摘要
为高效反腐、有力反恐,实现保护国家利益以及利害关系人权益的需要,2012年《刑事诉讼法》构建了不需经过定罪程序,便可没收违法所得的对物之诉。正是基于该程序的此特殊之处,引发了对违法所得没收程序性质的探讨。虽然通过对比,发现英美法系国家的民事没收模式以及大陆法系国家的刑事没收程序都与我国的违法所得没收程序有一定的相似性,但从我国设立违法所得没收程序的目的、与刑事诉讼法基本原则的关系以及立法技术三个角度出发,认为将其定义为刑事诉讼模式更具合理性。尽管刑事诉讼一般都需设置严格的证明标准,但违法所得没收程序对物之诉的特性对证明标准的设置提出了新的要求,即应设置处于"优势证据"与"排除合理怀疑"之间的证明标准并配套完善的救济程序。
In order to crack down on the bribery,corruption crimes as well as terrorist activities and protect the benefits of the State and stakeholders,Criminal Procedure Law(2012Amendments)created the procedure named confiscation of illegal gains,which means that illegal gains will be confiscated without trial.It has aroused heated discussion about its nature.By comparison,there are some similarities between civil forfeiture proceeding in common law and criminal forfeiture in civil law.However,from the perspective of the purpose,the fundamental principle and lawmaking techniques of confiscation of illegal gains in China,it is more reasonable to define it as a criminal procedure.Although criminal procedure has stricter proof standard,this special procedure comes up with new requirements.To be specific,the proof standard should be set between"preponderance of evidence"and"beyond a reasonable doubt".Meanwhile,relief measures should be made.
作者
刘甜甜
LIU Tiantian(Criminal Justice Law school, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 100088, China)
出处
《河北工业大学学报（社会科学版）》
2018年第4期61-65,70,共6页
Journal of Hebei University of Technology：Social Sciences Edition
关键词
违法所得没收程序
程序性质
证明标准
应然状态
confiscation of illegal gains procedure
procedure nature
proof standard
deserved state
