Research On The Proof Of The Criminal Illegal Income Confiscated

"Code of Criminal Procedure" that our country revised in 2012 added the illegal income confiscation procedures when the criminal suspects and defendants into hiding or death in it’s special procedures. This for the effective against some major corruption and terrorism crime, ensure the suspect, the defendant is not documented procedure justice and promote the perfection of the criminal procedure law of our country has important significance. However, as a new litigation system, the illegal income confiscated program has no uniform and specific provisions on the most important proof problem.Based on the discussion on the nature of the illegal income confiscation procedures, used the method of comparative research and empirical analysis, after analysised the different perspectives of domestic scholars on proof problem of this program and foreign-related system, mainly around the object of proof, burden of proof and standard of proof and other issues of illegal income objects confiscated, found out our current problem and put forward their point of view.This paper analyzed the the significance of research on the proof problem of confiscate the illegal income and bject of proof, followed on the basis of the provisions of "Criminal Procedure Law" and relevant judicial interpretations, studied how to distribute the burden of proof of the confiscation of illegal gains and set what kind of standard by exploring the nature of the program.Different scholars have different views, that the illegal income confiscation procedures herein belong to criminal proceedings have atypical characteristics in the nature of a civil action; a crime that should be proof of the illegal income confiscated program objects, the illegal proceeds and other property involved is the need to focus on objects proof; It is reasonable for the prosecution to prove the law matters In the distribution of the burden of proof, but the interested party is also necessary to bear the burden of proof limited. We can clear the burden of proof to establish a hybrid one that the burden should be beard by the procuratorate organs who is exercised the right of public prosecution by the representative of the state. After the interested parties to challenge for the forfeiture of property and evidence, the prosecution may present evidence to refute the interested parties views again; As for the standard of proof, the paper advocates the subject and object of proof on the basis of proof on the distinction, as applicable standard of proof multivariate hierarchical system: prosecution for criminal suspects and the accused to prove the existence of a crime that should be applied in criminal proceedings "clear facts of the case proof, the evidence is reliable, adequate "standard of proof, between the situation for illegal gains and property of other people involved as well as the illegal proceeds and other property and criminal acts involved substantial connection proves only need to reach a civil action in the" preponderance of the evidence "of standards can be; people stakes evidence of their claims the proposed civil action only need to reach the "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof.