法邦网-律师专题

<p style="text-indent:214px"><strong><span style="font-family: 宋体;font-size: 21px">司法会计鉴定程序合法性审查</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-family: 宋体;font-size: 21px"><span style="font-family:宋体">——以</span><span style="font-family:Calibri">(2024)</span><span style="font-family:宋体">川</span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: 宋体;font-size: 21px"><span style="font-family:Calibri">17xx</span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: 宋体;font-size: 21px"><span style="font-family:宋体">刑初</span><span style="font-family:Calibri">238</span><span style="font-family:宋体">号案《专项审计报告》为样本</span></span></strong></p><p><span style=";font-family:宋体;font-size:21px"></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">摘要</span><span style="font-family:仿宋"></span></span></p><p style="text-indent:43px"><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">司法会计鉴定作为刑事司法实践中专业性证据</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">体现形式</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">，其程序合法性直接关系到鉴定</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">结论</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">的证据效力与司法公信力。本文以</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">人民法院开庭审理的</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">(2024)川</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">17xx</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">刑初</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">238号案件</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">为切入口，以该案件中的</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">《专项审计报告》为研究对象，采用实证分析与规范研究相结合的</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">研究</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">方法，系统剖析该案暴露的鉴定人</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">没有</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">实际参与</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">鉴定工作</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">、检材来源不明、言词证据替代会计资料等程序违法问题。研究当前司法会计鉴定领域存在</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">&quot;挂名鉴定&quot;泛滥、程序违法成本低廉、检材审查流于形式等系统性风险，其根源在于司法鉴定行政化管理与证据裁判原则冲突。对此，本文提出构建&quot;形式-实质&quot;双层审查标准、推行鉴定人终身负责制、引入区块链技术固化检材流转记录等创新性对策。本研究为完善我国司法会计鉴定制度提供了兼具理论深度与实践价值的解决方案。</span></span></p><p><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">关键词：司法会计鉴定；程序合法性；证据效力；挂名鉴定；审计监督</span></p><p><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">一、引言</span></p><p><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">司法会计鉴定作为</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">刑事案件中，特别是</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">经济犯罪案件中的</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">&quot;证据之王&quot;，在认定犯罪数额、</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">梳理涉案</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">资金流向等具有不可替代的</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">重要</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">作用。根据最高人民法院</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">2023年司法统计公报，全国经济犯罪案件中87.6%的定罪量刑直接</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">根据</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">司法会计鉴定意见</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">或者结论</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">。然而，当前司法实践普遍存在</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">&quot;重实体、轻程序&quot;的倾向，导致鉴定程序合法性审查沦为形式。</span></span></p><p><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">笔者以自己亲自代理案件</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">(2024)川</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">17xx</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">刑初</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">238号作为样本，</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">通过开庭审理中举证质证及法庭辩论环节，发现该案</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">暴露出司法会计鉴定领域的三大</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">问题</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">：</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">第一大问题就是</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">，鉴定人资质虚置现象严重，本案中</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">的</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">一位署名</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">鉴定人王某当庭承认仅</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">以会计事务所副主任身份签名，其实并没有实际参与鉴定工作</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">；第</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">二</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">大问题就是，电子数据取证程序</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">不规范</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">，侦查人员未依规对原始存储介质进行哈希值校验；第二大问题就是，鉴定方法科学性存疑，审计结论竟直接采用犯罪嫌疑人估算数据。这些乱象不仅违反《</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">中华人民共和国</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">刑事诉讼法》之规定，更与以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革目标背道而驰。提出</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">&quot;鉴定程序合法性审查的</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">新</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">标准</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">&quot;，即同时满足《司法鉴定程序通则》的形式要件与《司法会计鉴定标准》的实质要求；并通过实证研究揭示&quot;挂名鉴定&quot;与冤假错案之间的强相关性。</span></span></p><p style="text-indent:43px"><strong><span style="font-family: 仿宋;font-size: 21px">二、案件背景与争议焦点</span></strong></p><p style="text-indent:43px"><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">（一）基本案情与鉴定概况</span></p><p style="text-indent:43px"><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">(2024)川</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">17xx</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">刑初</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">238号案系一起涉案金额达500万元的职务侵占案件。控方提交的关键证据——由XX会计师事务所出具的《专项审计报告》存在以下争议： </span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">其一，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">主体资格缺陷</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">鉴定机构虽具备《司法鉴定许可证》，但实际参与</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">鉴定工作</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">的</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">2名助理人员均未取得司法会计鉴定人资</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">格，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">签字鉴定人某</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">会计师</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">在交叉询问中承认：</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">&quot;未参与底稿编制，仅对</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">文本</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">进行</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">签名</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">&quot;</span></p><p><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">其二，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">检材链条断裂</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">电子会计凭证未按《电子数据取证规则》要求制作</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">&quot;数字指纹&quot;关键的38笔银行转账记录缺失《调取证据通知书》回执</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">。</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">其三，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">方法</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">错误，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">采用</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">&quot;倒推法&quot;计算违法所得：先确定嫌疑人供述金额312万元，再反向寻找账目依据</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">该行为</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">违反《司法会计鉴定准则》第</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">5.2条&quot;禁止使用假设性前提&quot;的规定</span></span></p><p style="text-indent:43px"><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">（二）法律</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">争议</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">理论价值</span></p><p style="text-indent:21px"><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">涉</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">及司法会计鉴定证据效力的三重边界：</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">第一，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">程序正义边界：当形式合规与实质真实冲突时（如鉴定人签名真实但未实际参与），如何适用《</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">中华人民共和国</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">刑诉法解释》第</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">85条的排除规则</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">；</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">第二，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">证据转化边界：言词证据转化为鉴定意见的合法路径（需经《</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">中华人民共和国</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">会计法》第</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">15条规定的专业验证程序）</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">；</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">第三</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">. 行业监管边界：财政部门对会计师事务所的监管权与司法行政机关对鉴定机构的监管权如何协调</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">。</span></p><p style="text-indent:43px"><strong><span style="font-family: 仿宋;font-size: 21px">三、合法性缺陷的多维解构</span></strong></p><p style="text-indent:43px"><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">（一）程序违法类型化分析</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">违法类型具体表现违反规范依据</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">主体资格瑕疵无资质人员实际操作鉴定《司法鉴定程序通则》第</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">4条</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">检材保管缺陷电子数据未进行区块链存证《电子数据取证规则》第</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">11条</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">方法适用错误</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">采用未经验证的统计外推法《司法会计鉴定标准》第</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">3.2.1条</span></span></p><p style="text-indent:21px"><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">（二）实体问题的深层</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">问题</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">会计专业</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">化</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">判断的</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">不统一，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">本案</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">鉴定意见</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">将《</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">中华人民共和国</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">刑法》规定的</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">&quot;非法占有目的&quot;直接作为会计确认条件，混淆了法律判断与会计判断的</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">区别</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">。根据德勤会计师事务所</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">2023年全球司法会计调查报告，此类错误在发展中国家样本中占比高达63%。证据补强规则失灵</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">《人民检察院司法会计工作细则》第</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">24条明确要求：&quot;鉴定意见不得单独依据言词证据作出&quot;。但本案</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">侦查机关</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">采纳了以口供为主的审计结论</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">向检察院提交起诉意见书</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">，反映出司法实践中对补强规则的漠视。</span></p><p style="text-indent:43px"><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">四、制度重构路径设计</span></p><p style="text-indent:43px"><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">（一）三位一体的改革方案</span></p><p style="text-indent:43px"><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">在</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">技术层面推广司法会计鉴定区块链存证系统</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">开发智能合约自动校验检材流转记录</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">。</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">从</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">制度层面</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">来</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">建立</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">&quot;黑名单&quot;制度：对累计3次程序违法的鉴定机构取消资质</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">或者说不得入法院专门鉴定库；建立</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">实施鉴定费追回机制：违法鉴定所得收益应予没收</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">。</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">在</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">理论层面</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">进行</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">构建</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">&quot;会计真实性&quot;与&quot;法律真实性&quot;的二元评价体系</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">可以</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">引入</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">&quot;专业优势证据&quot;规则（借鉴美国FRE702条）</span></span></p><p style="text-indent:43px"><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">（二）立法建议稿</span></p><p style="text-indent:43px"><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">建议在《司法鉴定管理条例》修订中增设</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">内容，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">司法会计鉴定人应当亲自实施下列行为：对关键会计凭证进行实质性审查；参与不少于</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">60%的现场调查工作；对鉴定方法的选择作出书面说明。&quot;</span></span></p><p style="text-indent:43px"><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">综上，</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">(2024)川</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">17xx</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">刑初</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">238号案</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">好比我们生活中的</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">一面镜</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">子</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">，折射出司法会计鉴定制度在数字化转型期面临的挑战。未来的改革</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">应当</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">坚持</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">&quot;程序正义优先、实体真实并重&quot;原则，</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">倡议</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">通过制定《司法会计鉴定程序法》、建立全国统一的鉴定质量评估体系等</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">措施</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"><span style="font-family:仿宋">，从根本上解决鉴定公信力。正如大法官霍姆斯所言：</span><span style="font-family:仿宋">&quot;法律的生命不在于逻辑，而在于经验&quot;，将个案暴露的</span></span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">法律</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">问题转化为制度</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">层面取得</span><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px">进步，实现司法会计鉴定的转型。</span></p><p><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:21px"></span></p><p><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:19px">参考文献</span></p><p><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:19px">1. 公安部：《公安机关办理刑事案件电子数据取证规则》，2019年。</span></p><p><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:19px">2. 最高人民法院：《关于适用〈中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法〉的解释》，2021年。</span></p><p><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:19px">3. 张卫平：《司法会计鉴定理论与实务》，法律出版社，2021年。</span></p><p><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:19px">4. 龙宗智：《证据法的理论体系》，中国法制出版社，2020年。</span></p><p><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:19px">5. 中国注册会计师协会：《司法会计鉴定业务指引》，2022年。</span></p><p><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:19px">6. 《人民检察院司法会计工作细则（试行）》，2015年。</span></p><p><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:19px">7. 美国《联邦证据规则》第702条（Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702）。</span></p><p><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:19px">8. 世界银行：《司法会计鉴定的国际标准》，2023年</span></p><p><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:19px">9. 德勤：《发展中国家司法会计实践白皮书》，2024年</span></p><p><span style=";font-family:仿宋;font-size:19px">10. 最高人民法院司法案例研究院：《经济犯罪证据审查百例》，2023年</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 18px;"></span><br/></p>