On The Justification And Improvement Of The Crime Of Hold A Huge Amount Of Property With Unidentified Sources

Facing the worsening anti-corruption situation, the crime of hold a huge amount of property with unidentified sources received more and more attention, and the controversy focus on the penalty, which the highest punishment for breaking the law is five years. At present, more and more cases comes up for trial, much more money involves in the cases, and the cases get more and more public'attentions. So, it is most urgent that the theory have to be developed in order to solve the problems in judicial practice.The paper represents some discussions about the crime of hold a huge amount of property with unidentified sources. There are some opinions that deny the crime of hold a huge amount of property with unidentified sources .First, the existence of the crime of holds a huge amount of property with unidentified sources breaks the unification between prevention and retribution, and the accusation becomes an obstacle to the realization of legislative purpose. Second, according to the Criminal Procedure Law, the criminals have the responsibility to prove the evidence that he is innocent and this requirement violates people'rights. Third, when the criminals'illegal probabilities are higher than legal probabilities, legislators will think the criminals are guilty, which shows his utility-oriented attitude. There are some thoughts that retrain or reform the crime of hold a huge amount of property with unidentified sources. First, The legislation of the crime of hold a huge amount of property with unidentified sources is adapt to the necessary for the punishment of guilt, Second, it has a great advantages to prevent the crime and punish the criminals. Third, the value of the crime of hold a huge amount of property with unidentified sources is to stop up all loopholes.Then, the paper from different aspects represents the reason that the crime of hold a huge amount of property with unidentified sources should be existed. First of all, according to the Jurisprudence, the author suggests that it isn't necessary to deny the crime of hold a huge amount of property with unidentified sources. Then, the notion that deny the crime of hold a huge amount of property with unidentified sources is prejudice and subjective because the reason why the corruption is the common phenomenon is that we haven't complete system to prevent it. At last, the key to set up the crime of hold a huge amount of property with unidentified sources is that we could deprive the criminals'chance to commit the crime again.The second part is about some issues of the crime of hold a huge amount of property with unidentified sources. There still some problems haven't to be resolved. First, the scope of subject of crime is different from the ones of property declarations. The subject of the crime of hold a huge amount of property with unidentified sources is not only including the people who is in service, but also the people who have retired. In practice, when someone is in service and no huge property is found, but after his retirement he becomes so rich. Could we think that he is guilty? As a matter of fact, if we could find the evidence to prove that he commits corruption or takes brides, we could think he is guilty, otherwise, it isn't. Then, the paper represents that the crime of hold a huge amount of property with unidentified sources haven't accomplices. At last, the criminals have duty to explain the property'legal sources but haven't choice to do it.Then, the paper state some question of explanation. First, we must know which organizations have the right to ask the criminals to explain the sources of huge property. Second, we could be aware that the states organizations shouldn't limit the time that the criminals explain the sources of huge property because the court have to verity the statement when the criminals put forward the evidence that he is innocent. Another question is about the standard of explanation. The criminals must have enough evidence to prove that the sources of huge property is legal, otherwise, he is guilty. At last, how to define the legal proper in different cases.The third part is about the reforming the sentence of the crime of hold a huge amount of property with unidentified sources. The crime of hold a huge amount of property with unidentified sources adopts the principle of relative certainty, and regulates the highest punishment is five years. The five years sentences cause people'confusion. For one thing, the theory is contradiction with the practice. Under the current legislative backgrounds that the crime of hold a huge amount of property with unidentified sources can't punish the criminal severely, the criminal who possesses thousands or millions Yuan could avoid the harsh punishment. On the contrary, if they admit they commit corruption, they could get harsh punishment. For another, it is contradiction with the principle of legally prescribe punishment. The highest of punishment of corruption, taking bribe, smuggling crime, drug trafficking, theft crimes is death penalty, and the highest of punishment of defalcation, fraud is life imprisonment, however, The highest of punishment of the crime of hold a huge amount of property with unidentified sources is five years. It can't achieve the principle of legally prescribe punishment.So, the author suggests that revise the regulations and the regulation is that the criminals will be sentenced less than five years or criminal detention. If he possesses a huge property, the sentence will be less than ten years and pay the fine. If he possesses a great huge property, the sentence will be more than ten years and life imprisonment. The local legislative organizations have right to determine standard of property. In recent years, the country is in the transformation period, and there are some new characters in the society and economic region. With the development of theory of the crime of hold a huge amount of property with unidentified sources, we could find the measure to solve the problems existed in the practice.