摘要
在英美法回复法体系下,回复的基础大体可以分为两类:不当得利和民事违法行为,犯罪行为如若同时构成不当得利和民事违法行为,可依据两者主张回复,但存在善意购买人的抗辩。而犯罪行为是否能够和民事违法行为一样成为回复的一项独立基础,英国学者之间存在明显分歧,而实践上也缺乏明确的判例来支持,主要原因在于制定法赋予国家以没收权(刑事没收权和民事收回令),和回复在功能上有所重叠并且居于优先地位,而国家在没收犯罪收益后是否可通过推定信托等方式将其返还给犯罪受害人仍不明确。在美国回复法上,杀人者会因杀害他人而丧失预定获得的利益,同时美国制定法上也存在和英国类似的刑事没收和民事没收制度,但受到无辜的所有人抗辩的限制,没收的财产还会通过返还和移交两种途径返还给受害人。在英美回复法和没收制度中,金钱和其他动产不存在特殊的区分。
Under the system of legal restitution in Anglo-American law, the basis of restitution can be divided into two categories: unjust enrichment and civil illegal acts. If criminal acts constitute both unjust enrichment and civil illegal acts, restitution can be claimed on the basis of both, but there is a defense of bona fide purchasers. There are obvious differences between British scholars on whether criminal acts can be an independent basis for recovery as well as civil violations, but there is no clear case to support it in practice. The main reason is that the statutes gives the state the right of confiscation(criminal confiscation right and civil recovery order), overlaps with the function of the response and takes precedence over the state in confiscation. Whether the confiscated proceeds of crime can be returned to the victim by presumptive trust is still unclear. Under American Law, murderers will lose their intended benefits by killing others. At the same time, similar criminal and civil confiscation systems exist in American statute law as in UK, also limited by the defense of innocent owners. However, confiscated property will be returned to the victim by two ways: restoration and remission. There is no special distinction between money and other movable property in the Anglo-American Restitution Law and the confiscation system.
出处
《东方法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2019年第2期94-103,共10页
Oriental Law
关键词
回复
不当得利
犯罪行为
刑事没收
民事没收
restitution
unjust enrichment
crimes
criminal forfeiture
civil forfeiture
