斯洛文尼亚还规定了对涉及所有犯罪行为的犯罪所得进行基于定罪的没收和非 基于定罪的没收。 《刑法典》第 74 至 77c 条以及《刑事诉讼法》第 498 至 503 条对基于定罪的没 收制度作了规定。尽管《刑事诉讼法》第 498 至 501 条以及第 503 条对基于定 罪的没收制度作了大致规定，但也规定了一些可在没有定罪的情况下没收财产 的例外情况，大多出于防范目的。斯洛文尼亚的没收制度是一种以价值为基础 的制度（《刑法典》第 75 条）。无需发现或证明证物或证物与罪行之间的联系。 在诉讼过程中价值根据一般证据规则而定。此外，第 77a 至 77c 条中规定了对有 组织犯罪所得的延伸性没收。非基于定罪的没收制度是《没收非法来源资产法》中规定的一种民事诉讼程 序，适用于一些但非所有腐败罪行。由于近期刚通过此法，尚未根据其规定判处任何案件。 斯洛文尼亚还在《刑法典》第 73 条中对基于定罪没收使用的和预谋使用的犯罪 工具作了规定，而非基于定罪的没收仅涉及犯罪所得。 《刑事诉讼法》第 502 至 502e 条和《没收非法来源资产法》第 20 至 21 条对缉 获和冻结作了规定。缉获和冻结通常需要法院判决，并严格遵照审前程序不超 过三个月以及审理程序不超过六个月的时限，原因是腐败诉讼的复杂性。这两 种措施的时限可延长，但分别不得超过一年或两年。 扣押和没收资产管理基本条例载于《刑事诉讼法》第 506a)条。《没收非法来源 资产法》第 37 至 41 条也载列了相关规定。两者都涉及在最终没收前进行资产 预售。斯洛文尼亚尚无一个管理扣押和没收资产的中央机构，但由法院根据资 产性质作出判决。斯洛文尼亚在管理公司等复杂资产方面尚无乏经验。 由于以价值为基础的性质（《刑法典》第 75 条第 1 款），基于定罪的没收制度与 非基于定罪的没收制度相同（《没收非法来源资产法》第 5 条第 1 款），也可扣 押和没收经过转变和转化的犯罪所得，包括没收与合法来源财产相混合的犯罪 所得，没收价值最高可达混合其中的犯罪所得的价值。并未针对扣押、冻结和 没收来自此类犯罪所得的收入和其他利益作出明确规定。斯洛文尼亚的《没收非法来源资产法》就转移举证责任以证明可被没收的犯罪 所得或财产的合法来源作了规定。被告必须证明资产的合法来源，若无法证实 合法来源，可能面临的法律后果就是（非基于定罪的）没收。此外，在非基于 定罪的没收程序中以及基于定罪的没收程序的某些情况下，第三方必须证明其 并未无偿收受资产。《刑法典》（第 75 条）和《没收非法来源资产法》（第 30 条）都有保护善意第 三方的规定。只有在其财产进行无偿转移或大幅低于实际价值转移的情况下才能予以没收。
Slovenia has regulated both conviction-based and non-conviction-based confiscation of proceeds of crime, referring to all criminal offences. The conviction-based system is regulated in articles 74-77c CC and articles 498-503 CPA. Although articles 498-501, 503 CPA generally regulate a conviction-based system, they also provide for certain exceptional cases in which property can be confiscated in the absence of a conviction, mostly for preventive reasons. The Slovenian confiscation system is a value-based system (art. 75 CC). The object, or a link between the offence and the object, do not have to be found or proven. The value is determined in the proceedings by general evidentiary rules. Moreover, extended confiscation is regulated in article 77 a-c for proceeds of organized crime. The non-conviction-based forfeiture system is a civil procedure regulated in the Forfeiture of Assets of Illegal Origin Act (ZOPNI), which applies to a number, but not all corruption offences. Given the recent adoption of the law, no cases have been brought yet under its regulations. Slovenia has also adopted provisions on the conviction-based confiscation of instrumentalities used and destined for use in offences in article 73 CC, while non-conviction-based confiscation only refers to proceeds of crime. Seizure and freezing are regulated in articles 502-502e CPA and articles 20-21 ZOPNI. They generally require court decisions and are subject to a strict and, given the complexity of corruption proceedings, rather limited maximum duration of three months in the pretrial procedure and six months in trial procedure. The measures may be extended, but not to longer than one year or two years respectively. Basic rules for the management of seized and confiscated assets are contained in article 506 a) of the CPA. Articles 37-41 ZOPNI also contain relevant regulations. Both include the pre-sale of assets before a final confiscation. Slovenia does not have a central institution to manage seized and confiscated assets, but the Court decides according to the nature of the assets. Slovenia has not yet had experience with the management of complex assets such as companies. The seizure and confiscation of transformed and converted proceeds of crime, including the confiscation up to the value of proceeds intermingled with property from legitimate sources, are possible in both the conviction-based system due to its value-based nature (art. 75, para. 1 CC), as in the non-conviction-based system (art. 5, para. 1, ZOPNI). The seizure, freezing and confiscation of income and other benefits derived from such proceeds of crime are not explicitly regulated.Slovenia has regulations on a shift of the burden of proof to demonstrate the lawful origin of proceeds or property liable to confiscation in the ZOPNI. The defendant has to prove the lawful origin of assets, or may face the legal consequence of (non-conviction-based) confiscation when lawful origin cannot be established. Further, in non-conviction-based and under some circumstances also in conviction-based confiscation procedures, third parties have to demonstrate that they did not receive the asset gratuitously.Slovenia has regulations on a shift of the burden of proof to demonstrate the lawful origin of proceeds or property liable to confiscation in the ZOPNI. The defendant has to prove the lawful origin of assets, or may face the legal consequence of (non-conviction-based) confiscation when lawful origin cannot be established. Further, in non-conviction-based and under some circumstances also in conviction-based confiscation procedures, third parties have to demonstrate that they did not receive the asset gratuitously.