刑事缺席审判程序与违法所得没收程序的关系与衔接  

The Relationship and Connection between Criminal Absenteeism Trial Procedure and Illegal Income Confiscation Procedure

作　　者：曹飞跃 

机构地区：[1]澳门城市大学法学院,澳门

出　　处：《法学（汉斯）》2023年第6期5712-5721,共10页Open Journal of Legal Science

摘　　要：为了回应我国反腐败工作的需求,更及时有效的进行“追逃追赃”,2012年我国《刑事诉讼法》设立了违法所得没收程序;2018年又增设了刑事缺席审判程序。刑事缺席审判程序与违法所得没收程序都是在被告人潜逃的情况下进行的审判,在适用的犯罪种类上存在交叉重叠关系。但两者在适用的案件范围、适用的对象、适用的前置程序、送达的材料和方式、证明标准等诸多方面存在差异,不能简单地将两者理解为替代与被替代的关系。两种程序各自发挥制度优势,可以为追逃追赃构建更为完备的法律体系,但二者并存也带来了司法适用上的混乱,需要对其关系以及如何有效衔接进行厘清。In order to respond to the needs of China’s anti-corruption work and carry out more timely and ef-fective “pursuit of fugitives and stolen goods”, in 2012, China’s Criminal Procedure Law established a procedure for the confiscation of illegal gains;In 2018, a criminal default trial procedure was added. The criminal default trial procedure and the confiscation of illegal gains procedure are both conducted in the case of the defendant absconding, and there is a cross overlap relationship in the applicable types of crimes. However, there are differences between the two in many aspects such as the scope of applicable cases, the applicable objects, the applicable pre procedures, the materials and methods of delivery, and the standards of proof, which cannot be simply understood as the relationship between substitution and being substituted. The two procedures each play their institutional advantages and can build a more complete legal system for pursuing fugitives and pursuing stolen goods. However, the coexistence of the two also brings confusion in judicial application, and it is necessary to clarify their relationship and how to effectively connect them.

关 键 词：刑事缺席审判程序 违法所得没收程序 追逃追赃 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]