論賄賂與饋贈(zèng)的區(qū)別.pdf

1、論賄賂與饋贈(zèng)的區(qū)別1內(nèi)容摘要收受型賄賂與正常人情往來中的饋贈(zèng)在外在表現(xiàn)形態(tài)上很相似，但是從刑法規(guī)范意義上來看，卻關(guān)涉罪與非罪的區(qū)分。而在司法實(shí)踐中如何有效區(qū)分賄賂與饋贈(zèng)也成為實(shí)務(wù)部門面臨的司法難題。域外相關(guān)立法普遍采取了更低的入罪門檻、更為嚴(yán)密的法網(wǎng)設(shè)置，以及梯次性的刑罰措施，為有力打擊受賄犯罪并實(shí)現(xiàn)罪刑均衡提供了法律依據(jù)。目前我國(guó)刑法主要是從經(jīng)驗(yàn)的視野審視賄賂與饋贈(zèng)二者之間的關(guān)系，理論性則相對(duì)較弱。因此，對(duì)賄賂與饋贈(zèng)進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)的梳理和進(jìn)

2、一步探討，有助于在弄清二者的不同要求的基礎(chǔ)上明確司法適用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，促進(jìn)刑法規(guī)定的落地執(zhí)行，適應(yīng)我國(guó)打擊腐敗犯罪的進(jìn)程。本文以此為立足點(diǎn)，通過總結(jié)歸納感情投資型受賄和事前無約定的受賄行為不同觀點(diǎn)，提出了賄賂與饋贈(zèng)定性的爭(zhēng)議點(diǎn)。接著對(duì)兩高司法解釋性文件中提出的區(qū)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行了分析和反思，提出了該種認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的不合理之處。然后著重對(duì)“是否為他人謀取利益”這一區(qū)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的不足之處進(jìn)行了論證，提出了受賄罪的本質(zhì)是國(guó)家職權(quán)的不可出賣性，基于這一理論基礎(chǔ)，認(rèn)為

3、“是否為他人謀取利益”不足以區(qū)分賄賂與饋贈(zèng)。最后，本文提出了區(qū)分賄賂與饋贈(zèng)的兩個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)：收受行為與利用職務(wù)之便的關(guān)聯(lián)性與收受行為與職務(wù)行為的對(duì)價(jià)性。文章在結(jié)構(gòu)上分為五個(gè)部分：一、賄賂與饋贈(zèng)定性爭(zhēng)議的主要類型。該部分對(duì)司法實(shí)踐中存有爭(zhēng)議的感情投資型受賄與事前無約定的受賄行為進(jìn)行了界定和闡述，通過總結(jié)這兩種定性爭(zhēng)議中的焦點(diǎn)提出賄賂與饋贈(zèng)的區(qū)分難點(diǎn)所在。二、對(duì)司法解釋中賄賂與饋贈(zèng)界限的分析與反思。該部分首先分析了該司法解釋在社會(huì)效應(yīng)和司法效應(yīng)上

4、的合理性。接著重點(diǎn)分析了司法解釋的缺陷所在，一方面單個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不能成為區(qū)分賄賂與饋贈(zèng)的決定的性因素，另一方面即使通盤考慮也可能出現(xiàn)不同的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)相互沖突或抵消，使最后的處理結(jié)果處于不確定之中。三、是否“為他人謀取利益”不足以區(qū)分賄賂與饋贈(zèng)。該部分提出受賄罪的本質(zhì)是國(guó)家職權(quán)的不可出賣性，以此為出發(fā)點(diǎn)，論證將是否“為他人謀取利益”作為區(qū)分賄賂與饋贈(zèng)的界限具有不周延性。論賄賂與饋贈(zèng)的區(qū)別3criteriadistinguishmentconnecte

5、dto“whethertoseekbenefitsfothers“getstotheconclusionthattheessenceofbriberyliesintheimpossibilityofconsumingstateauthitythat“whethertoseekbenefitsfothers“isinsufficienttodistinguishbribesgifts.Finallythispaperproposestwo

6、criteriatodistinguishbetweenbribesgiftsi.e.relevanceofacceptanceemploymentofone’spositionconsiderationofacceptancedutybehavi.Thispaperiscomposedoffiveparts:Partonedescribesprincipaltypesconcerningqualitativedisputeofbrib

7、esgifts.Itdefineselabatesdisputesasofbriberyofemotionalinvestmentbriberywithoutpriagreementinjudicialpracticestrivestoproposedifficultdistinctionbetweenbriberygiftsbysummarizingthecontroversy.Parttwooutlinesanalysisrefle

8、ctionofboundariesasofbriberygiftsbyreferencetojudicialinterpretation.Firstfemostitanalyzestherationalityofthejudicialinterpretationwhenitcomestosocialjudicialeffect.Thenmuchmefocusisonimperfectionofthejudicialinterpretat

9、ioninvolvingasinglestardwhichisincapableofbeingadeterminativefactbecauseoffailuretodistinguishbribesgiftsapossibilityofdifferentcriteriawhichmightconflictoffsetamongthereofinspiteofallpossibleanglestakenintoconsideration

10、Partthreeholdsthat“whethertoseekbenefitsfothers”isnotenoughtodistinguishbetweenbribesgifts.Itarguesthatitisimpossibletoconsumestateauthitywhichistheessenceofbriberythatbasedonthispointitdiscussestheconclusionthat“whether

11、fthebenefitofothers“whichisregardedasdistinctionbetweenboundariesofbribesgiftsisincomplete.Partfourconcentratesononeofthecriteriainrelationtodistinguishbetweenbribesgiftsthatisrelevanceofacceptanceemploymentofone’spositi

12、on.Itpresentsthefirstcriterionofdistinctionbetweenbribesgiftsinaccdancewiththreerespects:causalityofsubjectivenessobjectivenesscausalitybetweenthemselvesfromthejudicialpractice’sstpoint.Partfiveexplesthesecondcriterionco

13、nnectingdistinguishmentbetweenbribesgiftsi.e.considerationofacceptancedutybehavi.Itprovidestwodifferentcircumstancesasofconsiderationbetweenacceptanceembodieddutybehaviabstractdutybehaviconsidersthemastheseconddistinctio