發(fā)布時間：2018-05-17 13:27

  本文選題：刑事涉案財物 + 沒收　； 參考：《浙江工業(yè)大學》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：刑事涉案財物沒收在司法實踐中的適用較為混亂。本文從實體和程序角度對刑事涉案財物沒收制度進行系統(tǒng)梳理和剖析,提出具體可行建議。在剝奪犯罪人的不法收益、打擊犯罪的同時,保護被害人、犯罪人和其他利害關系人的合法權利,實現(xiàn)懲罰犯罪與人權保障兼顧的訴訟價值。 文章除導論與結語外,正文共分為四個部分： 第一部分主要探討刑事涉案財物沒收制度的界定問題。本制度是指人民法院依據(jù)刑法規(guī)定對與犯罪密切相關的涉案財物強制收歸國有的實體處分。這一概念比以前的概念強調了人民法院對沒收的最終處分權。 第二部分是對刑事涉案財物沒收制度的實體問題的厘清。 首先,文章對《刑法》第64條中的四個概念進行了界定與區(qū)分。追繳是一種針對原物仍然存在的違法所得財物的程序性措施。責令退賠是針對違法所得財物已經(jīng)無法追繳或追繳不能的補充性程序措施。返還和沒收是針對涉案財物的兩種實體性處分行為。本部分強調了追繳和責令退賠是兩種暫時性、程序性的措施。 其次,文章對沒收的對象范圍進行了具體界定。違法所得的范圍應當包括犯罪產生之物、犯罪取得之物、作為犯罪報酬取得之物；違禁品是指物品本身對于公共安全或公共秩序具有危險性的物品。供犯罪所用的本人財物應當僅限于故意犯罪,并且必須直接、專門用于犯罪,在認定上不受犯罪階段的影響。 再次,在適用沒收制度時應當堅持比例原則。即使確實用于犯罪的本人財物,如果不符合比例原則的,也不應當沒收。 第三部分研究了經(jīng)刑事定罪的涉案財物沒收程序。文章強調在采取查封、扣押等強制措施和確定具體的查封、扣押財物范圍時,都應當堅持比例原則。在對刑事涉案財物采取強制措施以及作出沒收決定時都應由法院進行裁決。建立這種司法審查機制在目前可能存在一定的障礙,但它應當成為我國司法改革的方向。 第四部分探討了未經(jīng)刑事定罪的涉案財物沒收程序。由于該程序是新增設的,因此主要討論具體適用中應當注意的問題。
[Abstract]:The application of confiscation of property involved in criminal cases is confused in judicial practice. This paper systematically combs and analyzes the system of confiscation of property involved in criminal cases from the angle of entity and procedure, and puts forward some concrete and feasible suggestions. While depriving the criminal of the illegal proceeds and cracking down on the crime, we should protect the legal rights of the victim, the offender and other interested parties, and realize the procedural value of taking into account the punishment of the crime and the guarantee of human rights. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the text is divided into four parts: The first part mainly discusses the definition of criminal property confiscation system. This system refers to the people's court in accordance with the provisions of the criminal law, closely related to the crime involved property forced to be nationalized entities. This concept emphasizes the people's court's right to the final disposition of confiscation. The second part is to clarify the substantive issues of the system of confiscation of property involved in criminal cases. First of all, the article defines and distinguishes the four concepts in Article 64 of Criminal Law. Recovery is a procedural measure aimed at the illegal property which still exists in the original. Ordering restitution is a supplementary procedural measure that can no longer be recovered or recovered. Return and confiscation are two kinds of substantive disposition against the property involved in the case. This part emphasizes that recovery and refunds are two temporary and procedural measures. Secondly, the article has carried on the concrete definition to the confiscation object scope. The scope of the illegal proceeds should include the things produced by the crime, the objects obtained by the crime, and the goods obtained as the reward for the crime; contraband goods refer to the goods which are dangerous to the public safety or public order. The personal property used for the crime shall be limited to the intentional crime and must be directly and exclusively used in the crime and shall not be affected by the stage of the crime. Thirdly, the principle of proportionality should be adhered to when applying the confiscation system. Even if the personal property actually used in the crime is not in accordance with the principle of proportionality, it shall not be confiscated. The third part studies the procedure of confiscation of property involved in criminal conviction. The paper emphasizes that the principle of proportion should be adhered to when taking compulsory measures such as seizure and determining the scope of specific seizure and seizure of property. Enforcement measures and confiscation decisions in criminal cases should be decided by the court. The establishment of this judicial review mechanism may have some obstacles at present, but it should be the direction of judicial reform in our country. The fourth part discusses the procedure of property confiscation without criminal conviction. As this procedure is new, it mainly discusses the problems that should be paid attention to in its application.
【學位授予單位】：浙江工業(yè)大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.2;D924.1

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 黃風;梁文鈞;;英國《2002年犯罪收益(追繳)法》中的刑事沒收制度[J];中國司法;2007年06期

2 廣東省東莞市第一人民法院課題組;;贓款贓物處理的法律實務問題研究[J];法律適用;2010年05期

3 張明楷;;論刑法中的沒收[J];法學家;2012年03期

4 萬毅;;獨立沒收程序的證據(jù)法難題及其破解[J];法學;2012年04期

5 吳志華;;淺論貪官引渡問題[J];法制與社會;2008年25期

6 陳雷;;論我國違法所得特別沒收程序[J];法治研究;2012年05期

7 時延安;孟憲東;尹金潔;;檢察機關在違法所得沒收程序中的地位和職責[J];法學雜志;2012年11期

8 周加海;黃應生;;違法所得沒收程序適用探討[J];法律適用;2012年09期

9 王文軒;論刑法中的追繳[J];人民檢察;2002年05期

10 謝望原;肖怡;;中國刑法中的“沒收”及其缺憾與完善[J];法學論壇;2006年04期

，

本文編號：1901558