From the perspective of criminal legislation, the perpetrator constitutes the crime of accepting bribes, and at the same time violates other crimes stipulated in the criminal law. In the past, it was basically handled according to the principle of combined punishment for several crimes. For example, 1988 "Supplementary Provisions on Punishing Corruption and Bribery Crimes" in the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) stipulates in the second paragraph of Article 5: "If the illegal and criminal activities caused by bribery constitute other crimes, they shall be punished according to the provisions of combined punishment for several crimes". 1997 "criminal law" has added special provisions on the crime of perverting the law, civil and administrative cases: "judicial personnel who commit the crimes specified in Article 385 of the Cost Law in the acts mentioned in the preceding two paragraphs shall be convicted and punished according to the provisions with heavier punishment." [ 15]
Since then, a series of judicial interpretations have adopted the viewpoint of combined punishment for several crimes. For example, Article 7 of the Supreme People's Court 1998 "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Cases of Misappropriation of Public Funds" stipulates: "Whoever asks for or accepts bribes for misappropriation of public funds, which constitutes a crime, shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of combined punishment for several crimes." 200 1 the meeting of the presiding judges of the first criminal court of the Supreme People's Court reached the following opinion: whoever bribed in commutation or parole due to bending the law should be considered as two crimes and punished for several crimes. [16] Although this opinion is not a judicial interpretation, it has substantial guiding significance for the trial of similar cases in judicial practice. On July 8, 2002, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the General Administration of Customs jointly issued Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Smuggling, in which Article 16 stipulates: "Customs staff who accept bribes and indulge in smuggling shall be punished for accepting bribes and indulging in smuggling." 20 12 12 the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Dereliction of Duty (I) stipulates in Article 3: "If a functionary of a state organ commits the crime of dereliction of duty and the crime of accepting bribes, unless otherwise stipulated by law, he shall be punished with several crimes of dereliction of duty and bribery."
The legal cat thinks that the situation that the actor constitutes the crime of accepting bribes and violates other crimes stipulated in the criminal law is a substantive crime, and the principle of combined punishment for several crimes should be applied, with one (heavier) punishment as an exception. Take bribery and dereliction of duty as an example. First of all, the crime of accepting bribes and the crime of dereliction of duty are two different crimes. Some people think that bribery and dereliction of duty have the legal attribute of "single constitutive act" and can only be evaluated as conforming to a criminal constitution under a criminal behavior system. [17] In other words, the bribery-type crime of dereliction of duty is either recognized as bribery or dereliction of duty. However, the legal interests of bribery crime and dereliction of duty crime are social interests with different meanings and cannot be inclusive. The crime of accepting bribes infringes on the non-buyability of duty behavior, and its essential feature is the transaction of power and money, while the crime of dereliction of duty infringes on the standardization of duty behavior of state organs and the actual interests it guarantees, and most of them take the occurrence of "great losses" as the element. Although the two are related to a certain extent, the focus of each crime is not the same. Dereliction of duty can not be concealed by "profit-making" behavior, and it can not lose its independent significance and value.
Secondly, some people think that bribery and dereliction of duty as a whole criminal process can actually be internalized into many parts of taking advantage of one's position, dereliction of duty for others, accepting property and so on. , in line with the constitution of a crime, it should be recognized as a crime. [18] The author believes that from the specific objective behavior, the bribe-seeking bribery does not require the actor to seek benefits for others. As long as the actor uses his power to ask for bribes, it constitutes the crime of accepting bribes. Although there is an element of "seeking benefits for others" in the crime of accepting bribes, this element is a limitation of the scope of the crime of accepting bribes and is not the focus of the crime itself. In other words, the criminal law punishes the act of taking bribes by taking advantage of one's authority to seek benefits for others, and excludes the act of taking bribes by not taking advantage of one's authority to seek benefits for others. Whether the interests sought are legal or illegal is not the focus of this crime. Then, the behavior of seeking benefits and even the illegality of crime are not covered by this crime.