摘要
《反有组织犯罪法》第45、46条是有组织犯罪财产没收的核心条款。承认等值没收、第三人没收表明没收制度与对物诉讼具有适配性。有组织犯罪当前并未承认扩大没收;检察机关对没收主张承担证明责任的同时被告人对财产来源合法负有说明义务,该说明义务不同于证明责任倒置而是注意规定;因缓解证明困难而适用的“高度可能性”证明标准并未实现有组织犯罪全覆盖,还应明确恶势力犯罪没收、第三人没收的证明标准。“高度可能性”不应直接等同于民事诉讼的优势证据,应以“确实充分”为参照,超出优势证据。
Articles 45 and 46 of Anti-Organized Crime Law are central provisions for the confiscation of organized crime property.This law recognizes equivalent confiscation and confiscation by third parties,indicating compatibility with action in rem litigation.Currently,the law does not acknowledge the expansion of confiscation.The prosecution bears the burden of proof for confiscation claims,while defendants must provide explanations,differing from the reversed burden of proof.The“high probability”standard applied to alleviate proof difficulties has not achieved full coverage for organized crime,necessitating clarification of proof standards for confiscation of criminal proceeds and third-party confiscation.The application of the standard of high probability should not be directly equated with the preponderance of evidence in civil litigation;instead,it should be measured against a benchmark of“sufficient certainty”,which exceeds the preponderance of evidence.
出处
《法治现代化研究》
CSSCI
2024年第6期135-150,共16页
Law and Modernization
基金
国家社会科学基金重点项目“恶势力的生成机理及其阻断机制研究”(20AFX013)
广州市哲学社会科学规划课题“粤港澳大湾区区际刑事司法协助关键问题研究”(2023GZGJ208)的阶段性研究成果
关键词
有组织犯罪
对物诉讼
没收
高度可能性
证明标准
organized crime
action in rem
confiscation
high probability
proof standard
