| Due to the traditional concept of "valuing criminality over property" in practice,China’s criminal-related property has not been properly handled for a long time,and no litigation-based system for the handling of criminal-related property has been formed.The simplicity of the criminal-related property handling procedures has led to the defendant,the victim and the interested party’s legitimate property rights not being protected by the procedures,and then being infringed upon in practice.There are many problems that need to be improved in the setting of the object of proof,the standard of proof and the burden of proof in China’s criminal-related property handling procedures.In the setting of the object of proof,the concept of property involved in criminal cases is not clear,and the examination of the fact of ownership of property involved in criminal cases is neglected,and there are no specific grounds for the demurrer of the interested party.In terms of the setting of the standard of proof,the standard of proof for the proceeds of crime forfeiture procedures has been unduly raised in practice,and there is a lack of standard of proof in the procedure for handling criminal-related property.In terms of the allocation of the burden of proof,the interested parties have a limited burden of proof due to lack of procedural participation,and there is also a lack of application of the presumption regime.Therefore,we should further improve the rules of proof for criminal-related property handling procedures in China from the following aspects: in terms of setting the object of proof,we should clarify the specific connotation of criminal-related property,and the factual examination of the ownership of the property involved in the criminal case,as well as the defences of the interested party,should be the object of proof;in terms of setting the standard of proof,we should establish independent and diversified standards of proof for criminal-related property handling procedures,and standards of proof should be set at different levels of rigour for different objects of proof.In terms of the allocation of the burden of proof,the burden of proof on the interested party on the demurrer should be clarified,and presumption regime should be applied in specific cases. |
