作者：陈如超
作者介绍：西南政法大学刑事侦查学院教授
出版日期：2026年4月9日
内容提要 公安机关近年大力推动金析为证，即将侦查人员的资金分析报告全面改造成鉴定人的司法鉴定意见。然而，在侦查阶段，公安机关实际上存在侦查型资金分析（侦查人员的资金分析研判）与鉴定型资金分析（鉴定人的资金分析鉴定）两种类型。根据侦查人员与鉴定人的诉讼角色及诉讼功能差异，金析为证应当采取二元模式：侦查人员的资金分析报告作为资金数据检查笔录；鉴定人的资金分析报告作为法定的鉴定意见。基于金析为证的实践探索与理论分析，刑事司法中各类大数据分析报告的证据化路径可以采取“大数据检查笔录+司法鉴定意见”的双轨制模式。证据类型的二元化既有助于规范大数据分析报告的生成机制与评价机制，又能推动大数据类司法鉴定工作的规范化与制度化。
关键词 金析为证 资金分析 资金分析鉴定 大数据分析报告
Abstract: The public security organ has promoted the ‘Evidence-Oriented Capital Analysis’ (EOCA) initiative, which aims to establish capital-flow analysis as a formal forensic discipline and elevate capital-analysis reports to the status of admissible expert opinions. However, a functional distinction persists between the two types of capital analysis: one conducted by investigators for operational purposes (investigative capital analysis), and the other carried out by accredited experts for evidentiary use (expert capital analysis). Grounded in the procedural differences between investigation and expertise, this paper argues that the EOCA should adopt a dual-track system. Reports produced by investigators should be classified as big data inspection records, while those generated by certified forensic experts should be considered expert opinions. Using the EOCA as an example, this study proposes a general two-path model for integrating big data analysis into criminal evidence: distinguishing between inspection records and expert opinions. This approach not only clarifies the admissibility and legal status of such reports but also promotes the standardization and legitimacy of big data forensics in criminal justice.