监察案件提前介入:基于356份调查问卷的实证研究

Early Intervention in Supervision Cases:An Empirical Study Based on 356 Questionnaires

检察机关对监察案件的提前介入,是宪法规定的"互相配合、互相制约"的监检关系之重要实现机制,在职务犯罪案件办理中承上启下,具有一定的政治与法治意义。它不属于通常意义上的刑事诉讼程序,具有对象特定、阶段特定、单向启动、非常规性和非强制性等特点。由于检察机关在提前介入阶段即对案件有所了解并形成审查意见,存在先入为主、使审查起诉程序走过场甚至促成"监察调查中心主义"格局的风险。然而,这并不意味着应当废止监察案件提前介入机制。实证研究表明,监察案件提前介入机制在证据收集、事实认定、强制措施准备、案件管辖和涉案财物处理等方面均发挥着作用,检察机关在其中扮演着监察案件外部"质检员"的角色。为了防止该机制在实践中走样变形,需要采取适度介入、重构启动程序、合理选用介入组织形式、适当优化监察办案程序和增强制度刚性等多种措施对其进行完善。

The early intervention of procuratorial organs in supervision cases is an important mechanism to realize the relationship ‘cooperating and restricting each other’ between supervision and prosecution which is stipulated by the Constitution. Meanwhile, it links the previous supervision procedure and the following prosecution procedure of duty crime cases, and has some political and legal significance. It’s not part of the usual criminal procedure, and has several characteristics which evolve specific-object, specific-stage, one-way startup, unconventional and non-mandatory. The mechanism make procuratorial organs have the opportunities to contact the cases and forms review opinions at the stage of early intervention, which may bring prejudice to the cases, make the formal prosecution procedure injustice, and even bring new “supervision centralism”. However, it does not mean that this mechanism should be abolished. Empirical research found that the mechanism plays a role in evidence collection, fact-finding, preparation of coercive measures, jurisdiction of cases and disposal of property. Procuratorial organs should continue to play the role of ’quality inspector’ in supervision cases. At the same time, several measures such as appropriate intervention, reconstruction of start-up procedure, reasonable selection of intervention organization form, appropriate reform of supervision procedure and enhancement of procedural rigidity are needed to further improve the early intervention mechanism of supervision cases.