刑事罚没收入补支司法经费制度的形成与变革  

The Formation and Reform of the System of Criminal Forfeiture Supplementing Judicial Funds

作　　者：冷必元[1] LENG Biyuan(College of Law,Hunan University of Technology,Zhuzhou Hunan 412007,China)

机构地区：[1]湖南工业大学法学院,湖南株洲412007

出　　处：《湖南工业大学学报（社会科学版）》2019年第2期1-8,共8页Journal of Hunan University of Technology(Social Science Edition)

基　　金：湖南省社会科学成果评审委员会基金资助项目"涉众型经济犯罪涉案财物处置问题研究"(XSP18YBC102);湖南省哲学社会科学规划基金资助项目"职务犯罪处刑过轻问题研究"(14YBA144)

摘　　要：司法机关将罚没收入上缴地方政府财政账户,地方财政再根据情况将所收取罚没收入返回司法机关,罚没收入从而被用于补支司法经费,并成为司法机关的重要经费来源。在此基础上,形成了我国的司法经费自筹体制。差额预算体制下,利用罚没收入等司法收入补支司法经费,是地方司法经费筹集的惯常做法。这种补支自筹方式,既有着国家的明文制度安排,同时也具有种种运行潜规。司法财物改革后,随着司法罚没收入统一上缴省级财政,地方政府无法分享罚没收入等司法收入作为财源,就很难再像原来一样承担起司法经费的给付责任。司法改革中,地方司法机关可能会失去地方财政的有力支持,从而会面临一定的财经压力。The judicial organs transfer the fines and confiscations into the local government financial accounts, and the local finance returns the fines and confiscations to the judicial organs according to the circumstances. The fines and confiscations are used to offset the judicial funds and become an important source of funds for the judicial organs. On this basis, a self-financing system of judicial funds has been formed in China. Under the differential budget system, it is a common practice for local judicial funds to offset judicial funds with judicial revenue such as fines and confiscations. This self-financing method has both a clear-cut system arrangement of the state and various operational rules. After the reform of judicial property, with the unified handing over of judicial penalty and confiscation income to provincial finance, local governments can not share the judicial revenue such as penalty and confiscation income as financial resources, so it is difficult to assume the responsibility of paying judicial funds as before. In the judicial reform, the local judicial organs may lose the strong support of local finance, and thus face certain financial pressure.

关 键 词：罚没收入 司法经费 自筹 司法改革 

分 类 号：D926[政治法律—法学]