未定罪没收制度研究

发布时间：2018-07-06 07:25

本文选题：未定罪没收 + 民事没收　；参考：《西南政法大学》2015年博士论文

【摘要】：为打击贪污贿赂、恐怖活动等重大犯罪和有效没收涉案财物,2012年《刑事诉讼法》建立了未定罪没收制度。该制度是指在未对犯罪嫌疑人、被告人定罪情形下,经具有没收申请权的主体申请,由法院裁定是否没收违法所得及其他涉案财物的特殊制度。本文由引言、正文和结语部分组成,正文分为五章。引言部分交代了写作缘由和目的、国内外研究现状、理论意义及实践价值、研究方法以及创新之处。第一章为未定罪没收制度概述。未经定罪的没收制度在各国有不同称谓。我国将其称为未定罪没收制度更为恰当。这体现该制度不以定罪为没收基础的特征,并有利于与域外类似制度衔接。国内外对未定罪没收程序的属性存在争议。美国联邦最高法院判例认为民事没收程序属于民事程序,欧洲人权法院及英国、澳大利亚的部分判例亦持此种观点。但《联合国反腐败公约》及《英国2002年犯罪收益追缴法》认为其属性刑民兼具。我国未定罪没收程序规定于刑事诉讼法中,不仅立法目的体现了惩罚性,而且程序参与者与普通刑事诉讼程序基本相同,故其应属于刑事诉讼程序。但是该程序的适用案件和财物范围及适用的前提条件具有特殊性,故应属于刑事诉讼特别程序。未定罪没收制度的设立具有正当性基础。有观点认为该制度侵犯了嫌疑人、被告人的人权,影响了程序公正并且仅是为解决实践难题而创设。此外,罪刑未定而先行对涉案财物没收违反无罪推定原则。其实,未定罪没收制度是权衡公正与效率价值的结果,是对正当程序的必要限度减损。该制度的确立符合矫正正义的要求。该制度的良好运行能够充分保证涉案人员的合法财产权。该制度将涉案财物的处理与嫌疑人的罪责确定分离,故不违背无罪推定原则。未定罪没收并非刑罚手段,即使未定罪没收程序与刑事程序并行,也不违背“一事不再理原则”。英美等国的民事没收(追缴)制度以及德国、我国台湾地区的单独没收制度等,与我国未定罪没收制度具有类似的功能。民事没收(追缴)制度的适用目的、适用财产范围和适用前提与我国类似。单独没收制度与我国未定罪没收制度在适用财物范围和适用前提方面具有一定相似性,但在适用目的及适用案件范围方面都存在不同。第二章为未定罪没收程序的启动及相关问题。未定罪没收程序因没收申请的提出而启动。针对程序的启动条件,美国民事没收程序为有合理怀疑财产与犯罪相关;英国民事追缴程序为存在刑事违法行为且有没收违法所得的必要性;澳大利亚罚金令等三种民事追缴程序的启动条件为有合理根据怀疑特定财物属于特定犯罪之收益;我国台湾地区单独没收程序为是否存在违禁品及犯罪所得等财物;德国单独没收程序为在无法对被追诉者进行追诉和裁判时存在应当没收的财产;新加坡单独没收程序为贪污贿赂等罪的被追诉者逃匿或者死亡时存在应予没收的财物。我国应当从以下方面完善启动条件:准确界定“逃匿”、“通缉不能到案”、“犯罪嫌疑人、被告人死亡”的含义;删除通缉需要达到“一年未能到案”的限制条件;明确共同犯罪中的启动条件;将因犯罪已过追诉时效期限或经特赦令免除刑罚的作为未定罪没收适用的情形。我国未定罪没收的启动主体为地市级检察机关,受理主体为中级法院。美国民事没收程序的启动主体是司法部,财政部和邮政服务部等,受理主体为享有没收管辖权的法院。英国民事追缴程序的启动主体为资产追缴局局长、苏格兰大臣,受理主体为高等法院或苏格兰最高民事法院。澳大利亚民事追缴程序启动主体为检察官办公室主任或检察官,受理主体为拥有收益追缴管辖权的法院。德国单独没收程序的启动主体为检察院或自诉人,受理主体为拥有管辖权的法院。借鉴域外法律规定及我国普通刑事诉讼中被害人自诉权的规定,我国未定罪没收程序应赋予被害人特定情形下的程序启动权及申诉权等。在受理主体方面,我国应当坚持由中级法院作为受理和审理主体。未定罪没收程序适用的案件范围与程序启动密切相关。针对适用的案件范围,美国民事没收适用于绝大多数的联邦犯罪行为等;英国民事追缴程序适用于在本国发生的刑事违法行为或者在域外发生的符合双重原则的犯罪行为等;澳大利亚民事追缴程序适用于可公诉罪或者严重的犯罪等。我国适用的案件范围规定不清晰。针对刑事诉讼法的规定,应当准确界定“贪污贿赂犯罪”、“恐怖活动犯罪”的范围,将毒品犯罪及洗钱罪列入法条重点列举的罪名范围,将“等重大犯罪”理解为兜底规定。针对最高法的司法解释,应按照法定刑等方式确定“可能判处无期徒刑以上刑罚”的犯罪,从危害后果的影响及涉案或造成损失的金额确定“较大影响”,并删除“其他重大犯罪案件”的规定。存在应没收的财物是启动未定罪没收程序的前提。美国、英国和澳大利亚民事没收(追缴)适用的财物范围是犯罪收益及犯罪工具等财物。台湾单独没收适用于违禁品和专科没收财物。而我国适用的财物范围不明确且法律术语界定不清晰,应当从广义范畴认定“犯罪行为所取得的财物”;将“供犯罪所用的本人财物”界定为犯罪预备、未遂及既遂中的犯罪工具;从狭义角度界定“违禁品”,并以裁判时确定是否属于“违禁品”。最后应在该程序中建立赃物善意取得制度,并将其排除在未定罪没收适用的范围之外。健全的财产保全制度是未定罪没收程序顺利进行的重要保障。域外各国民事没收(追缴)程序突出财产保全的司法控制和财产保全措施的恰当性,并建立了财产托管、财产担保等配套制度。我国司法审查原则及比例原则缺失,配套制度不健全。我国应确立对物强制性措施的司法令状原则,明确适用具体保全措施的标准、批准的主体及令状适用范围。此外,我国还应建立财物托管制度、财产保全的异议制度、财产分割及返还制度、涉案财产担保制度等配套制度。第三章为未定罪没收程序的运行。美国民事没收程序类似于我国一审的阶段分为简易程序和司法审理程序两类。适用司法审理程序的民事没收案件包含庭前调查、申请审查及审理阶段,并可适用陪审团审理。澳大利亚民事追缴程序中,没收申请提出后应向利益关系人发出通知,如有人提出异议则进入司法程序。域外各国均注重对利害关系人的权利保护。我国一审程序的程序设置不完善,对嫌疑人、被告人及利害关系人的权利保障不充分。我国应当准确界定利害关系人的范围,明确必须开庭审理的审理方式,缩短审理期限。从完善公告制度和回转程序规定、建立指定诉讼代理制度等方面加强对嫌疑人、被告人的权利保障;从完善对其权利告知方式和庭审权利、赋予其申请法律援助权以及明确未定罪没收案件应当公开审理等方面加强对利害关系人的权利保障。针对未定罪没收的二审程序,英国民事追缴程序中规定申请方和权利主张方在不同区域,可分别向刑事法院、最高民事法院等提起上诉。《2002年犯罪收益追缴法》规定的刑事没收类似于未定罪没收,资产追缴局局长及检察官、权利主张人针对该类没收可分别向上诉法院及上议院上诉。澳大利亚民事追缴程序中,检察官及权利主张人可针对没收令等提出上诉。我国二审程序中规定的上诉和抗诉提起期限不恰当,未赋予上一级检察机关撤回抗诉权且未明确规定二审的审理方式。因此,我国应将上诉和抗诉期限延长为10日,赋予上一级检察机关撤回抗诉权并明确规定二审应当开庭审理。未定罪没收的救济程序有利于保障参与各方的权利。英国民事追缴程序从错误的认定、申请主体及提出救济的期限等方面规定如何对生效的裁决进行救济。德国刑事诉讼法规定了对生效的单独没收裁定如何救济及第三人对生效裁定拥有异议权。我国救济程序中财产回转程序的规定不完善,未规定其他利害关系人的申诉权及一审检察机关提请抗诉权。因此,我国应当完善财产回转程序的运行主体和错误没收财产的返还及赔偿措施,规定其他利害关系人的申诉权以及赋予一审检察机关提请抗诉权等。第四章为未定罪没收的证明制度。美国和英国民事没收(追缴)程序中的主要证明对象是存在违法犯罪行为和应没收的财物,以及违法犯罪行为与应没收财物之间具有实质联系。我国未定罪没收程序中的证明对象应包括适格犯罪嫌疑人、被告人存在犯罪事实、财产属于应没收的范围及证据的合法性等程序性事实。美国、澳大利亚民事没收(追缴)程序中证明责任分配的基本原则是谁主张,谁举证。德国单独没收程序规定了利害关系人的举证责任。英国民事追缴程序确立了特定情况下的举证责任倒置。《反腐败公约》等国际公约针对有组织犯罪和腐败犯罪规定了对财产合法性问题的举证责任倒置。我国未定罪没收程序应当规定利害关系人对没收财物主张权利时,对该异议承担举证责任;对贪污贿赂类犯罪中的财产合法性问题适用举证责任倒置。未定罪没收程序适用的证明标准存在较大争议。美国、爱尔兰、新西兰、加拿大、南非、澳大利亚和英国民事没收(追缴)程序均适用优势证据的证明标准。我国未定罪没收程序中适用优势证据的证明标准能够保障程序的独立性,避免未定罪没收与定罪没收混淆,便于我国未定罪没收程序与域外类似程序的衔接。而且该证明标准体现了未定罪没收程序作为刑事诉讼特别程序的特殊性,体现了该程序作为对“物的诉讼”的特殊性。该证明标准有利于确保程序的有效运行、保障公民合法财产权及有效追缴违法所得,体现了未定罪没收程序兼顾诉讼公正与诉讼效率的理念。故我国应当确立该证明标准。第五章为未定罪没收裁定执行的国际协助。从立法现状来看,虽然签订《反腐败公约》等国际条约为我国未定罪没收裁定执行的司法协助提供了部分法律依据,但我国缺乏针对该问题的完整法律体系。这导致未定罪没收裁定的国际司法协助缺乏指引规范,造成公约和协定对相关法律术语表述及没收适用的财产范围规定不一致等问题。资产分享机制及费用补偿机制的缺失影响未定罪没收域外执行力。此外,我国承认与执行域外没收裁决的制度不完善,导致未定罪没收裁定域外执行缺乏互惠对等的基础。我国应统一公约和协定中与没收相关的法律术语及未定罪没收适用的财物范围,明确未定罪没收裁决作为国际司法协助的依据。我国应在国内立法及签订国际公约和对外协定时,以对等待遇的资产分享标准确立资产分享机制,确立未定罪没收国际协助的费用补偿机制。我国还应确定应予承认和执行的域外没收裁决的范围,并完善对应的司法审查制度。我国应当完善资产转移监测制度,避免违法所得转移至境外或去向不明,保障未定罪没收裁定国际司法协助顺利进行。最后为结语部分。对全文进行归纳总结,并对我国未定罪没收制度的发展及研究前景进行展望。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】