论破产程序中刑事追赃优先的非必然性--以A公司破产重整案为视角

On the Non-Necessity of the Priority of Criminal Booty Recovery in Insolvency Proceedings:Taking Company A’s insolvency reorganization case as a perspective

“同一事实,先刑后民”作为民刑交叉问题中一项深入人心的原则,其大体上能够回应司法需求。但是也应当认识到,是否是“同一事实”可能会因为观测角度不同而形成不同的结论,这种结论往往囿于形式逻辑,而对解决问题并不能提供终局性的答案。应当相对搁置关于“同一事实”与“不同事实”的辨析,进而对“先刑后民”或“刑民并行”的实际效果做全方位的考察。在破产程序中,作为刑事被害人的债权人应当与其他普通债权人享有同一顺位的受偿权。基于对前置法层面合法性与合理性的尊重,刑事程序对此不应予以干扰,因此“刑民并行”的实际效果为优选。除非被害人的财产能够被特定化,否则应当适用上述规则。

The principle of“in the same fact,criminal priority and civil delay”,as a deeply rooted principle in the intersection of civil and criminal law,is largely responsive to the needs of justice.However,it should also be recognized that whether it is the“same fact”or not may lead to different conclusions depending on the angle of observation,which is often confined to formal logic and does not provide a definitive answer to the problem.The distinction between“same fact”and“different facts”should be set aside,thereby comprehensively surveying the practical effect of“criminal priority and civil delay”and“criminal and civil parallelism”.Creditors in insolvency proceedings,who are also victims of a criminal offence,should enjoy the same rights of payment as other ordinary creditors.Based on the respect for legality and reasonableness at the pre-law level,the criminal process should not interfere with this,and therefore the practical effect of“criminal and civil parallelism”is preferred.The above rules apply unless the victim’s property can be particularized.