case of the confiscation of the conviction. In accordance with the procedure of the second instance of the confiscation of the non convictions, the British civil pursuit procedure stipulates that the applicant and the right holder are in different areas, and can be submitted to the criminal court, the supreme civil court, and so on, to appeal the criminal confiscation of the criminal proceeds of the.<2002 year, as stipulated in the criminal confiscation, which is similar to the confiscation of the offense, the director of the asset recovery Bureau and the prosecutor. The propositions can appeal to the court of appeal and the house of Lords for the confiscation of this kind. In the Australian civil pursuit procedure, the prosecutor and the rights propositions may appeal against the confiscation order. The time limit for appeal and protest stipulated in the second trial procedure of our country is not appropriate, and it is not given to the procuratorial organs at the first level to withdraw the right of protest and is not clearly stipulated. Therefore, our country should extend the appeal and protest period to 10 days, give the procuratorial organ of the first class to withdraw the right of protest and clearly stipulate that the second instance should be trial. The relief procedure which is not convicted of confiscation is beneficial to guarantee the rights of all parties involved. The provisions of the period of time stipulate how to remedies the ruling ruling. The German Criminal Procedure Law provides for the remedies of the ruling individual confiscation adjudication and the right to dissenting the three party to the ruling ruling. The provisions of the procedure for the rotation of property in China's relief procedures are imperfect, and the right to appeal to other interested parties and the procuratorial organs of first instance are not provided. Therefore, our country should improve the main body of the operation of the property revolution and the reclaim and compensation measures for the wrongful confiscation of property, the right to appeal to other interested parties and the right to appeal to the procuratorial organ of the first instance. The fourth chapter is the system of proof of the confiscation of the non convictions. The principal of the civil confiscation (recovery) procedure of the United States and the United Kingdom It is necessary to prove that the object is the existence of illegal and criminal behavior and the property that should be confiscated, as well as the substantive connection between the criminal act and the confiscation of property. The object of proof in the procedure of unconvicted confiscation in our country should include the criminal suspect, the defendant has the fact of the crime, the property belongs to the scope of the confiscation and the legality of the evidence. The basic principle of the distribution of responsibility in the civil confiscation of the United States, the United States of America, is the basic principle of the burden of proof. The individual confiscation procedure in Germany stipulates the burden of proof for the interested persons. The British civil pursuit procedure establishes the inversion of the burden of proof under specific circumstances. The international conventions, such as the anti-corruption convention, are aimed at organized crime. And the corruption crime stipulates the inversion of the burden of proof on the problem of property legality. The procedure of the non conviction confiscation in our country should stipulate the burden of proof on the objection when the interested party is to claim the right of the confiscation of property; the inversion of the burden of proof should be applied to the problem of property legality in the crime of corruption and bribery. The proof of the application of the procedure for the confiscation of the crime of inconviction is applicable. There are considerable disputes. The United States, Ireland, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, Australia and the British civil confiscation procedures apply the proof of the evidence of superiority. The standard of proof applicable to the predominance evidence in our non convictions confiscation procedure can guarantee the independence of the procedure and avoid confusion between the confiscation of the convictions and the confiscation of convictions and the convenience of me. The convergence of confiscation procedures and similar procedures outside the country is not yet convicted, and the standard of proof reflects the conviction and confiscation procedure as a criminal procedure.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D925.2

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 王敏遠;;完善司法公正的體制性基礎——以刑事司法為視角的分析[J];中國司法;2014年11期

2 奚瑋;張敬博;;違法所得沒收程序的正當性之辨[J];西南民族大學學報(人文社會科學版);2014年04期

3 黃風;;論“沒收個人全部財產”刑罰的廢止——以追繳犯罪資產的國際合作為視角[J];法商研究;2014年01期

4 李昌林;;刑事證據排除的范圍、階段和機制[J];廣東社會科學;2013年06期

5 龍宗智;;新刑事訴訟法實施:半年初判[J];清華法學;2013年05期

6 初殿清;;違法所得沒收特別程序的性質與案件范圍[J];法學雜志;2013年08期

7 施鵬鵬;周婧;;刑事訴訟中的“軟法”現(xiàn)象及解讀[J];社會科學研究;2013年04期

8 王君祥;;論違法所得沒收特別程序的證明[J];河南科技大學學報(社會科學版);2013年02期

9 陳瑞華;;關于證據法基本概念的一些思考[J];中國刑事法雜志;2013年03期

10 向燕;;論刑事沒收及其保全的對象范圍[J];中國刑事法雜志;2013年03期

相關博士學位論文 前4條

1 魏曉倩;腐敗犯罪所得跨境追回國際法律問題研究[D];大連海事大學;2012年

2 林雪標;腐敗資產跨境追回問題研究[D];吉林大學;2011年

3 裴兆斌;追繳腐敗犯罪所得國際司法協(xié)助研究[D];大連海事大學;2011年

4 李長坤;刑事涉案財物處理制度研究[D];華東政法大學;2010年

，

本文編號：2101960