被追诉人逃匿、死亡案件违法所得没收程度之完善

发布时间：2018-03-27 23:01

本文选题：刑事诉讼　切入点：违法所得　出处：《海南大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：联合国大会在2003年审议通过的《联合国反腐败公约》中明确规定了未定罪案件的刑事没收程序,此后各国（地区）相继在他们的诉讼制度中规定了该程序。我国也借修订《刑事诉讼法》之机,从我国的实际出发,并结合自身法律文化传统,在借鉴国外有关经验的基础上,设立了犯罪嫌疑人、被告人逃匿或死亡案件违法所得没收程序。2012年《刑事诉讼法》对该程序的规定仅有四条,内容粗糙,在程序设计上较为抽象,虽然此后陆续出台了相关的司法解释,但违法所得没收程序的许多内容在适用上还存在问题,本文试图分析该特别程序在适用上存在的问题与不足,进而提出完善违法所得没收程序的措施。除了引言和结语外,正文分为四个部分,共约三万余字。第一部分主要介绍了违法所得没收程序的一般理论,包括基本释义、特征、意义。第二部分集中分析了其他国家的违法所得没收程序,在介绍完英美法系中美国民事没收程序、英国民事追缴程序和澳大利亚犯罪收益追缴程序后,又对大陆法系的德国客观诉讼程序、意大利保安处分制度和台湾地区单独没收程序进行了总结。最后,从这些域外考察中得出了一些启示,以供我国违法所得没收程序参考。第三部分论述了我国违法所得没收程序在适用过程中所存在的问题,主要有五个方面,分别是程序的申请主体不合理、没收财产的界定不严谨、案件的适用范围不明晰、举证责任和证明标准不明确、权利的保障和救济不完备。第四部分论述了适用该程序应遵循的基本原则,并基于第三部分的分析,进一步提出解决问题的措施。在程序的申请主体上,应当赋予利害关系人的申请主体资格。设立激励机制,鼓励被追诉人的近亲属主动申请；在没收财产的界定上,非实体性财物应当纳入到没收的范围内,针对混合财产的没收要分情况处理,供犯罪所用的本人财物应排除在没收范围之外；适用的案件类型应做适当且明确的扩大,删除“等重大犯罪案件”这些具有类推性质的表述,不单单以案件的严重性和通缉时间来作为适用标准；利害关系人和检察机关应实行不同的证明标准；在权利的保障和救济上,应在公告通知方面做进一步的修改,完善涉案财物的保全措施。
[Abstract]:The United Nations Convention against Corruption, which was considered and adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2003, clearly provides for criminal confiscation procedures in unconvicted cases, Since then, various countries (regions) have stipulated this procedure in their litigation systems one after another. China has also taken the opportunity of amending the Criminal procedure Law, proceeding from the reality of our country and combining its own legal and cultural traditions, on the basis of drawing lessons from the relevant experiences of foreign countries. The criminal suspect, the defendant escaped to hide or died of illegal income confiscation procedures. 2012 "Criminal procedure Law" on this procedure only four provisions, rough content, in the program design is more abstract, Although the relevant judicial explanations have been issued since then, there are still some problems in the application of many contents of the illegal income confiscation procedure. This paper tries to analyze the problems and deficiencies in the application of the special procedure. Further, the measures to perfect the procedure of confiscation of illegal income are put forward. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the text is divided into four parts, a total of about 30,000 words. The first part mainly introduces the general theory of illegal income confiscation procedure, including the basic interpretation, characteristics and significance. The second part focuses on the analysis of the illegal income confiscation procedures in other countries. After introducing the American civil confiscation procedure, the British civil recovery procedure and the Australian criminal proceeds recovery procedure in the common law system, the second part focuses on the analysis of the illegal income confiscation procedure in other countries. It also summarizes the objective proceedings in Germany, the system of security measures in Italy and the separate confiscation procedure in Taiwan. Finally, some revelations are drawn from these overseas investigations for the reference of the confiscation procedure of illegal income in our country. The third part discusses the problems existing in the procedure of illegal income confiscation in our country. There are five main aspects: the application subject of procedure is unreasonable, the definition of confiscation property is not strict, and the scope of application of cases is not clear. The burden of proof and standard of proof are not clear, and the protection and remedy of right are not complete. The fourth part discusses the basic principles to be followed in the application of the procedure, and based on the analysis of the third part, puts forward further measures to solve the problem. An incentive mechanism shall be established to encourage the close relatives of the accused to take the initiative to apply; in the definition of confiscated property, the non-physical property shall be included in the scope of confiscation, Confiscation of mixed property should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and the personal property used for the crime should be excluded from the scope of confiscation; the applicable types of cases should be appropriately and explicitly expanded, The deletion of the analogous expression of "such major crime cases" should not be based solely on the seriousness of the case and the time of the wanted person as the applicable criterion; different standards of proof should be applied by interested parties and procuratorial authorities; In the aspect of protection and relief of rights, further modification should be made in the aspect of notice of announcement to perfect the preservation measures of property involved in the case.
【学位授予单位】：海南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】