违法所得没收程序适用中的相关问题研究

27件违法所得没收案件样本反映出了违法所得没收程序的溯及力、"重大犯罪案件"的认定、"违法所得"的认定、善意取得制度的适用以及证明标准的把握等方面的突出问题。"程序法从新"会产生溯及既往的风险。对于在违法所得没收程序生效前发生的行为人逃匿或死亡的犯罪案件,如果在违法所得没收程序生效时该案件尚未进入刑事诉讼程序或者已经诉讼终结,则不能适用违法所得没收程序。将案件的社会影响作为认定"重大犯罪案件"的标准,不仅过于主观,而且违背管辖的基本原理,建议以"涉案金额标准"替代"社会影响标准"。应当慎重审查被申请没收的财产与犯罪行为之间的联系,只有在能够认定被申请没收的财产是实施犯罪行为所取得时,才能够将其认定为违法所得。对于违法所得,可以适用善意取得制度,但需要注意的是善意取得的对象是物权,而不包括债权。"死亡型"违法所得没收案件与"逃匿型"违法所得没收案件具有不同的特征,在这两类案件中检察机关的证明标准应当有所不同;同时,利害关系人对其诉讼主张的证明标准也应当与检察机关的证明标准有所不同。

Research on the Related Issues of Applying the Procedure of Confiscation of Illegal Income

cases of illegal income confiscation reflects the issues of the retroactive force of the procedure for the confiscation of illegal income,the identification of"major criminal cases",the identification of"illegal income",the application of the system of acquisition on good faith and the standard of proof."Applying the New Procedural law"may cause retroactive risks.For the criminal cases committed before the entry into force of the procedure of illegal income confiscation and in which the suspects or defendants escaped or died,the procedure of illegal income confiscation can not be applied if the case has not yet entered the criminal procedure or been closed when the procedure of illegal income confiscation comes into effect.It is not only too subjective but also violates the basic principle of jurisdiction by using the social influence of the case as the standard of determining the"major crime case".It is suggested to replace the"standard of social influence"by the"standard of the amount involved in the case".The connection between the property confiscated and the criminal act should be examined carefully,and only when the property is found to be the result of the implementation of the criminal act,can it be identified as illegal income.The bona fide acquisition system can be applied to illegal income,but it should be noted that the object of bona fide acquisition is real rights,not creditor's rights.The cases of the"death type"illegal income confiscation are different from those of the"escaped type"illegal income confiscation cases.The standards of proof for the people's procuratorates should be different in these two cases.At the same time,the standard of proof for the interested parties should be different from the standard of proof for the people's procuratorates.