刑事涉財產判項執行的主體反思與程序建構

刑事執行是追訴活動的終端環節，執行權力的配置直接影響刑罰目的的實現效果。實踐中，刑事涉財產判項''低實執率''在某種程度上反映出執行權分配存在一定的問題。現行涉財產判項的執行機關調查能力不足，非訴訟結構下的檢察執行監督難以實現對涉財判項執行的有效督促。從比較法經驗和訴訟規律來看，確定涉財判項的執行機關需統籌考慮三個關鍵因素：該機關的性質和定位是否與執行權的運行機制相契合；該機關是否有充分的權能對涉案財產進行調查；對涉案財產查控和處置等活動的介入是否及時。在刑事涉財產判項執行中，由法院或司法行政機關作為刑事涉財產判項的執行主體，在法理和操作層面存在一定的障礙。檢察院作為唯一全程參與刑事訴訟的機關，可以依托提前介入偵查、補充偵查和調查核實權，實現從單一的執行監督模式轉向以證據為中心的訴訟模式，增強刑事涉財產判項執行機關的主觀意願和客觀能力。

Criminal execution constitutes the terminal phase of criminal prosecution, and the allocation of execution power bears a direct impact on the realization of penal objectives. In judicial practice, the low full enforcement rate of property-related criminal judgments reflects, to a certain extent, structural defects in the distribution of execution authority. Statutorily designated authorities for enforcing property-related judgments suffer from insufficient capacity for asset investigation. Moreover, prosecutorial supervision over execution, operating within a non-adversarial procedural framework, cannot deliver effective oversight of the enforcement of property-related judgments. Drawing on comparative law precedents and the inherent logic of criminal procedure, three core considerations must be weighed when designating the competent authority for property-related judgment enforcement: first, whether the institutional nature and statutory mandate of the authority align with the operational mechanics of execution power; second, whether the authority possesses adequate statutory competence to investigate case-linked assets; third, whether the authority can conduct timely intervention in the inquiry, control, and disposal of case-related property. Entrusting courts or judicial administrative organs with primary responsibility for enforcing property-related criminal judgments presents certain doctrinal and practical impediments. As the only state organ participating in all stages of criminal proceedings, procuratorates may leverage their powers of pre-investigation intervention, supplementary investigation, and evidentiary verification to transform the current single-mode execution supervision into an evidence-centered adversarial procedural framework. This accountability mechanism can simultaneously boost the discretionary willingness and operational capacity of enforcement authorities.