违法所得没收程序可弥补犯罪嫌疑人逃匿、死亡后违法所得财产处置规定之不足，对资产追回的国内立法与境外追赃提供了法律依据。违法所得没收程序设立之初，由于法条内容的空泛性导致在理论和实践中存在较多争议。之后，最高人民法院、最高人民检察院出台相关法律解释和规定，该程序的适用规则得以明确，实用性得到增强。然而，司法实践仍然存在部分问题，比如案件类型适用单一、证明标准适用混乱、利害关系人权利保障不足、与缺席审判界限不明以及境外追赃案件适用率低等。本文拟通过案例分析方式揭示违法所得没收程序的适用现状及困境，深入探究既有问题的形成缘由，并在此基础之上完善违法所得没收程序的适用，着力提升国际执行没收裁决之可行性，强化国际司法合作与实现境外追赃效率最大化。

文章第一部分为违法所得没收程序的概述，对违法所得没收程序的立法背景加以介绍。我国腐败犯罪日趋严重，资产流出数额巨大，打击腐败犯罪、保护国家和人民财产已然成为党和国家的重要工作之一。为了解决追赃难题，实有必要建立违法所得没收程序。并对违法所得没收程序的性质争议做出正面回应，明确刑事诉讼程序的法律属性。

文章第二部分以30份案例分析为基础探究违法所得没收程序在适用中存在的问题，大致可概况为逃匿型案件适用较少、对贪污贿赂以外的其他犯罪适用不足、跨境追赃效率较低三个方面，此等问题在司法实践中应该予以关注。此外，二元化证明标准在实践中并未得到统一适用、利害关系人的权利保障不充分、与缺席审判程序适用混淆等弊端亦需要提炼。

文章第三部分对违法所得没收程序的不足做出溯源分析。一是程序适用条件严苛，犯罪嫌疑人、被告人逃匿的需要满足通缉一年后不能到案的时间限制条件，去向不明的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人所犯罪行还需达到“重大犯罪案件”程度。二是“重大犯罪案件”采取“社会影响力”的判断标准过于主观，其判断标准依赖于法官自身水平，易出现同案不同判情形。三是证明规范的残缺，犯罪事实的证明标准存在不同意见以及未建立违法所得推定制度。四是有关利害关系人的立法不完善，利害关系人的诉讼地位不明确、利害关系人范围存在争议以及权利保障不充分。五是与缺席审程序界限不明，缺席审判程序同样具有追赃功能，二者发生竞合时可能会出现混淆适用的情况。六是违法所得没收裁决域外执行力不足，国际层面尚未达成违法所得没收裁决承认与执行的条约、协议，国内层面难以提供符合外国承认与执行条件的裁决，以及资产分享制度适用规则不具体，导致实践中不利于调动被请求国的积极性，进而不利于没收裁决被外国承认与执行。

文章第四部分为提升违法所得没收程序追赃效能的建议。具体而言，包括优化违法所得没收程序，合理制定逃匿型案件的适用条件，取消一年的时间限制条件和“社会影响力”的判断标准；明确犯罪事实以“有证据证明”为证明标准，利害关系人“优势证据”的证明标准以及建立违法所得推定制度；保障利害关系人的合法权利，明确利害关系人的诉讼地位和范围，建立利害关系人法律援助制度，完善权利救济途径；注重与缺席审判程序的衔接，明确两大程序适用情形，并加强违法所得没收裁决域外承认与执行的国际司法协助，完善国内资产分享制度。

The establishment of the confiscation procedure of illegal gains makes up for the deficiencies of previous laws on the disposal of illegal gains after the suspect fled and died, improves the domestic legislation of asset recovery in China, and provides a legal basis for overseas asset recovery. However, at the beginning of the establishment of the illegal income confiscation procedure, there were many disputes in theory and practice because of the universality of the content of the law. Through continuous improvement, the application of the procedure has been clarified. However, the author found that there were still many problems in the judicial practice of the illegal income confiscation procedure through case analysis. Through the analysis of judicial cases, this paper reveals the current situation and existing problems in the application of the confiscation procedure of illegal gains, analyzes the causes of the existing problems, and puts forward suggestions to improve the confiscation procedure of illegal gains, improve the feasibility of the international enforcement of the confiscation decision, realize international judicial cooperation, and improve the efficiency of overseas asset recovery. This section is divided into four parts:

The first part is an overview of the confiscation procedure of illegal gains. First of all, the legislative background and significance of the confiscation of illegal income are explained. Secondly, it responds to the dispute about the nature of the confiscation procedure of illegal income and makes clear the legal attribute of the criminal procedure. Finally, the structure of the confiscation procedure of illegal gains is briefly introduced.

The second part points out several problems existing in the application of illegal income confiscation procedure through the analysis of 30 cases. Through analysis, the author found that in judicial practice, There are more cases of death， and are less applicable to the cases of escaping and hidden, and other criminal activities other than corruption and bribery, and the efficiency of cross-border asset recovery is low. In 2017, a dual certification standard will be established, which is insufficient to guarantee the rights of interested parties and may be confused with the trial procedure by default.

The third part analyzes the causes of the problems. First, the application conditions of the program are strict. If a criminal suspect or defendant abscond, the time limit of not being able to appear in the case one year after the arrest warrant is met. If the criminal suspect or defendant abscond within the territory or the whereabouts of the abscond is unknown, the crime also needs to reach the level of "major criminal case". The latest judicial interpretation of "major criminal cases" to adopt the "social influence" judgment standard is too subjective, there are different understandings of "major criminal cases" in practice. The two major restrictions make it difficult to start the confiscation procedure of illegal income in absconding cases. Secondly, the standard of proof is incomplete, especially there are different opinions on the standard of proof of criminal facts, and the law does not make explicit provisions on the standard of proof of interested parties. Thirdly, the legislation of interested parties is not perfect. The scope of interested parties is disputed, the litigation status of interested parties is not clear and the protection of rights is not sufficient. From time to time, the relation with absent trial procedure is unclear. The trial procedure in absentia also has the function of recovering stolen goods. When the two procedures concurrence, there may be confusion of application. Finally, the extraterritorial enforcement of illegal income confiscation rulings is insufficient. At the international level, no treaty or agreement has been reached on the recognition and enforcement of confiscation of illegal gains. On the domestic front, forfeiture procedures and asset-sharing systems are inadequate.

The fourth part of the illegal income confiscation procedures to improve the effectiveness of recovery suggestions. Specifically, optimize the confiscation procedures of illegal gains. The application conditions for cases of absconding will be optimized, and the one-year time limit and "social influence" criteria will be removed. Optimize the standard of proof and burden of proof, make it clear that criminal facts should be proved by evidence, establish the standard of proof of "prepondent evidence" of interested parties and establish the system of presumption of illegal gains. The legal rights of interested parties shall be guaranteed, the scope and litigation status of interested parties shall be clearly defined, a legal aid system for interested parties shall be established, and the channels for rights relief shall be improved. Realize the connection with the default trial procedure, clear the application of the two procedures. Strengthen international judicial assistance in the extraterritorial recognition and enforcement of illegal income confiscation rulings, and improve the domestic asset sharing system.