Research On The Judicial Application Of Bribery Crime To Influential People

The criminal law amendment(nine)adds a new crime of offering bribes to influential persons,which makes up for the vacancy in the regulation of the criminal law of using influence to accept bribes.However,the relevant provisions of the criminal law on the crime of offering bribes to influential persons are relatively general,and the relevant concepts are not defined accurately and uniformly.In terms of behavior pattern,bribery crime and bribery crime to influential people often appear to be easily confused.In judicial practice,the choice and application of the two crimes are different,and the identification is confused.Based on this,this paper combines the "luo bribery case",through the way of case analysis,to analyze and explain the relevant problems of bribery crime of influential people,in-depth exploration of the nature of the crime,in order to provide some help to solve the difficulties in judicial practice.This paper is divided into four parts:Part one: basic information of the case.It mainly includes cause of action,brief of case,difference opinion and dispute focus.The main case of this case is luo’s driving license score trading activity,in order to find the traffic police to help deal with the illegal affairs and give jin some property.Jinmou contact traffic police,and traffic police divided,through the traffic police police operation to help luo mou deal with illegal affairs.Then sort out the different opinions of the crime and punishment cognizance of luo’s behavior in this case,and extract the dispute focus of this case.Part two: legal analysis of this case.The focus of this case,from six aspects of legal analysis.First,explain the legislative background of bribery crime of influential people,and analyze the necessity of adding this crime.Second,the author illustrates various viewpoints of the academic circle on the protection of the crime of bribery against influential persons,analyzes the irrationality in each theory,and selects the most appropriate legal interest reflecting the nature of the crime.Third,the definition of "close relationship".The connotation of "close relationship" is analyzed,and the way of judicial judgment of "close relationship" is evaluated.Fourthly,the nature ofbribery emotional investment behavior is analyzed,and it is suggested that the bribery of emotional investment behavior is recognized as bribery behavior,and the gift of property is included in the amount of bribery.Fifth,it focuses on the understanding of content to explain and analyze the connotation of "knowing clearly" in the criminal intention,classifies and analyzes the subjective ambiguity of the actor and the qualitative nature of the behavior of delivering bribes to influential people.Sixth,the influential person bribery crime and bribery crime,civil gift behavior to distinguish.Part three: analysis and conclusion of this case.This part combines legal analysis and points out that luo gave jin money for the first time in terms of the nature of the behavior,or luo used his influence to help jin obtain illegitimate interests,or luo used his influence to help jin obtain illegitimate interests to export material interests to jin in advance to bribe emotional investment behavior.Above two kinds of circumstance,luo mou constitutes to influential person bribery crime,the amount that gives ought to count bribe amount.Luo gave money twice,but there was no subjective confession of bribery to state workers,and no other evidence could prove that luo paid bribes directly to state workers.The method of the presumption of fact cannot be used to deduce luo’s bribery,the subject of the bribery including the state staff is "knowing" the state,can not identify jin’s intention to pay bribes to the state staff,can only identify luo’s intention to pay bribes to the state staff,constitute a crime of bribery to influential people.Part four: the enlightenment of this case study.Based on the controversial issues and legal analysis of this case,it is suggested that relevant authorities clarify the scope of identification of "close relationship" through judicial interpretation as soon as possible.The standard presumption is applicable to improve and refine the basic facts.Issue guiding cases to clarify the specific judgment principles of similar cases.To clarify the standards for conviction and punishment of similar cases and guide judicial organs to handle bribery cases correctly.