Affirmation For The Joint Crime Of Duty Encroachment And Corruption

There are both difference and common ground for misappropriation and crime ofcorruption. It’s easy to identify single crime, while it comes to the joint form ofmisappropriation and crime of corruption, the problem is often complex. As of theissue of the joint form of misappropriation and crime of corruption, fierce dispute hasbeen existed in the fields of penal law and practice for a long time, putting forwarddifferent opinions. To sum it up, the main opinions include separate conviction andunited conviction. Because of different theoretical basis, different opinions were borninside, including act of perpetrating, authority theory, central role theory, imaginativejoiner of offense，main obligation offense and so on. By comparison and analysis ofthese theories, however, we found that there exist certain deficiencies despite somereasonability：over one-sided and short of general feasibility, or final verdict causingunbalanced crime and punishment and so on. According to this problem, on June27th,2000, Supreme People’s Court and supreme people’s procuratorate published theExplanation on How to Identify Some of the Problems on Affirmation for the JointCrime of Duty Encroachment and Corruption(explanation) which explainedconviction of criminal character for joint offense. Three years ago, Supreme People’sCourt published National Summary of Dealing with the Case of EconomicCrime(summary), in which the final rule depended on criminal character,supplemented with imaginative joiner of offense theory properly. The explanationmentioned above is regarded as decision of prime culprit theory by some scholars andbecomes the main target to be criticized. While by analysis, the explanation andsummary work under the condition that the constitution of a crime is found, and afterdistinguishing the function of different criminals in joint crime, the final conviction ofjoint crime mainly depends on the important function of practical behavior in jointcrime. Therefore, it’s more exact to illustrate explanation as principal criminal theory.Principal criminal theory is not a new theory, but a reasonable explanation for currentlaw explanation, embodying true meaning of laws. Principal criminal practice theory considers that, no matter single crime or jointcrime, it is the process of expanding risk. People supporting this process are obviousto play an important role in it, and it is proper to convict the criminal nature.Therefore it is precise to convict the criminal nature if the people supporting the jointcrime can be judged. How to identify the absolute supporters? Principal criminalpractice theory considers that principal criminals should be regarded as the absolutesupporters. It’s possible to have two absolute supporters and this time it is time to useimaginative joiner of offense. Therefore we can gain a fair and precise consequencewith proper conviction by principal criminal practice theory. But because of the sameorigin with principal criminal theory, principal criminal practice theory will bedefinitely questionable. For this principal criminal practice theory reacts properly andshows its reasonability for these questions...