【作者】 杨露娜；

【导师】 邱星美；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 “执行难、执行乱”是我国司法实务界的难题。造成执行困境的原因很多,执行竞合是其中一个方面。民事执行竞合在学界和实务界被广泛研究,但财产刑执行和民事执行竞合的课题却鲜有学者涉及。财产刑执行和民事执行竞合,是指国家作为对犯罪行为人科以财产刑的公法债权人与犯罪行为人的其他民事债权人,同时或先后依不同的执行根据对该犯罪行为人的特定财产申请或者直接进行强制执行过程中产生的各债权人请求权之间相互重合又排斥的状态。财产刑在贪利型犯罪中的广泛使用使民事强制执行遭遇了财产刑执行的挑战,两者产生冲突的机会日益增多。长期以来,我国关于财产刑执行和民事执行竞合的法律规定非常不完善,2010年6月1日开始实施的《最高人民法院关于财产刑执行的若干规定》在一定程度上改变了这一状况。其最大的亮点就在于将财产刑的执行机构确定为人民法院的执行机构,解决了以往财产刑执行的混乱及互相推诿的状况。但同时,财产刑执行和民事执行竞合的问题却突显出来,急需学界寻求解决之道,以缓解甚至消灭犯罪行为人的财产被争抢的问题。本文在寻求财产刑执行和民事执行竞合产生根源的基础上,使用规范分析的方法,对各种解决方式加以筛选,全面阐述了财产刑执行和民事执行竞合。文章共分为四个部分。第一部分为财产刑执行和民事执行竞合的概述。主要对其含义、特征进行了界定,并进行类型划分,同时深究其产生根源,为下文做好铺垫。第二部分介绍了财产刑执行和民事执行竞合解决方式的相关学说,即“先刑后民”、“先民后刑”及“民刑并行”,并对各学说加以评析。第三部分探析了解决财产刑执行和民事执行竞合的理论基础,对刑事责任和民事责任、公权与私权、执行公正与执行效率在竞合中的关系进行详细阐述,从而对财产刑执行和民事执行竞合进行类型新定位,并在此基础上得出更为合理的解决方式。第四部分介绍了我国财产刑执行和民事执行竞合的立法现状以及解决方法,并对我国解决方式的构建提出了粗浅的建议。笔者将财产刑执行和民事执行竞合分为事实竞合型、事实牵连型、事实独立型三种。得出在事实竞合型执行竞合中,应当无条件优先对民事债权进行强制执行,即“先民后刑”。在事实牵连型和事实独立型执行竞合中,应当采用具体情况具体分析的分段处理原则:将“财产刑判处”作为一个临界点,之前产生的民事债务优先财产刑受偿,之后产生的则视情况而定。具体来讲,还要区分终局执行、保全执行、罚金刑、没收刑等各种情况来进行不同处理。财产刑执行和民事执行竞合制度的构建是一个非常复杂的过程,与财产保全、财产刑行刑时效、刑事附带民事执行等相关制度密切相关。它突破了刑事责任和民事责任的界限,横跨民事程序法、民事实体法、刑事程序法和刑事实体法多个专业领域。学界对其研究非常之少,实务界更是混乱不堪。我国应当加快完善现行解决财产刑执行和民事执行竞合的立法,完善刑事附带民事执行,明确财产保全制度的价值和定位,建立财产刑行刑时效制度。更多还原

【Abstract】 Competition-collaboration of property penalty execution and civil enforcement means a phenomenon that multiple claims which can’t be satisfied simultaneously co-exist on a perpetrator’s limited property when the victim or his other creditors asked him for compensations after he was sentenced to property penalty. How to meet these claims becomes an urgent problem.For a long time, the legal rules on competition-collaboration of property penalty execution and civil enforcement are very imperfect.‘Several provisions on property penalty execution of Supreme Court’which has come into effect on June 1, 2010 slightly changed this situation. This paper use the method of normative analysis to screen the various solutions to the competition-collaboration of property penalty execution and civil enforcement which is comprehensively expounded on the basis of searching for the root of this problem.In the paper, I will research the competition-collaboration on the basis of three solutions: property penalty execution precedes, civil enforcement precedes, property penalty execution and civil enforcement parallel. Then I will analyze the values of each solution. I divided competition-collaboration into three types, namely,‘facts coincidence’,‘facts involved’and‘facts independent’.‘Facts coincidence’type should apply the principle of‘civil enforcement precedes’. In the situations of‘facts involved’and‘facts independent’, principle of segmentation should be applied. To be specific, civil compensation arising before the judgment of property penalty should be satisfied on the first hand. Other situations depend on specific case.The construction of competition-collaboration of property penalty execution and civil enforcement system is a very complex process and highly related to some other systems like property preservation and so on. It broke through the boundaries of criminal and civil liabilities and crossed multiple professional fields like civil enforcement law, civil substantive law, criminal law, criminal procedure law and so on. However, there is little academic research on this problem and in the practice the situation is in a mess. We should accelerate the improvement of legislation and make the related systems more perfect.更多还原