论我国违法所得没收程序——基于实体和程序的双重考察

On the Forfeiture Procedure of Illegal Income in China——A Dual Investigation Based on Entity and Procedure

2012年的《刑事诉讼法》所确立的"犯罪嫌疑人、被告人逃匿、死亡案件违法所得没收程序"与传统的刑事诉讼程序存在着显著的区别。作为一种面向涉案财物的诉讼程序,对特别没收程序的进一步分析有必要结合民事法和刑事实体法的知识和理论。在利害关系人的认定上,司法解释所确立的所有权标准存在着不合理限制案外人参与权的问题,有必要将所有权的范围扩展至担保物权、用益物权。从证据法理上讲,检察机关需要举证证明犯罪嫌疑人、被告人实施了犯罪行为,以及其所申请没收的财物与犯罪事实之间存在实质联系。倘若利害关系人对涉案财物主张合法权益,其需要就涉案财物的权属事实承担证明责任。此外,由于争议对象和裁判标准的不同,特别没收程序中针对不同的证明对象,存在着排除合理怀疑和优势证据两种证明标准。

There are clear differences between the forfeiture procedure of illegal income of cases in which“the criminal suspects or the defendants escape or die”,established by the Criminal Procedure Law in2012and the traditional criminal procedure.As a proceeding for the property involved,further analysis of thespecial forfeiture procedure necessitates the integration of knowledge and theory of civil and criminalsubstantive law.In determination of the stakeholders,the judicial standards established by the judicialinterpretation have the problem of unreasonable restrictions on the participation of outsiders,so it is necessaryto extend the scope of ownership to security interests and usufructuary rights.Judging from the legal point ofview,the procuratorial organ needs proof to prove that the suspect or the defendant has committed a criminalact,and there are substantive links between the property it applies for confiscation and the criminal facts.Ifthe stakeholder advocates legitimate interests in the property involved,it needs to bear the burden of proof ofthe ownership of the property involved.In addition,due to the differences of the dispute objects and thereferee standards,there are two proof criteria for different objects of proof in special forfeiture procedure,i.e.elimination of reasonable suspicion and superiority evidence.