网络犯罪初查的正当性问题研究  

Research on the Legitimacy Issue of Cybercrime Initial Investigation Procedure

作　　者：许静文[1] XU Jingwen(Cyber Crime Investigation Department,Criminal Investigation Police University of China,Shenyang 110854,China)

机构地区：[1]中国刑事警察学院网络犯罪侦查系,辽宁沈阳110854

出　　处：《辽宁大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2020年第3期128-134,共7页Journal of Liaoning University(Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition)

基　　金：2018年国家社科基金一般项目“新时代刑事司法改革视阈下国家侦查权重构与实现路径研究”(18BFX058)的研究成果。

摘　　要：尽管《人民检察院刑事诉讼规则》和《公安机关办理刑事案件程序规定》都对初查作出了授权性质的规定,但是严格意义上讲,初查在刑事诉讼法中却没有明确的法律渊源,并不是一个法律意义上的程序阶段。对于网络犯罪初查而言,两高一部"电子数据规定"虽对其完成了授权,并对相关的电子数据赋予了证据能力。然而需要注意的是,在对上述规定进行实际执行的过程中,若对程序启动与取证活动缺乏有效的限制,则可能会滋生一系列权利干涉型取证行为,甚至可能会导致初查成为一个有效回避法律对侦查权控制的避风港。亟须从主客观两方面同时着手进行相关研究,以回应实践中较受争议的主动侦查质疑及侦查前置的争议。Although relevant rules and regulations have made provisions concerning the criminal initial investigation authorization,strictly speaking,the initial investigation has no clear legal origin in the criminal procedure law,which is not a legal procedure.As to the cybercrime initial investigation,the Electronic Data Regulations have completed the authorization and provided electronic data evidence competency.However,it should be noted that in the process of actual implementation of the above provisions,the lack of effective restriction on the start and process may breed a series of rights-interfering forensics activities,and may even cause the initial investigation to become a harbor to effectively circumventthe investigative control of law.It is imperative to proceed with relevant research from both the subjective and objective aspects in order to respond to the two controversial issues of proactive investigations and pre-investigation disputes in practice.

关 键 词：网络犯罪侦查 正当程序 初查 程序正当化规制 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]