我国犯罪工具没收制度研究

发布时间：2018-11-01 14:41

【摘要】：犯罪工具没收是指将供犯罪所用的本人财物强制性收归国有。作为打击犯罪的一项重要措施，犯罪工具没收制度却一直处于我国刑法理论体系的边缘地带。我国刑法理论上对于犯罪工具没收的研究不仅不足并且争议较大。司法实践中，犯罪工具的没收也存在很多问题。因此，本文以我国的犯罪工具没收制度为研究对象，在梳理我国犯罪工具没收历史发展概况和剖析其性质的基础上，对犯罪工具没收的实体规则和程序规则进行了较为全面的探讨，并提出了一些针对性的建议。全文约三万七千字，除引言和余论外，主体分为四大部分：第一部分：犯罪工具没收制度之沿革。我国古代对犯罪人财产的没收并未区分其是否与犯罪有关，因此犯罪工具的没收往往是依附于没收财产刑的。到了近现代，我国的犯罪工具没收不再依附于没收财产刑，无论是我国大陆地区还是港澳台地区，均有对犯罪工具没收的明确规定，但我国大陆地区立法上并未明确犯罪工具没收的性质，其没收的实体规则和程序规则也有待完善。第二部分：犯罪工具没收的性质。没收是一种实体上的处分，不同于追缴和责令退赔措施。犯罪工具没收属于特别没收，其性质既不是一种刑事强制措施，也不属于保安处分或者刑罚，而是一种独立的刑事实体处分。作为独立的刑事实体处分，犯罪工具没收具有四层含义：犯罪工具没收前提是行为构成犯罪；犯罪工具没收是犯罪的法律后果之一；犯罪工具没收是独立的刑事处分措施；犯罪工具没收是实体处分措施。第三部分：犯罪工具没收实体规则。首先，对犯罪工具的认定标准问题上，提出将犯罪工具分为侵害性工具和非侵害行工具。侵害性工具是其使用行为直接构成犯罪侵害能力的物；非侵害行工具是指其使用虽不直接构成犯罪侵害能力，但与犯罪有密切联系的物。其次，，犯罪工具属于本人所有的才能予以没收。本人所有并不要求第三人在该财物上完全无物权关系；本人不限于等待刑事审判的犯罪嫌疑人；无论是裁判时还是行为时行为人享有所有权都可视为本人所有。最后，指出本人所有的犯罪工具一律没收不妥，提出应当引入比例原则对我国犯罪工具没收的范围进行合理的限制。第四部分：犯罪工具没收的程序规则。首先对犯罪工具没收的保全及其后续处理进行了简要介绍，并对我国犯罪工具没收保全措施的完善提出了针对性建议。其次，对我国犯罪工具没收的决定程序进行分析，指出人民法院是有权决定犯罪工具没收的唯一主体，并对定罪的和未定罪的没收决定程序提出了完善建议。最后，对犯罪工具没收的执行程序进行梳理，并建议犯罪工具的没收应当由人民法院执行部门统一执行。
[Abstract]:The confiscation of criminal instrumentalities refers to the mandatory nationalization of one's own property for use in a crime. As an important measure to crack down on crime, the system of confiscation of criminal instruments has always been on the edge of the theoretical system of criminal law in our country. The theory of criminal law in our country is not only lack of research on the forfeiture of criminal instruments, but also controversial. In judicial practice, there are also many problems in the confiscation of criminal instruments. Therefore, this article takes the crime instrument confiscation system of our country as the research object, on the basis of combing the historical development and analyzing the nature of the crime instrument confiscation in our country. This paper probes into the substantive rules and procedural rules of the confiscation of criminal instrumentalities, and puts forward some pertinent suggestions. The main body is divided into four parts: the first part: the evolution of crime instrument confiscation system. In ancient China, the confiscation of the criminal's property did not distinguish whether it was related to the crime, so the confiscation of the crime instrument was often attached to the confiscation of property. In modern times, the confiscation of criminal instrumentalities in our country is no longer dependent on the confiscation of property. Whether in mainland China or in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, there are clear provisions on the confiscation of criminal instrumentalities. However, the nature of the confiscation of criminal instrumentalities is not clear in the legislation of mainland China, and the substantive rules and procedural rules for confiscation of criminal instrumentalities need to be improved. The second part: the nature of the confiscation of criminal instrumentalities. Confiscation is a physical disposition, which is different from the measures of recovering and ordering restitution and compensation. The confiscation of criminal instrumentalities belongs to special confiscation, which is neither a criminal coercive measure nor a security measure or penalty, but an independent criminal entity punishment. As an independent criminal entity, the confiscation of criminal instrument has four meanings: the premise of confiscation of criminal instrument is that the act constitutes a crime, the confiscation of criminal instrument is one of the legal consequences of crime, the confiscation of criminal instrument is an independent measure of criminal punishment; Confiscation of criminal instrumentalities is a measure of substantive punishment. Part three: substantive rules of forfeiture of criminal instrumentalities. First of all, on the problem of the identification standard of the crime instrument, it puts forward that the crime instrument can be divided into the invasive instrument and the non-infringing instrument. The aggressive instrument is the object whose use directly constitutes the criminal infringing ability; the non-infringing instrument refers to the thing whose use does not directly constitute the criminal infringing ability, but which is closely related to the crime. Secondly, the crime instrument belongs to my own ability to be confiscated. I do not require a third person to have no real right in the property; I am not limited to a criminal suspect awaiting a criminal trial; the person who has the right to own the property, whether at the time of the judgment or the act, may be deemed to have the right to own it. Finally, the author points out that the confiscation of all the criminal instrumentalities is inappropriate, and puts forward that the principle of proportionality should be introduced to restrict the scope of the confiscation of criminal instruments in our country. Part four: rules of procedure for confiscation of criminal instrumentalities. Firstly, this paper briefly introduces the preservation of crime instrumentalities confiscation and its follow-up treatment, and puts forward some pertinent suggestions to improve the preservation measures of crime instrumentalities confiscation in our country. Secondly, through the analysis of the decision procedure of confiscation of criminal instrumentalities in China, the author points out that the people's court is the only subject with the power to decide on the confiscation of criminal instrumentalities, and puts forward some suggestions to improve the procedure of confiscation of criminal instrumentalities. Finally, the execution procedure of the confiscation of criminal instrumentalities is combed, and it is suggested that the confiscation of criminal instrumentalities should be carried out uniformly by the executive department of the people's court.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924

【参考文献】