功能同源视角下刑事缺席审判与违法所得没收的交叉竞合及程序适用

On the concurrence and application of the criminal trial in absentia and the illegal gains confiscation procedure from the perspective of functional homology

刑事缺席审判程序与违法所得没收程序的功能目的同源决定了两者适用条件高度重合,但两种程序的制度设计异构又导致在司法实践中的适用呈现交叉竞合。围绕着两种程序的司法运作,在明确适用条件、程序性质和证明标准的基础上,可以从三个维度厘清两者适用关系:首先,程序启动的国家机关决定了两种程序选择有差异性,在非竞合状态下两种程序分别适用,呈现相互排斥关系;其次,当程序竞合时,在结合案件情况决定适用先后顺序的同时,应当充分考虑违法所得没收程序在裁判稳定性和可执行性方面的优势并优先适用;最后,从程序效力的内在张力来看,同一犯罪事实先行适用违法所得程序后可再行适用缺席审判程序,而适用缺席审判后则不能再适用违法所得没收程序。

The homology in functions and aims between the procedures of the criminal trial in absentia and the confiscation of illegal income determines that the criteria for the application of the two procedures are highly overlapping.However,the divergent institutional designs of these two procedures cause a cross-competition in their application within judicial practice.Regarding their judicial operation,a clarification of their relationship can be achieved from three dimensions based on the clear criteria for their application conditions,procedural nature,and standards of proof:Firstly,the state agencies initiating the procedures result in differences in their selection.In a non-competitive state,they exclude each other when separately applied.Secondly,when these procedures compete,the decision on their sequence of application should give weight to the advantages of the illegal gains confiscation procedure in terms of judgment stability and enforceability,thus giving it priority.Lastly,considering the inherent tension in procedural effectiveness,when the same criminal facts are involved,the illegal gains confiscation procedure may follow the application of the trial in absentia procedure.However,once the trial in absentia procedure is applied,the illegal gains confiscation procedure cannot be subsequently applied.