Issues Of Common Bribes

This paper centers some questions about disputed joint crime of bribery definitions, absorbs and refers to the mature and influencing ideas. The full text of about 22,000 words, is divided into five parts.PartⅠ: Whether do the non-country staff constitute the bribery crime accomplice. There are positivism and negativism on whether a non-country staff is liable to offence joint bribery in theory. I agree on the positivism. Subject who conspires with a state functionary to engage accepting bribery should be regarded as joint offender in accepting bribes. The author suggest that the adoption of legislation on the non-national staff accomplices constitute a clear crime of accepting bribes, in order to avoid unnecessary misunderstandingPartⅡ: It is about the non-national staff can constitute the crime of taking bribes guilty of a common. It is about the action of joint bribery crime with two points are involved. First, it is the action between the state staff in joint bribery crime. Second, it is the action of the state staff and non-state staff in joint bribery crime. Specific to the crime of accepting bribes, "positivism" and "compromise" is consistent with the views that the non-national staff can be a joint exercise of the crime of bribery committed.It is in line with the basic theory of criminal law and judicial practice to hold on positivism. One who hold on negativism has confused the concept of joint bribery crime with individual crime.PartⅢ: The country staff and the family member are bribed together. About the intentional content's recognition of the "family" common bribery crime, the theory has "knew perfectly well", "generally the knowledge said", "possibly said" and so on the different viewpoint, the author thought " generally the knowledge said" is more reasonable. First, "possibly said" completely equated the objective situation to the subjective situation, and "knew perfectly well" then inevitably will let the scope of intent be excessively narrow, this causes very many situations all to be unable to recognize. family members knew perfectly well it is the bribe but also share with, the relative and the country staff lack the subjective intent on together, moreover this time country staff has already completed the bribe crime, should alone determine guilt to the country staff, the relative certainly does not constitute the crime.PartⅣ: Difference between joint acceptance of bribes and crime of introducing bribes. Introduced in the judicial practice of the offence of bribery and corruption and bribe the complicity has been difficult to really draw the boundaries, the introduction of the Criminal Code-object elements of the crime of bribery defined and can not effectively distinguish between the two boundaries. This article introduce the concept of the crime of bribery first ,then analyze the difference between joint acceptance of bribes and crime of introducing bribes , and conclude that there is a difference between them mainly on the subject and subjective intent and the consequences, and so on.PartⅤ: The punishing principle of acceptance of bribe jointly. Common committing the crime of bribery punishment prescribed by the law, there is a process of evolution, due to different legal requirements, the common understanding of bribery and criminal penalties. And there will be great differences in Judicial applications. The author believe that the "comprehensive evaluation" should be affirmed, in the common crime of bribery punishment, a mix of different factors, and not simply as to a certain amount of conviction and sentencing standards were applied, "said the total amount of crime," "participation amount, "and" sharing political loot amount that "the principle of reciprocity, in order to establish the criminal responsibility of the common people of taking bribes.