信用卡恶意透支案件侦查思路探析

信用卡恶意透支的作案手段是信用卡恶意透支案件侦查思路逻辑推演的重要依据 ,其作案手段有 :虚构持卡人身份 ,骗取信用卡后 ,用骗得的信用卡进行恶意透支 ;借用他人的信用卡恶意透支 ;银行工作人员与持卡人恶意串通 ,在发现了其透支后 ,不仅不及时止付 ,反而授权透支而造成的恶意透支等。其侦查思路是 :重点查找书证和物 ,弄清持卡人基本情况 ,充分利用书证和物证的序列性 ,对偶性和差异性以及各种恶意透支手段所涉及的人员进行调查 ,大力加强计算机证据收集和认定 ,为认定信用卡恶意透支犯罪提供有力的证据支持。     

侦查取证的缺陷及其矫正

证据是刑事侦查的核心和刑事诉讼的基础,从某种意义上说,刑事侦查与刑事诉讼过程就是收集、保全、审查判断及运用证据,认定案件事实,惩处犯罪的过程。目前,刑事案件办案质量不高、侦查取证效率偏低是由多方面因素造成的,其中既有侦查人员证据意识薄弱的因素,也有侦查机制和诉讼结构存在缺陷的原因。我们可以从侦查取证存在的问题与成因及其相应对策的角度出发,提出强化侦查人员证据意识的途径以及推动相关立法、诉讼体制改革与完善的一些分析与思考。     

医疗侵权案件地方司法指导文件证据规定研究

我国部分地方法院制定了有关医疗损害赔偿纠纷案件审理的地方性司法指导文件,其中关于举证责任分配等证据内容既有成功之处,也存在一些问题。这些文件制定的成因主要是基础法律法规的变动,相关司法解释的缺位以及现实案件审理的强烈需求。这些规定也将为国家制定相关司法解释提供有益的借鉴。     

涉讼司法鉴定收费制度的检视与重构

我国司法鉴定机构正经历着体制性的变革,司法鉴定事务的逐步立法规范,新的运作方式使现在的鉴定机构已成为市场主体,鉴定人也成为从鉴定费中获取收益的个体。过高的鉴定费用成为公民运用法律保护其合法权益的瓶颈,因而对鉴定费规制问题必须引起足够的重视。我国鉴定费问题突出表现在收费法律依据、收费标准、收费管理以及司法鉴定法律援助几个方面。鉴定费的收取制度应沿此问题的解决路径出发进行建构,其实质是公民诉权的保障和合法权益的维护。     

死刑复核中法医鉴定结论审查的特点与建议——基于634例统计分析

本文通过对634例死刑复核案件中法医鉴定结论审查情况的回顾性分析,发现死刑复核案件中法医鉴定结论具有5个特点:(1)死刑复核案件中法医鉴定结论需要移交法医审查的数量较多:(2)死刑复核案件中法官对鉴定结论或其他技术性问题审查的能力普遍不足,且差异很大:(3)死刑复核案件中法医鉴定结论质量差异较大,经过一审、二审审理,死刑复核案件中的法医学鉴定结论仍然存在各种问题,其中结论依据不足,可能需要补充鉴定、重新鉴定或无法继续鉴定的约占8%左右;(4)死刑复核案件中法医鉴定结论是否需要移送法医审查,受鉴定结论本身和法官个人因素的影响:(5)随着死刑复核工作的开展,法官对法医鉴定结论审查的能力有所提高。根据统计的结果,本文对目前死刑复核案件中法医鉴定结论的审查模式给予了一定的肯定,并对审查模式的不足进行了初步分析,在此基础上提出了完善死刑复核程序中鉴定结论审查内容、审查程序,提高法官鉴定结论的审查能力,建立技术法官制度的建议。     

Some technological implications for ascertaining the contents of contracts in web-based transactions

This paper points out some unexpected relationships between specific aspects of contract law and specific Internet-related technologies. The discussion is not about the interplay between “Law” and “Technology,” or the “Law” and the “Internet.” The aim is modest: to identify some theoretical chokepoints created by the technologies involved in web-based commerce and to point out the legal uncertainties persisting in this area. The analysis is confined to the process of contract formation, not to matters of substantive law. It is during this process that parties assume their contractual obligations and the contents of a contract crystallize.     

Advancing coordinated cyber-investigations and tool interoperability using a community developed specification language

Any investigation can have a digital dimension, often involving information from multiple data sources, organizations and jurisdictions. Existing approaches to representing and exchanging cyber-investigation information are inadequate, particularly when combining data sources from numerous organizations or dealing with large amounts of data from various tools. To conduct investigations effectively, there is a pressing need to harmonize how this information is represented and exchanged. This paper addresses this need for information exchange and tool interoperability with an open community-developed specification language called Cyber-investigation Analysis Standard Expression (CASE). To further promote a common structure, CASE aligns with and extends the Unified Cyber Ontology (UCO) construct, which provides a format for representing information in all cyber domains. This ontology abstracts objects and concepts that are not CASE-specific, so that they can be used across other cyber disciplines that may extend UCO. This work is a rational evolution of the Digital Forensic Analysis eXpression (DFAX) for representing digital forensic information and provenance. CASE is more flexible than DFAX and can be utilized in any context, including criminal, corporate and intelligence. CASE also builds on the Hansken data model developed and implemented by the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI). CASE enables the fusion of information from different organizations, data sources, and forensic tools to foster more comprehensive and cohesive analysis. This paper includes illustrative examples of how CASE can be implemented and used to capture information in a structured form to advance sharing, interoperability and analysis in cyber-investigations. In addition to capturing technical details and relationships between objects, CASE provides structure for representing and sharing details about how cyber-information was handled, transferred, processed, analyzed, and interpreted. CASE also supports data marking for sharing information at different levels of trust and classification, and for protecting sensitive and private information. Furthermore, CASE supports the sharing of knowledge related to cyber-investigations, including distinctive patterns of activity/behavior that are common across cases. This paper features a proof-of-concept Application Program Interface (API) to facilitate implementation of CASE in tools. Community members are encouraged to participate in the development and implementation of CASE and UCO.     

强制性讯问录音录像推定规则

讯问录音录像具有保障讯问活动规范实施和固定犯罪嫌疑人供述的双重功效，但实践中存在录音录像选择性录制和提供的困境。因此，必须对违反强制性录音录像要求所获供述的证据能力及审查、认定、排除程序等作出规范，以此来保证录音录像价值的实现。考虑到拒不提供录音录像与以刑讯逼供等非法方法收集证据之间的高伴生性关系，可以通过推定规则的设计来实现这一目的。讯问录音录像推定规则创制后，能够达到维护法律实施及其内在正当性、统一司法实践的裁判标准、促使讯问活动与录制过程严格依法、保障程序性裁判结论与实体性裁判结论的准确等多个目的。在适用推定规则时，要注意基础事实由法官依职权启动或由被告人举证、充分保障控诉方反驳的权利，同时对推定规则中争议事实及反驳事实设定科学的证明标准。     

刑事证据开示的程序设计

以不开示不得出示、对等、权利自治等原则为基础的刑事证据开示的以对抗式审判为视角的正当程序的逻辑推演是：刑事证据开示必要性的前提是被告人不认罪而需要进行证据调查；正当的开示过程是法官主持双方开示；发现新证据出现隐藏证据应启动特别开示程序。刑事证据开示程序简化的主要内容，一是刑事证据开示与法官预审结合运用，二是自行开示法官验收。在我国现行刑事诉讼法规定的框架内进行刑事证据开示，可以参照上述开示基本模式进行程序设计。     

面对中国的证据法学——兼评易延友《证据学是一门法学吗》

通过对证据学和证据法学历史分野的考察,可以发现诸多学者曾经对证据法学独立作出的努力,证据法学独立于证据学以及程序法学是一个基本的趋势。回顾我国从1930年到2005年证据法学的起步、发展、挫折到恢复的历程,虽然有不同时代的学者对证据法学研究作出的贡献,但也存在相当多的问题,甚至重新纠缠于证据学的研究之中。如果要立足于证据法学的继续发展,应该借鉴英美证据法学的学术资源,明确研究的对象,改进研究方法,并在研究的程度上进一步深入。