《刑事诉讼法》对《反腐败公约》第三十一条所述关于冻结、查封和没收犯罪 所得的各项措施进行了定义。《刑事诉讼法》第 115 条对可能没收犯罪所得或 非法取得之资产的临时措施（查封）作了规定。《刑法》、《刑事诉讼法》、《民法》、《行政诉讼法》和《行政违法法规》对采取没收资产之措施的法律依据做出了说明。根据《刑法》第六节（刑法之下的其他措施）之规定，没收 是一种刑事措施，不得被视为一种处罚，且对判决性质不产生影响。根据《刑 法》第 104 条第 1 款至第 104 条第 3 款之规定，没收是对在被判有罪时归还国家 之资产的强制处理，不予以赔偿。 资金、证券或其他犯罪所得可予以没收，或没收来自此种资产的任何收入或此 种收入全部或部分被转换或转变的其他财产（间接没收）。由于犯罪所取得的 财产和（或）此种财产的收入与合法取得之财产结合在一起的，与财产增值部 分相对应的财产部分或由其产生的收入应予以没收。根据《刑法》第 104 条第 2 款之规定，可以没收与财产价值相对应的款额而非 资产本身。因此，如果没收属于《刑法》第 104 条第 1 款所述财产一部分的某 种特定物品，一旦法院就没收该物品做出一项裁决，则不可没收，因为它已经 被使用或出售或出于其他原因，法院做出没收与该物品价值相对应的款额的裁决（没收同等价值）。根据《刑法》第 104 条第 1 款之规定，只有被指控者已被定罪，才允许没收。不允许在没有刑事诉讼的情况下实施没收之行为。另外，无论是直接或间接犯 罪所得或由其产生的收入均应根据《刑事诉讼法》第 81 条之规定进行“程序性 没收”，以便它们可以被用作物证。关于引进一种需要犯罪者证明可能被没收之收入和财产合法来源的制度，根据 《反腐败公约》第三十一条第 8 款该制度似乎属于一种任择条款，俄罗斯联邦 提请与会者注意俄罗斯联邦部分采用并执行了此种制度。这个问题已在各种论 坛的很多场合上进行了讨论，包括在 2010 年俄罗斯联邦联邦议会国家杜马举行 的一次圆桌会议上。商定为转移被指控犯罪所得合法来源的举证责任引进一种 制度的可能性是发展本国法律制度的一个可能的长期愿景。
The measures on the freezing, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime, set out in article 31 of the Convention against Corruption, are defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 115 of the Code provides for interim measures (seizure) for the possible confiscation of the proceeds of crime or assets acquired unlawfully. The legal basis for the application of measures to confiscate assets is set out in the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Civil Code, the Code of Administrative Procedure and the Code of Administrative Offences. Under section VI of the Criminal Code (Other measures under criminal law), confiscation is a criminal-law measure, may not be considered a punishment and has no bearing on the nature of the sentence. Under article 104.1-104.3 of the Code, confiscation is the forcible removal of assets, without compensation, that revert to the State in the event of a conviction. Money, securities or other proceeds of crime are subject to confiscation, or any income from such assets or such income that was transformed or converted, in part or in full, into other property (indirect confiscation). Where property acquired as a result of an offence and/or income from such property is combined with legally acquired property, the part of the property corresponding to the value of the property added, or income from it, is subject to confiscation. Under article 104.2 of the Criminal Code, a sum of money corresponding to the value of the property may be confiscated instead of the property itself. Thus, if the confiscation of a given item forming part of the property indicated in article 104.1 of the Code, once a court has adopted a decision on the confiscation of that item, is not possible because it has been used or sold or for some other reason, the court adopts a decision to confiscate a sum of money corresponding to the value of the item (confiscation of equivalent value). Under article 104.1 of the Code, confiscation is permissible only where the accused has been convicted. Confiscation without criminal proceedings is not permitted. Moreover, the proceeds of crime, whether direct or indirect, or the income therefrom, are subject to “procedural confiscation”, on the basis of article 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in order that they may be used as material evidence. With regard to the introduction of a system to require an offender to demonstrate the lawful origin of income and property liable to confiscation, which appears to be optional under article 31, paragraph 8, of the Convention against Corruption, the Russian Federation has drawn attention to the partial adoption and implementation of such a system. This question has been discussed on a number of occasions in various forums, including a round table held by the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation in 2010. The possibility of introducing a system to transfer the burden of proof as to the lawful origin of the alleged proceeds of crime was agreed to be a possible long-term prospect for the development of the country’s legal system.