没收违法所得的合宪性分析——基于德国刑法上特别没收合宪性改革的启示  

Analysis on the Constitutionality of Confiscation of Illegal Gains: Enlightenment from the Constitutional Reform of Special Confiscation in German Criminal Law

作　　者：王锴[1] Wang Kai

机构地区：[1]北京航空航天大学法学院,北京100191

出　　处：《法学杂志》2022年第1期123-132,共10页Law Science Magazine

基　　金：司法部国家法治与法学理论研究项目“反歧视立法的宪法问题研究”(项目编号:19SFB2010)的阶段性研究成果。

摘　　要：没收违法所得是不是行政处罚或刑罚,并不取决于采取总额原则还是净利原则,还需要从其目的上进行判断。财产权属于法律上形成的基本权利,立法机关在确定财产权的保护范围时享有形成自由。违法所得不属于宪法上私有财产权的保护范围,由此也否定了没收违法所得的制裁属性。无论刑法上还是行政法上的没收违法所得更多的是一种矫正不公平财产秩序的措施,与民法上不当得利返还的理由类似。当然,立法在规定没收第三人的获利以及没收前是否对受害人进行退赔时,涉及到对第三人和受害人的私有财产权的限制,应当进行合宪性分析,避免对其私有财产权构成侵犯。Whether the confiscation of illegal income is an administrative penalty or a penalty does not depend on the principle of total or net profit, but also on the purpose of judgment. Property rights are fundamental rights formed in law, and the legislature enjoys freedom of formation when determining the scope of protection of property rights. Illegal income does not belong to the scope of protection of private property rights in the constitution, which also denies the sanction of confiscation of illegal income. Regardless of criminal law or administrative law, the confiscation of illegal income is more of a measure to correct unfair property order, similar to the reason for the return of unjust enrichment in civil law. Of course, when the legislation stipulates the confiscation of the third party’s profits and whether to return the victim from the illegal gains, it involves restrictions on the private property rights of the third party and the victim. Constitutional analysis should be carried out to avoid their private property rights. Constitute an infringement.

关 键 词：违法所得 刑罚 行政处罚 不当得利 私有财产权 

分 类 号：D951.6[政治法律—法学] DD914