Judicial Determination Of "Cutting Off Bribes"

At present,the forms of bribery crimes are more diversified and complicated.At the same time,the identification of related behaviors derived from bribery crimes also poses great challenges in the practical world.In judicial practice,the handling of judges is also quite different.Therefore,the author chooses to conduct analysis and research on how to determine the interception of bribes by the intermediary.Through the current judicial determination in practice and the current academic review of relevant theoretical disputes on "bribery interception",it can be better and more reasonably evaluated The behavior of intermediaries withholding bribes provides a more reasonable qualitative idea.Through the collation and analysis of the judgment documents in the judicial practice of the past ten years that the intermediary has the circumstances of intercepting bribes,the current practice of judges regarding the "interception of bribes" is clarified.In the brief introduction of relevant cases with “interception of bribes”,it can be found that the courts have certain differences in determining the nature of the intercepted property,and different judges pay different attention to the behavior of “interception of bribes”.,The phenomenon of different judgments in the same case is obvious.In the judge’s judgment,there are situations where the detention behavior is included as the crime of introducing bribery,bribery,and bribery,and there are also situations where the detention behavior is separately evaluated as the crime of embezzlement,fraud,or even innocence.Therefore,it is necessary to clarify the connotation and extension of "bribery interception",which is of great significance for the correct conviction and punishment of the perpetrator,and the maintenance of social fairness and justice.Regarding the current theory of the intermediary withholding bribes,there are mainly non-single evaluation theory,fraud theory,embezzlement theory,introduction bribery theory,innocence theory,and impunity afterwards.The doctrine of the viewpoint.By analyzing the views of scholars,the author disagrees with the doctrine of not evaluating “bribery interception” alone or as innocent,because it fails to fully evaluate “bribery interception” behavior as a whole,or even to a certain extent.There is no evaluation of "bribery interception".The theory of fraud,the theory of embezzlement and the theory of non-punishable afterwards all have certain reasonableness,and the "intercepting of bribes" has been evaluated more fully and reasonably.Only by determining the basis for the determination of "interception of bribes" can we provide more reasonable and more persuasive evaluation ideas for the regulation of the intermediary’s interception of bribes.Through the analysis of the nature of the intercepted bribes,the legal benefits of the "intercepting of bribes" are determined,and the "intercepting of bribes" can be established as a property crime,subject to criminal regulations and individual evaluation The necessity of “ interception of bribes ”provides a theoretical basis for the categorization of“bribery interception”and judicial determination.The basic stance of this article on the judicial determination of "bribery interception" is that the behavior of "bribery interception" should first be regulated by criminal laws and cannot be determined as innocent.Secondly,insist that “interception of bribes” should be evaluated separately,and cannot be evaluated as the crime of bribery,bribery,or introduction of bribery.Finally,on the premise of adhering to the theory of fraud,embezzlement and impunity afterwards,the“interception of bribes”is divided into fraudulent “interception of bribes” and the type of “interception of bribes” that is intentional after the fact,and the nature of different types of behaviors is analyzed.Carry out different certifications separately.Among them,fraudulent "bribery interception" includes incompetent,unhelpful intent,and fraudulent reporting of bribery.These fraudulent "bribery interception" behaviors should be regarded as the crime of fraud;in the post-event "bribery interception",the middleman The act of "intercepting bribes" that accepts more and delivers less should be regarded as a crime of embezzlement,and if the intermediary intentionally "intercepts bribes" after the object of bribery refuses or returns the stolen goods,it does not need to be separately identified as a crime.