Study On Positioning Of The Intermediary Act In Criminal Law

Intermediary behavior is usually manifested in civil law, refers to the party reports the opportunity to enter into a contract or provide intermediary services contract for the other party. But when the provided information involving illegal information even the crime information, the criminal law for such intermediary introduced behavior will intervene, and formed a special kind of crime, we call it intermediary type crime. The regulation of our country criminal law for such crimes are mainly two ways, one is stipulate the intermediary behavior as a independent crime, such as "introducing bribery"; second is introduced intervening acts as other crime processing, such as the "the supreme people’s court on the applicable <the standing committee of the National People’s Congress on drug control>" states: " sale the drugs as a intermediator, whether profits or mot, all take an accomplice of drug trafficking crime." Diametrically different ways of handling the intermediary type crime became the edge of the criminal law on crime, also brought many problems to the judicial practice, some will identify it as a separate crime, and some as accomplice, some even do not carry on the punishment. Therefore, the author thinks that the intermediary behavior in the criminal law need a accurate positioning, the positioning is conducive to fundamentally solve the confusion in the judicial practice.The first part describes the behavior of the current situation intermediate talking about criminal law, firstly identify the intermediary, and the basic concepts of behavior, secondly analyzes the characteristics of the act, and then sets out our current criminal law provisions middleman behavior, and finally introduce and analysis the different intermediary behavior positioning in our country currently academic circles. In conclusion I think, that the criminal intermediate behavior should be positioned as accomplices. The second part of this article is to demonstrate the reasonableness of the author in the first part of the conclusion of practice, from three aspects: the legislative intent, accomplice theory and judicial practice,combined with foreign legislation to investigate whether the intermediary introduced behavior in criminal law should be positioned as an accomplice, detailed explains why I thinks accomplice positioning is reasonable, that the intermediary behavior positioning as an accomplice is not only conform to the trend of legislation, but also to adapt to meet the legal theory of judicial practice. This article third part in accomplice positioning on the basis of analysis of some of the related issues under the new position, such as charges selection problem, after cancel the independent intermediary type crime, how to punish the prostitution introduction act and the prostitution introduction act? Are the all such acts should be convicted after intermediary acts as an accomplice ? The author thinks that, the introduce prostitution should not to be set for crime, serious behavior can be organized prostitution charges an accomplice. And the introduce bribery should be identified as the accomplice of bribery and corruption according to the circumstance, constitute a concurrence of imagination made when choosing a felony. More problems like how to determine the intermediary behavior was attempted or not, how the network acts as intermediary be finded, etc. Discussion of these issues is mainly to improve the practical application of theoretical aspects of this paper.This article from the above three parts, on the whole, fully demonstrated the location of the intermediary behavior in criminal law, I think that it should belong to the category of accomplice theory, rather than with the independence of criminal behavior. Separate provisions in the criminal law of introducing bribery, in virtually no difference with the accomplice of bribery, and introduces the prostitution are usually showed less harmful to the society, so for this kind of behavior in criminal law, we should to use the accomplice theory, rather than set a charge to the independence of the single regulation. As an accomplice in cancel a crime is not only the need of perfecting our country’s criminal law theory system, and conform to the needs of the development of the criminal law, but also the need of judicial practice to solve difficult problems.