华北水利水电大学学报（社会科学版）

预交罚金对于解决财产刑执行难问题虽然有效，却也存在刑事诉讼程序是否正当的争议。认罪认罚制度关于“犯罪嫌疑人认罪认罚”的延伸要求——“悔罪性”与“刑罚履行的可期待性”为此留出了一定合理空间。在罚金刑的预防措施与执行措施中，与预交罚金相类似的罚金保证金更具有实操性。被预交的罚金应向罚金保证金转化，制度运行应被分为收取程序与抵消程序。检察机关可以要求认罪认罚的犯罪嫌疑人缴纳保证金，但数额应尽可能等于或低于未来可能判处罚金数额，同时要充分考虑犯罪嫌疑人的经济状况与交纳能力，对于悔罪态度强烈的犯罪嫌疑人，还可以适当减少保证金数额。罚金保证金的抵消需要遵循“多退少补”原则，基于“互联网+”大背景，法检之间也应建立网络联动机制，保证抵消的准确度与便捷性。

Although prepayment of fine penalty is effective for the execution of judgement, it has also been criticized for the due process principle. The system of admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment has left a reasonable space for it, due to the requirements for suspects, “repentance” and “expectability of penalty performance”. Among the preventive and enforcement measures for the execution of fine penalty, a fine deposit similar to pre-paid fine is also more practical. Therefore, the pre-paid fine should be transformed into a fine deposit, and the operation of the system should be divided into collection and offset procedure. The procuratorial organ may require suspects who have pleaded guilty to pay a fine deposit, but the amount should be kept equal to or lower than the possible future sentenced fine as much as possible, and fully considering the suspect's financial status and ability to pay. For suspects with a strong attitude of repentance, the amount of the deposit could be reduced again. The offset of the fine deposit needs to follow the principle of “refunding more and paying less”. With the help of Internet, a network linkage mechanism should also be established between procuratorial organ and courts to ensure the accuracy and convenience of offsetting.