發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-17 13:27

  本文選題：刑事涉案財(cái)物 + 沒(méi)收��； 參考：《浙江工業(yè)大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：刑事涉案財(cái)物沒(méi)收在司法實(shí)踐中的適用較為混亂。本文從實(shí)體和程序角度對(duì)刑事涉案財(cái)物沒(méi)收制度進(jìn)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(shí),保護(hù)被害人、犯罪人和其他利害關(guān)系人的合法權(quán)利,實(shí)現(xiàn)懲罰犯罪與人權(quán)保障兼顧的訴訟價(jià)值。 文章除導(dǎo)論與結(jié)語(yǔ)外,正文共分為四個(gè)部分： 第一部分主要探討刑事涉案財(cái)物沒(méi)收制度的界定問(wèn)題。本制度是指人民法院依據(jù)刑法規(guī)定對(duì)與犯罪密切相關(guān)的涉案財(cái)物強(qiáng)制收歸國(guó)有的實(shí)體處分。這一概念比以前的概念強(qiáng)調(diào)了人民法院對(duì)沒(méi)收的最終處分權(quán)。 第二部分是對(duì)刑事涉案財(cái)物沒(méi)收制度的實(shí)體問(wèn)題的厘清。 首先,文章對(duì)《刑法》第64條中的四個(gè)概念進(jìn)行了界定與區(qū)分。追繳是一種針對(duì)原物仍然存在的違法所得財(cái)物的程序性措施。責(zé)令退賠是針對(duì)違法所得財(cái)物已經(jīng)無(wú)法追繳或追繳不能的補(bǔ)充性程序措施。返還和沒(méi)收是針對(duì)涉案財(cái)物的兩種實(shí)體性處分行為。本部分強(qiáng)調(diào)了追繳和責(zé)令退賠是兩種暫時(shí)性、程序性的措施。 其次,文章對(duì)沒(méi)收的對(duì)象范圍進(jìn)行了具體界定。違法所得的范圍應(yīng)當(dāng)包括犯罪產(chǎn)生之物、犯罪取得之物、作為犯罪報(bào)酬取得之物；違禁品是指物品本身對(duì)于公共安全或公共秩序具有危險(xiǎn)性的物品。供犯罪所用的本人財(cái)物應(yīng)當(dāng)僅限于故意犯罪,并且必須直接、專(zhuān)門(mén)用于犯罪,在認(rèn)定上不受犯罪階段的影響。 再次,在適用沒(méi)收制度時(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)堅(jiān)持比例原則。即使確實(shí)用于犯罪的本人財(cái)物,如果不符合比例原則的,也不應(yīng)當(dāng)沒(méi)收。 第三部分研究了經(jīng)刑事定罪的涉案財(cái)物沒(méi)收程序。文章強(qiáng)調(diào)在采取查封、扣押等強(qiáng)制措施和確定具體的查封、扣押財(cái)物范圍時(shí),都應(yīng)當(dāng)堅(jiān)持比例原則。在對(duì)刑事涉案財(cái)物采取強(qiáng)制措施以及作出沒(méi)收決定時(shí)都應(yīng)由法院進(jìn)行裁決。建立這種司法審查機(jī)制在目前可能存在一定的障礙,但它應(yīng)當(dāng)成為我國(guó)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(cái)物沒(méi)收程序。由于該程序是新增設(shè)的,因此主要討論具體適用中應(yīng)當(dāng)注意的問(wèn)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(xué)位授予單位】：浙江工業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D925.2;D924.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 黃風(fēng);梁文鈞;;英國(guó)《2002年犯罪收益(追繳)法》中的刑事沒(méi)收制度[J];中國(guó)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(shí)務(wù)問(wèn)題研究[J];法律適用;2010年05期

3 張明楷;;論刑法中的沒(méi)收[J];法學(xué)家;2012年03期

4 萬(wàn)毅;;獨(dú)立沒(méi)收程序的證據(jù)法難題及其破解[J];法學(xué);2012年04期

5 吳志華;;淺論貪官引渡問(wèn)題[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年25期

6 陳雷;;論我國(guó)違法所得特別沒(méi)收程序[J];法治研究;2012年05期

7 時(shí)延安;孟憲東;尹金潔;;檢察機(jī)關(guān)在違法所得沒(méi)收程序中的地位和職責(zé)[J];法學(xué)雜志;2012年11期

8 周加海;黃應(yīng)生;;違法所得沒(méi)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(guó)刑法中的“沒(méi)收”及其缺憾與完善[J];法學(xué)論壇;2006年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：1901558