Construction And Determination Of Bribery Common Crime

Joint acceptance of bribes is a controversial issue in the judicial practice, which relates to the theory of joint crimes and status crimes. It is of far-reaching significance to understand the constitution and disposal of the joint acceptance of bribes correctly in the judicial practice and anti-corruption combat. This article lays emphasis on different doctrines of the constitution of joint acceptance of bribes as well as the cognizance in practice on the basis of the author' s experience. In addition, the author gives his own suggestion on the improvement of the legislation on this issue.This article is composed of 5 parts. I . General statement of joint acceptance of bribes. State the relecant provisions of joint crimes and status crimes in the criminal law of PRC; sum up the main gist in dealing with cases of joint acceptance of bribes; then conclude the concept and features of joint acceptance of bribes.II. Constitution of joint acceptance of bribesOn the crime subject, it is confirmed that the affirmative view about whether non-state working personnel can constitute joint acceptance of bribes is more reasonable than the negative view from the point of criminal law' s value. Further more, units are regarded as subjects of joint acceptance of bribes in this article.On the crime subjective condition, various formats of intentioninvolving cognition factor and will factor of joint acceptance of bribes are discussed; various situations not thought as joint acceptance of bribes in judicial practice are enumerated.On the crime objective condition, the article emphasizes on analyzing various formats of objective behaviors in judicial practice, including practicing, instigating and helping behaviors. On the point of practicing behavior, three different viewpoints on whether non-state functionary can be practiser are introduced. On the basis of approval of the positive viewpoint at large, it is stated that non-state functionary' s acceptance of bribes should not be considered the joint practicing behavior uniformly and should be treated distinctively according to the theory of "behavior control" . On the point of instigating behavior, the article endeavor to judge the behaviors that state functionaries instigate non-state functionaries to accept bribes. On the point of helping behavior, it is demonstrated mainly on the time and method of different behaviors. III. Cognizance of joint acceptance of bribes in practice The author bring forward own opinions of how to cognize different types of joint acceptance of bribes based on working experience. Questions on joint acceptance of bribes committed by state functionaries are analyzed as well as controversies on joint acceptance of bribes committed by state functionaries and company or enterprise functionaries. On the premise of respecting the valid judicial interpretations, it is demonstrated that "regard advantage of his/her office as the core, think of the theory of'determined by principle' as the reference and analyze cases according to practical situations" . The external format and cognizance principle of joint bribery committed by state and non-state functionary are analyzed by discussing two typical examples: family joint bribery and designated third party joint bribery. The difference between the introducing bribery and the joint bribery is also mentioned in the author' s own words.IV. Complicity' s role and criminal amountSticking to the principle of joint criminal stipulated by the criminal law, it is analyzed how to judge the role of the complicity in joint acceptance of bribes; basing on the rule of "partly participate totally be charged" , it is demonstrated to be reasonable that every complicity should be responsible for the whole amount of joint bribery.V. Improvement of legislation on joint acceptance of bribes Bring forward four suggestions as follows: making legislativestatement more accurate, adding the crime of third party mediating bribery, reconstituting the crime of introducing bribery, implementing the rule of inferring the intention of joint bribery conditionally.