The Analysis Of Issues Concerning The Crime Of Possessing Huge Estates Without Clear Origin

In modern society, our national staff corruption is moreprominent,which has caused adverse effects in the community. Therefore,itis extremely important for punishing corrupt officials and maintaininga clean and honest image of the national staff by using harsh criminallaws.As one of the criminal abuse of power for punishing statefunctionary,although the crime of holding a huge amount of property withunidentified sources has experienced series of processes into amendmentin order to improve it, and then Intensify anti-corruptionefforts,however,the crime still has some controversy problems in theapplication of judicial practice. Therefore, it is of great significanceto do a more in-depth study related to this crime in the judicial practice.This crime has its own legislation value, and because it is a typeof crime holding a lot of money,the most critical problem identifying theoffense is to calculate the amount of property owned by the actors,thatis to determine the behavior’s the remaining the amount of property,whether to reach the standards of conviction standard the crime aftergetting rid of part of the property that judicial organs can investigateits real origin. Article395of the Criminal Law does not make specialprovisions to this crime voluntary surrender, and according to the PenalCode General Provisions applicable legislative provisions to voluntarysurrender,behaviors may be fully consistent with each condition ofvoluntary surrender, therefore,this crime exists voluntary surrender,andif actors surrendered, they should be given a lighter, reduced or exemptedfrom punishment. Therefore, it is worth discussing about identifying somespecial problems of the crime voluntary surrender. Similarly, the crime also exists accomplice, because, to set up accomplice, it must meet theconditions of setting up accomplice in the subject, the subjective,objective aspects. For this crime, to set up accomplice, the key is toanalyze the subjective aspect and objective whether to meet therequirements of joint crime. At first, in the subjective aspect, when theactors are national staff, they deliberately obtain large amounts ofproperty illegally and they don’t explain the origin. In the factor ofunderstanding, actors recognize each other illegally obtained largeamounts of property; in the factor of determination, all of the actorswant to happen with large amounts of property results. Therefore, thissituation is in line with the subjective aspect of the accomplice. Whenthe actors are part of the national staff, some are non-national staff,national staffs and non-national staffs conspire in advance, firstlynational staffs obtain large amounts of property, and then Non-nationalstaffs help to harbour, conceal or transfer property; In the factor ofunderstanding, national staffs recognize that non-national staffs helpthemselves harbor, transfer property, and non-national staffs alsorecognize that in the implementation of the transferring, hiding largeamounts of property from unknown sources, national staff obtain theseproperty, and that they are helping transfer them, so as not to bediscovered by others; in the factor of determination, national staffs andnon-national staffs want to illegally hold huge amount of illegal sourceproperty. Therefore, this situation is also in line with the subjectiveaspect of the accomplice. Criminal Procedure Law of scholars have formeda generally consistent view: the burden of proof for criminal prosecutioncases is undertaken by the judicial organs.The Crime of Possessing HugeEstates Without Clear Origin is clearly Public Prosecution cases,so,thereis no doubt that the burden of proof this crime is still borne by thejudiciary that is public security, procuratorial and judicial organs. Presents evidence the responsibility and the proof responsibility are thetwo different concepts, and they should be made a distinction. Becausebribery and corruption are hidden, it is difficult to to collect evidencefor the judiciary to prove of guilt of the accused or the suspect, resultedin cases difficult o progress. In order to resolve this impasse,legislation provides that actors bear to explain the source of theirproperty at the trial stage, other aspects of presents evidence theresponsibility are still held by judicial organs, procuratorial organs.Therefore, in the trial phase of this crime, presents evidence theresponsibility is shared by the prosecution and the defense, thisrequirement by legislators is determined by the special nature of thiscrime.