《中华人民共和国国际刑事司法协助法》专门一节对请求外国没收违法所得作出规定，但是所涉法规只有三条，内容的概括性、原则性较强且较多领域未涉及，难以有效指导实践。因此论文着重从司法实践中遇到的问题着手，通过研究请求外国没收违法所得的基本规则与程序，促进相关刑事协助请求能够确实有效的落地，达到最终没收并追回违法所得的目的。

论文由五个章节组成。第一章导论主要介绍了在没收违法所得、资产追回方面的研究现状。第二章明确违法所得的定性问题，本文虽沿用刑事司法协助法的“违法所得”一词，但根据国际公约以及刑事司法协助原则应限缩解释为通过犯罪行为获得的财物。较少依赖行为人付出所获得的违法所得收益如置业导致的财产增值等仍属于违法所得范畴。我国的没收制度采取双轨制，没收财产刑在国外难以得到承认与执行，但没收违法所得在国际社会具有普遍认可的法律基础，且作为对物之诉，对被没收财产享有权益的当事人不参与相关诉讼也不影响裁决的效力。第三章详细介绍了请求外国协助没收需遵循的原则。第四章从理论上尽可能全面的分析实践中有价值的请求所附材料的种类及其内容，着重从彭旭峰案件分析探讨我国的利害关系人权利保障不足的问题。第五章分析确定请求外国没收违法所得可以适用的程序。查封、扣押、冻结程序是防止财产隐匿、转移或毁损的必要手段。依据没收裁决提出请求时可以通过登记后直接执行和在被请求国重新提起没收诉讼两种方式。如果依据证据材料直接提出请求，可以通过民事没收、以民事诉讼追回财产或请求赔偿以及所有权证明的方式追回财产。

我国可以通过举证责任倒置的方式，合理推定在起诉毒品、腐败等犯罪之前的一定期限内犯罪分子所得财产为不法财产，以此避免出现对个人合法财产的没收。考虑到将违法所得没收程序定性为民事诉讼程序既符合国际立法方向，也可以让检察机关承担明确且要求较低的优势证明责任，对缺席的被告人也可以降低其参与诉讼和行使权利的要求，因此应当将该制度纳入民事诉讼领域。考虑到我国法律和相关司法解释并未对请求外国没收违法所得的数额限定最低标准，可能让犯罪分子产生侥幸心理，以为只要不是巨额的违法所得，就可能受困于可能比违法所得本身还高的程序性费用而不被执行，因此应当制定相关司法解释，限定请求外国没收违法所得的最低数额。面对我国提出的协助没收违法所得的请求，被请求国法院可能更看重犯罪嫌疑人、被告人本人所享有的诉讼权利。如果本人无法亲自到庭，至少要保证有诉讼参与人到庭参与诉讼，代为行使答辩、提供证据、质疑控方甚至上诉的权利。

The Law of the People's Republic of China on International Judicial Assistance in Criminal Matters has a special section on requesting foreign countries to confiscate illegal proceeds, but there are only three articles in the law, which are more general and principled, and more areas are not covered, making it difficult to effectively guide the practice. Therefore, the thesis focuses on the problems encountered in judicial practice and, by studying the basic rules and procedures for requesting foreign confiscation of illegal proceeds, it promotes the effective implementation of relevant mutual legal assistance requests to achieve the ultimate purpose of confiscation and recovery of illegal proceeds.

The work consists of five chapters. The first chapter presents the current state of research on confiscation of illicit proceeds and asset recovery. The second chapter clarifies the characterisation of proceeds of crime. Although the term 'proceeds of crime' is used in this thesis, it should be interpreted as property obtained through criminal activity in accordance with international conventions and principles of mutual legal assistance. The proceeds of illegal activities that are less dependent on payment by the offender, such as the increase in value of property due to ownership, still belong to the category of proceeds of illegal activities. China's confiscation system adopts a dual-track system, with foreign property confiscation judgments being difficult to recognise and enforce, while the confiscation of illegal proceeds has a universally recognised legal basis in the international community, and as an in rem action, the absence of the party with an interest in the confiscated property in the relevant proceedings does not affect the effectiveness of the decision. Chapter 3 sets out the principles to be followed when requesting foreign assistance in confiscation. Chapter 4 analyses the types of materials attached to requests that are valuable in practice and their content as fully as possible from a theoretical perspective, focusing on the analysis of the Peng Xufeng case to explore the problem of insufficient protection of the rights of interested parties in China. Chapter 5 analyses the procedures that can be used to determine the request for foreign confiscation of illicit proceeds. Confiscation, seizure and freezing procedures are necessary to prevent the concealment, transfer or destruction of property. A request based on a confiscation order may be made either by direct execution after registration or by re-filing a confiscation action in the requested country. If a request is made directly on the basis of evidence, the property may be recovered by civil forfeiture, recovery of property by civil action or claim for compensation, and proof of ownership.

In our country, it is possible to avoid the confiscation of one's legitimate property by reversing the burden of proof to reasonably presume that property acquired by criminals during a certain period prior to the prosecution of drug, corruption and other crimes is unlawful property. Considering that the characterisation of the procedure of confiscation of illicit proceeds as a civil procedure is in line with the direction of international legislation, and also allows the prosecuting authority to assume a clear and less demanding burden of proof of superiority, and reduces the requirements for absent defendants to participate in the proceedings and exercise their rights, the system should be incorporated into the field of civil procedure. Considering that our laws and relevant judicial interpretations do not set a minimum amount for requesting foreign confiscation of illegal proceeds, which may allow criminals to get lucky and think that as long as the illegal proceeds are not huge, they can be trapped by procedural costs that may be higher than the illegal proceeds themselves and not be enforced, relevant judicial interpretations should be formulated to limit the minimum amount for requesting foreign confiscation of illegal proceeds. When faced with a request from China for assistance in confiscating illegal proceeds, the court of the requested country may give greater weight to the procedural rights of the suspect or defendant himself. If he or she is unable to appear in court in person, at least a participant should be guaranteed to attend the proceedings and to exercise the right to defend himself or herself, to present evidence, to contest the charge or even to appeal on his or her behalf.