Study On Mr. Yu’s Commissioned Financing Bribe-taking

Bribery crime has become one important practical problem which plagued China lately. Especially in recent years, some new bribery crimes have brought a lot of troubles to both legal theory and practice. With selecting the commissioned financing bribe-taking which is a highlighted new bribery crime form in current judicial practice as a case study, the author will analyze the undefined conditions in Article IV from the Suggestions on Some Issues Related to Law Application in Conducting Bride-taking Criminal Case (hereinafter referred to as Suggestions) promulgated by the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate. The author describes her own humble opinion,i hope that little meaningful reference for the future such bribery cases.This thesis includes four parts.Part I gives a brief introduction to the case. The defendant Mr. Yu was the development planning commission director in a city. He provided convenience with power for a company during his term. In the name of entrusted investment, he gave1000000yuan to Mr. Tang and Mr. Wang who are the principal for the company and required an annual forty percent returns. He totally got so-called return of1700000yuan from1997to2003.Part Ⅱ summarizes the viewpoints on the case and highlight the focal points of the dispute. There are three main focal points. At first, what’s the legal nature for the high yield return action after he profited the company with power and invested money? Then, is it bribe intent if he requirements job behavior beneficiary to give investment income but dosen’t know the job behavior beneficiary didn’t invest its funds? is it bribe intent if he accepted others’ benefits after taking advantage of his power to profit other people? At last, how to identify the lending form bride-taking amount under the cover of investment?Part III is the legal analysis for the disputing focal points of the case. This part also includes three main points. Firstly, the author tries to make it clear that the behavior between them is consignment financing or private sector borrowing of general civil sense or bride-taking in the name of consignment financing or lending. Secondly, the author tries to solve the problem that how to identify Mr. Yu’s subjective bribery intent by analyzing subjective content and identifying method of bribery crime. Lastly, the author tries to identify Mr. Yu’s bribe amount by analyzing the standard of "deserved yield" and "obvious exceeding"Part Ⅳ is the conclusion. By analyzing the legal theory and the case, the author comes to the conclusion:firstly, Mr. Yu’s behavior is not consignment financing or private sector borrowing of general civil sense but bribery crime under the cover of entrusting financing; secondly, Mr. Yu is subjective bribery intent; lastly, the bribery amount is700000yuan, deducting the bank loan interest of the same period. Therefore, Mr. Yu is bribery conviction in this case.