On The Identification Of "Same Facts" In Civil Penalty Crossing Cases

The crossover of civil penal cases frequently occurs in judicial practice,and the issue of litigation relations in cross-pollination cases has become a concern of judicial practice and academia.Judicial interpretations in the fields of private lending and illegal fund-raising regard whether or not civil penal proceedings involve "same facts" as the standard for handling their litigation relationship.However,judicial judgments do not interpret "same facts" uniformly,and there are several different interpretations.The first is that the "identity of the same fact" should be a "natural fact";the second is that the "identity of the fact" should be the same as the subject of the act,the object or object of the act,and the performance of the act;the existence of private lending is different from the case of illegal fundraising The subject of responsibility should not be identified as "the same fact";the third is to correlate the facts of civil cases into "the same fact".Among them,the viewpoints of "identifying the same fact" as "natural fact" and correlating internalization of the facts involved in the civil proceedings into "identical fact" dominate.Correspondingly,in the case of civil penalties,several methods have been adopted to directly dismiss the prosecution,dismiss the prosecution but retain the right of civil action,and decide to suspend the litigation.Aiming at the different judicial status of the interpretation of the “same fact” in judicial rulings,judicial personnel have also launched researches on the issue of the identification of “ same facts ”,but the existing research has deviated from the original context of the issue of litigation relations in civil cross cases.The interpretation of the expressions that are related or similar to "the same fact" in judicial interpretation has caused a dilemma in judicial practice.Because this superficial interpretation does not provide specific and enforceable operational guidelines for the handling of civil criminal proceedings,it has instead caused confusion and disorder in judicial practice.On the other hand,the strong involvement of the criminal recovery and reimbursement system has also blocked the legal application of the law of the "samel facts" determination standard,and the criminal proceedings have completely absorbed and merged the civil proceedings.The norm for cross-cases with illegal fundraising.In judicial practice,the discussion of the identification of "same facts" deviates from the original context of the relationship between civil lawsuits,and it cannot well respond to the following two questions: Why do civil cases involve "same facts" as a case of cross-civilian criminal cases? The standard of litigation relationship? Why should the case be tried on the basis of "principle before the people" as the "principle" after being identified as "the same fact" ? Therefore,it is necessary to return to the original point of dealing with the relationship between civil lawsuits,deepen the understanding of the "identity of the same fact",and re-interpret the "identity of the same fact" from the perspective of re-construction of the rules of criminal judgment prejudice and recognize its essence.It is the determination of whether the facts of the cases involved in the civil criminal proceedings are implicated and whether the facts at this level have prejudgement in criminal judgment.At the same time,we should pay attention to the protection of the civil litigation rights of the parties,be aware of the shortcomings of the criminal lawsuit procedure to absorb the relief function of civil lawsuits,and the civil lawsuit suspension system should also be rationally returned to make the parties' civil litigation rights "from nothing" to "less to more." If so,the rules of "same facts" can be more standardized and specific,and the handling of litigation relations in cross-police cases can gradually enter a benign and rational track.