随着司法实践和经济活动的发展和演变，经济犯罪和经济纠纷在法律事实上相互交织，在性质认定上界限难分，在诉讼程序上相互冲突，这种法律现象引起了司法界和学界的极大关注。在学术界，虽然对刑民交叉案件的概念、基本类型、处理原则有了一定的梳理，但是没有形成体系化的理论成果。最高人民法院陆续出台相关司法解释，但缺乏顶层设计的科学考虑，没有从体系上去解决此类案件程序冲突问题。理论研究的瓶颈以及法律规范的欠缺与司法实践需求形成了十分突出的矛盾。本文以经济犯罪与经济纠纷交叉案件为视角，以诉讼行为冲突为切入点，分析、论证刑事诉讼和民事诉讼的冲突和协调问题。文章主要以下有四部分内容。“刑民交叉案件的若干基本问题研究”部分，对刑民交叉案件概念进行界定，分析刑民交叉案件的形成原因。重点论述了刑民交叉案件的概念，突破以往把实体法律关系、实体法律事实作为界定刑民交叉案件的理论工具，引入诉讼行为、诉讼法律关系的概念对刑民交叉案件进行重新界定，提出刑民交叉案件是指由于法律事实存在互相交叉、竞合或牵连，导致刑事和民事诉讼行为在运行时互相影响，甚至形成冲突的案件。“刑民交叉案件的事实类型、冲突类型及程序冲突表现”部分，对这三者之间的关系进行梳理，提出法律事实的竞合和牵连是刑民交叉案件程序冲突的原因，并表现为各种诉讼行为的冲突，其背后暗含着事实认定冲突、法律评价冲突、权力（利）冲突等冲突类型。在对刑民交叉案件程序冲突进行类型化分析时，突破以往以法律事实为类型化标准的单一标准的思维定式，以程序冲突背后的事实认定冲突、法律评价冲突、权力（利）冲突为另一个划分标准，并将其类型化。“刑民交叉案件现行协调机制的考察与分析”部分，对现行的程序冲突的协调机制进行了全面考察和梳理。重点梳理有关法律规定和司法解释，探寻我国司法机关处理刑民交叉案件的基本脉络和司法思维，提出现行对管辖冲突协调规定存在公权力优于私权利的逻辑，存在对刑事追诉权与民事裁判权的权力博弈考虑，现有法律规定和司法解释在解决对款物所采措施冲突和裁判冲突方面存在严重缺位，几乎处于空白状态。“刑民交叉案件的程序协调基本原理”部分，对刑事诉讼与民事诉讼的关系、刑民交叉案件程序协调的价值、刑民交叉案件程序协调应遵循的原则进行深入分析，提出从权力本位走向权利本位、更加注重被害人权益、体现诉讼的人文关怀等价值遵循，为解决程序冲突提供基本理论依据。“刑民交叉案件的程序冲突协调”部分，系统化、体系化地提出对管辖冲突、对款物所采措施冲突以及裁判冲突进行协调的初步构想。

With the development of economy and the evolvement of judicial practice,more and more economic crimes and disputes legally intertwined with each other, not only difficult to draw a line between but causing many procedural conflicts. This issue has drawn much attention from the judicial circles and scholars concerned. The academic circles have accomplished a lot as to the concept, primary types and basic operating rules of criminal-civil cross cases, but there is still a long way to go before a systematic theory is achieved. Although the Supreme People’s court has published a series of related judicial interpretations, for a lack of scientific top-level design, the procedural conflicts in such cases have not been settled systematically. There is a remarkable gap between the judicial practice and the insufficient theoretical study and incomplete rules of law. From the perspective of economic crimes - disputes cross cases, focused on problems in judicial act, this thesis is aimed to demonstrating and analyzing the conflicts between criminal proceedings and civil procedure, and, in turn, searching for the possible solutions. This paper mainly the following four parts. The section, a study on basic problems of criminal and civil cross cases, is an effort to clarify the definition and causes of such type of cases. Clarification of the definition of criminal-civil cross cases is the focus of this part. In this regard, it is a breakthrough of the traditional method, that is, to define criminal and civil cross cases in terms of entity law relations and entity legal facts. Instead, concepts of judicial act and judicial legal relations are introduced here to redefine this type of cases. This part concludes that criminal-civil cross cases are those in which different legal facts intertwine, coo petite or involve with each other, causing interactions or even conflicts in criminal and civil judicial act. Sorts of entities, types of conflicts and related procedural acts is an in-depth examination of the relations among the three. The research findings of this part are that the procedural conflicts in criminal and civil cross cases are mainly caused by the concurrence and intertwining between legal entities, which usually take place in form of conflicts in different judicial acts, and there are other related conflicts like those in facts finding, legal evaluation, and rights or interests competition. In order to achieve a more reasonable classification of the procedural conflicts in criminal and civil cross cases, this section takes into account the conflicts in facts finding, legal evaluation, and rights and interests competition, which is a breakthrough to the single standard based on legal entities.An investigation and analysis on the current coordination mechanism of criminal and civil cross cases is an comprehensive study and in-depth exploration of the present coordination mechanism for procedural conflicts resolution. It is a careful examination of relevant existing legal regulations and judicial interpretations, aimed to track down the principle modes and judicial thoughts in dealing with such cases in our country. It points out that, in the current coordination rules, there is a tendency of giving priority to public power over private rights, and a concern of the competitions between criminal prosecution and civil jurisdiction. It also finds out that there exists a remarkable deficiency in the current legal regulations and judicial interpretations when solving conflicts in judging and dealing with concerned money and articles. This problem is so serious that it is almost impossible to find adequate standards in such a situation. The section, On basic principles in procedural coordination of criminal and civil cross cases, consists in-depth analyses of the relations between criminal proceedings ans civil procedures, the value of procedural coordination in criminal and civil cross cases and its proper guiding rules. It concludes that in our efforts to provide theoretical basis for dealing with procedural conflicts, we should accomplish a shift from the power-oriented idea to the right-oriented idea, attach more importance to victims’ rights and interests, and practice the value of humanistic concern. The last part of this thesis, Coordination of procedural conflicts in criminal and civil cross cases, based on the above researches, aims to provide a systematic and effective mode to coordinate conflicts in jurisdiction, money and articles deposition, and judgments of criminal and civil cross cases.