Judicial Determination Of Home-based Common Bribes Crime

In recent years, high momentum of the families involved in the officials bribery and it became a underestimated force that cause of corruption,widespread concern was given by community. Recently, "the Draft of Criminal Law Amendment(nine)", increased the provision of the proposed that use the influence of national staff to seek illegitimate interests, their close relatives and other closely related crime officers bribes. Visibly, family members involved in bribery has caused lawmakers full attention. According to the statistics: 40% of official bribery case was indirect by relatives, the proportion of families involved in bribery is as high as 87.5%, in serious cases of corruption and bribery. Family members of the pre-existence of a special relationship, affinity, the interests of consistency showing stronger cohesion and solidarity when faced legal accountability, is becoming the judicial problems. The families involved in bribery of public officials not only violated the national office cannot be bribed and obstructed the nomocracy process of our country, but also caused huge losses to our country. In addition, the family members involved in judicial practice is very confusing and no uniform standard.So studing the family members involved in bribery is urgent and has practical significance. The article aims to clarify the nature of the families involved in acts of bribery, analyze its constituent elements of crime, note the problem and the standard of proof when gathering the evidence, hoping provide useful and practical standards for judicial practice. Addition to the introduction, the article is divided into four parts, about 33,000 words.The first part of the system introduces a family of profiles bribery offenses, including bribery complicity in terms of evolution, the definition of "family member", the characteristics of the families and the legal basis for the establishment of an accomplice of bribery,and point out the corruption complicity items is the noted provisions rather than legal fiction. This paper presents the distance should be taken into account as well as the status of kinship living together to define the scope of their families.The second part analyzes the constituent elements of the families involved in the crime of bribery. The extent elaborates the constitutions of "family-type"common crime bribery.mainly from the staff and their dependents subjective the families involved in bribery and objective implementation of actions. Given their families do not have official status, and mutual help among members is often the case,therefore, the family bond should be considered in compliance with the legal sense.In the subjective bribery intentional "knowing" finds, the national staff and their family member should take different standard: national staff subjective intent requirement to "know", and the families of the subjective intent is limited positive communication." Although bribes is identity crime, but in terms of the objective, the implementation of the behavior of a composite of bribery. Family member who has no special status can not only participate in the implementation of bribes being part of behavior, but also to be committing the crime of bribery. The national staff of constituted bribery and comprise indirect principal bribes. When the national staff do not come forward to bribe people but ordered the families of the promised benefits of accepting bribes of property.The third part focuses on the specific circumstances of the family-type common crime of bribery bribery belongings and distinction "friends gifts", pay attention to ascertain whether the family relations, and the daily contact with the situation, the delivery of property value and other comprehensive judgments.The fourth part focuses on the evidence and the evidence of the use of family characteristics common bribery. Direct evidence of the fact that fewer major bribery cases are the main evidence challenges facing judicial practice. Bribery case, the physical evidence, documentary evidence less prominent position testimonial evidence. This requires the judiciary attent to fix oral testimony in collection of evidence, a comprehensive collection of evidence that confirm each other between the evidence and the evidence to form a chain.