监察委员会强制取证权构造

The Structure of Compulsory Evidence Collection Power of the Supervisory Committee

作为职务犯罪特别侦查权下属概念的技术侦查权被我国立法所认可。但职务犯罪调查较普通刑事犯罪侦查在取证难度、线索来源上均难度更大。赋予监察委员会以更加有力的调查权力有助于高效权威的查处职务犯罪。美英两国的立法与司法实践为我国构建职务犯罪调查强制取证权提供了值得借鉴的经验资料。我国依旧较为严峻的反腐态势、职务犯罪调查的复杂性以及刑法分则现有罪名的设置与相关刑事诉讼制度、监察制度的安排表明了构建该项权力的必要性与可行性。强制取证权应包含询问与取证两类具体权力,以签发令状方式行使;发挥初核制度作用,进行案件分流;为证据提供者给予必要的保障;尝试建立证人豁免制度以促进证据获取,明确法律后果以保证该权力的有效行使。

As a subordinate concept of the special investigation power of duty crimes, the technical investigation power is recognized by the legislation of China.However, the investigation of duty crimes is more difficult to obtain evidence and find the source of clues. Giving the supervisory commission more powerful powers of investigation is conducive to the efficient and authoritative investigation of crimes. The legislation and judicial practice of the United States and the United Kingdom provide a lot of valuable information. The still severe anti-corruption situation, the complexity of duty crime investigation, the establishment of related charges in the special provisions of criminal law, the setting of relevant charges of our criminal law and the criminal procedure system and the supervision system show the necessity and feasibility of constructing this power. The construction of the right of compulsory evidence should not only specify the content, exercise and guarantee of the power in a clear form, but also give play to the role of the preliminary nuclear system and try to establish the witness immunity system.