On the Functional Position and Structural Remodeling of Compulsory Measures to the Object
-
摘要:对物强制处分，是指国家机关在追诉犯罪时，干预被处分人财产权益的强制性措施。在中国的刑事诉讼实践中，以查封、扣押和冻结为代表的对物强制处分的恣意行使，不仅严重侵害了公民及其他主体的财产权益，还消减了司法的公信力。司法控制的缺位，以及结构与功能的错位是造成上述问题的深层原因。为破除上述现象，德国"以扣押为主体的分化"模式以及美国"干预强度递进的阶梯"模式可为中国的对物强制处分制度提供有益借鉴。通过重新定位对物强制处分的功能，设立干预强度递进的措施体系，逐步实现对物强制处分的司法化，可以达致追诉犯罪与权益保障相互平衡的状态。近年来，中国对物强制处分制度的变革趋势也印证了上述论断。Abstract:Compulsory measures to the object refer to compulsory measures taken by state organs to intervene in the property rights and interests of the displaced persons when they prosecute a crime. In China's criminal procedure practice, the arbitrary exercise of compulsory measures to the object characterized by sealing up, seizure and freezing not only seriously infringes on the property rights and interests of citizens and other subjects, but also reduces the credibility of the judiciary. The absence of judicial control and the dislocation of structure and function are the deep reasons for the above problems. To tackle the above phenomenon, Germany's "separation mode of seizure as the main body" and the US mode of "stepped ladder of intervention intensity" can provide a useful reference for our compulsory measures to the object system. By relocating the function of compulsory measures to the object, establishing a progressive system of intervention intensity and gradually realizing the judicature of compulsory measures to the object, we can achieve the balance between prosecuting crime and safeguarding rights and interests. In recent years, the recent trend of the change in the compulsory measures to the object system in China has also confirmed the above argument.
-
[1] 绿大辅. 日本侦查程序中的强制处分法定主义[J]. 肖萍,译.国家检察官学院学报,2014(2):171. [2] 方柏兴. 刑事涉案财物的先行处置[J]. 国家检察官学院学报,2018(3):127-140. [3] 侯兆晓. 辽宁一涉黑案76亿资产疑被审前处分[J]. 民主与法制周刊,2015(13):8-11. [4] 刘俊,姚雪鹏,宣柯吟,杨键. "非法"财产非法处置?[N]. 南方周末,2012-3-22(C18). [5] 孙长永. 强制侦查的法律控制与司法审查[J]. 现代法学,2005(5):72-81. [6] 郎胜. 《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》修改与适用[M]. 北京:新华出版社2012:263-264. [7] 潘怡宏. 论保全证据与保全没收执行之独立扣押的竞合[J]. 万国法律,2016(6):15-27. [8] 陈瑞华. 论侦查中心主义[J]. 政法论坛,2017(2):3-18. [9] 季卫东. 程序比较论[J]. 比较法研究,1993(1):1-46. [10] 龙宗智. 强制侦查司法审查制度的完善[J]. 中国法学,2011(6):43-58. [11] 未言. 刑事扣押真的永远"伟光正"吗?[N]. 上海法治报,2015-7-23(A03). [12] 德雷斯勒,迈克尔斯. 美国刑事诉讼法精解(第1卷·刑事侦查)[M]. 吴宏耀,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:67-104. [13] 罗科信. 刑事诉讼法(第24版)[M]. 吴丽琪,译.北京:法律出版社,2003. [14] 向燕. 刑事经济性处分研究——以被追诉人财产权保障为视角[M]. 北京:经济管理出版社,2012:155. [15] 王士帆. 犯罪所得没收与追征之保全扣押——谈立法定位[J]. 月旦裁判时报,2016(6):63-74. [16] 王士帆. 德国犯罪利得之扣押与假扣押——以基础规定(§§ 111b-111f StPO)为中心[J]. 月旦法学杂志,2015(6):125-154. [17] 德国刑事诉讼法典[M]. 宗玉琨,译注. 北京:知识产权出版社,2013. [18] STEFAN D C. Asset forfeiture in the United States[M]. Huntington:Juris Pulishing, 2016:266-267. [19] STEFAN D C. Criminal forfeiture procedure:an analysis of developments in the law regarding the inclusion of a forfeiture judgment in sentence imposed in a criminal case[J]. American Journal of Criminal Law,2004(32):55-103. [20] 林钰雄. 刑事诉讼法(上册总论篇)[M]. 北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:7. [21] 田口守一. 刑事诉讼法(第5版)[M]. 张凌,于秀峰,译. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2010:33. -
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数:664
- HTML全文浏览量:0
- PDF下载量:341
- 被引次数:0
下载:
