供犯罪所用本人财物没收研究——以《刑法》第六十四条为切入点  

Research on the Confiscation of Personal Property for Criminal Use——Take Article 64 of the Criminal Law as the Start Point

作　　者：万志鹏[1] 刘涛[1] WAN Zhi-peng;LIU Tao(Xiangtan University,Xiangtan,Hunan,411105)

机构地区：[1]湘潭大学法学院,湖南湘潭411105

出　　处：《湖南警察学院学报》2021年第3期26-37,共12页Journal of Hunan Police Academy

基　　金：2018年湖南省哲学社会科学基金项目“没收不法财产的刑事实体法问题研究”(18YBA416)。

摘　　要：《刑法》第六十四条对"犯罪所用的本人财物"采取了严格的绝对没收原则,如何解释"犯罪所用的本人财物"的内涵和外延,是精准没收无法回避的问题。理论界主流观点是将"犯罪所用的本人财物"限制解释为"与违禁品相当的财物";实务界的主要做法是将"犯罪所用的本人财物"解释为犯罪工具。但是,这些解释不仅不能贯彻比例原则,而且不利于保护第三人在没收中的合法权益。弥补这些缺陷,应当突破"财物"是具体物的理论障碍,合理认定单数主体与复数主体、共犯与第三人、共有关系与负担物权关系中"犯罪所用的本人财物"的范围。没收供犯罪所用的本人财物是兼具惩罚性、预防性、平衡性的第三类法律后果,性质上独立于刑罚和保安处分措施。Article 64 of the Criminal Law adopts a strict principle of absolute confiscation of"personal property used in crime".How to interpret the connotation and extension of"personal property used in crime"is an unavoidable problem of precise confiscation.The mainstream view in the theoretical circle is to interpret the limitation of"personal property used in crime"as"property equivalent to contraband";the main practice in the practice is to interpret"personal property used in crime"as a criminal tool.However,these explanations not only fail to implement the principle of proportionality,but also are not conducive to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of third parties in confiscation.To make up for these defects,we should break through the theoretical obstacle that"property"is a concrete issue,and reasonably determine the scope of"personal property used in crime"in the relationship between singular and plural subjects,accomplices and third parties,co-ownership and property rights.The confiscation of personal property for criminal use is a third type of legal consequence that is with punitive,preventive,and balanced nature,and it is independent of penalty and security measures in nature.

关 键 词：特别没收 本人财物 供犯罪所用 第三类刑法后果 

分 类 号：D924.1[政治法律—刑法学]