Research On The Proof Standards Of Subjective Elements In Bribery And Corruption Cases

With the development of economy and change of public perception. There is afrequent occurance of bribery and corruption in our country, which appears to have asevere tendency as well. In consideration of the particularity and hazards of briberyand corruption, we took a series of vigorous measures to prevent and punish them.The subjective elements of bribery and corruption are the criminal mindset that theactor has towards his or her behavior and consequences. The main subjective mindsetin our ciminal law is merely by intention, instead of having any special regulations ofproof standards of the subjective elements, it shares the single proof standards of“concrete, sufficient” with the whole criminal suit, but more often to take inner beliefas a standard in practice. This leads to a absent of intergrated, operable proofstandards in specific cases, which considerably influenced the penalty of bribery anddegeneration cases. Thus, it is necessary to integrate our current legislative and judicalstatus, utilizing the competitively mature legislation model of other countries as areference, to direct at the particularity of bribery and corruption cases, establishingspecialized proof standards of subjective elements in order to build a more justifiableproof standards system.There are necessity and feasibility to establish subjective elements proofstandards in bribery and corruption in our country. As for necessity, it is based on theinherent requirements of the special nature of corruption and bribery,as well as ainevitable requirement to the introspection of our bribery and corruption status quo.Our existing definition and confirmation of subjective elements has drawbacks anddeficiencies. Meanwhile, the particularity of bribery and corruption proof has putforward requirements to our idependent establishment of subjective elements. It is anecessary choice based on the particularity of subjective elements of bribery andcorruption in the whole standard system. As for feasibility, the internationalanti-corruption treaties, internationally accepted practices and and foreign legislativemodels have provided us overseas realistic basis in establishing proof standards, whileour related regulations in law, the pluralism of theoratical proof standards, concretionof research tendency,the practice model in our practical field of justice and the trendof anti-corruption legislation alone have all provided domestic realistic basis for theestablishment of proof satandards in subjective elements in bribery and corruptioncases.For the purpose of establishing standards of proof and applies them to be, weshould first crystallize the ideas and priciples which it should stick on, includingrightful, efficient basic ideas of law, the litigation truth combined with both objectiveand legal truth, the unified priciple of objectiveness and subjectiveness and thesynthetic judgement princple of multiangle and multiaspect. Secondly, subjectiveelements of corruption and bribery standards specifically applicable when proven,avariety of methods should be applied in defining the subjective intention, including toprove and presume through logical reasoning and empirical judgemnet,different proof standards should be set up for different sbujective intentions in the crime at the sametime. Lastly, Related criminal legislation should be perfected in order to establish ourown proof standards. Clear, specific and meticulous regultions should be made by thelaw and different, seperate criminal charges in respond to various subjectiveintentions should be set up.