The Crime Of Holding A Huge Amount Of Property With Unidentified Sources And Corruption Punishment

Since the 18th national congress of the communist party of China(CPC),the party and the government have been committed to fighting corruption and bribery.The fight against corruption has never stopped,and there is zero tolerance of corruption in public officials.In recent years,from the corruption and bribery cases investigated,we find that the main criminal's position qualification become higher and higher,and the amount involved is higher and higher.In some cases,the illegal property is as high as several million,which is shocking.The investigation of corrupt officials by the judicial authorities found that,in addition to the identified black income,there were many unidentified properties far beyond the normal income range of the families of public officials.These properties which have not been identified as their sources are likely to be obtained from embezzlement and bribery.Based on the reality of our country national condition,the judicial organs investigation ability is limited,therefore,when the procuratorial organs can't grasp public officials corruption evidence,beyond the scope of a normal family income property is defined as huge amount of property with unidentified sources,the crime of holding a huge amount of property with unidentified sources plays an "out" effect in the fight against corruption and bribery crime.The burden of proof in criminal proceedings is borne by the public prosecution organ,and the defendant is not responsible for his own innocence.However,this crime needs to be proved by the defendant,which contradicts "presumption of innocence" of traditional law.Therefore,although the crime plays a huge role in anti-corruption,it is also controversial.Most of the doubts about the crime in the academic are due to persistence to the traditional criminal law theory,there is little discussion about judicial performance of the crime.This paper analyzes the characteristics of this crime since its establishment through the data in the judgment documents manually sorted,and introduces the performance of this crime in judicial practice from the time distribution and regional distribution of cases.Dig out the characteristics of the accused of this crime.Statistical analysis of the age,position,industry,education,family status,whether the defendant is in a city or a village,whether there are other types of crimes and the types of huge amount of property with unidentified sources,etc.Dig out the characteristics of the judgment organs of this crime.Statistical analysis of the status of the defendant's lawyer in the trial,time of trial investigation,whether the trial was conducted in different places,court level,trial procedures,etc.This paper used the OLS model with the cross-sectional collected data to explore the factors influencing the penalty result of the crime and to investigate the influence of regional differences and other factors on the penalty of this crime.This paper found that the greater the amount of corruption,the more severe the punishment,but the penalty intensity decreases marginal with the increase of the amount of unidentified property.Regional difference has a great influence on the penalty result of this crime,sentences for the eastern part of the country were lighter than those for the Midwest.But with the increase in the amount of unidentified property,courts in the east have been more punitive than in the Midwest.In addition,the longer the case goes on,the lighter the penalty for the crime.Finally,trial in another place has no significant impact on the verdict.At the end of this paper,this paper puts forward three suggestions for improving the corruption prevention system of public officials.The first is suggested to establish a system for the declaration of the effective income and property of state employees.Income transparency and legalization would reduce the possibility of national staff having large amounts of unknown property.Moreover,improve the legal provisions for the crime,increase the statutory penalty and increase the sentencing range.Finally,the government should appropriately delegate power,reduce intervention,actively reform the administrative examination and approval system,limit the generation of monopoly,reduce the emergence of rent-seeking,and reduce the possibility of corruption of public officials at the source.