受賄罪與瀆職罪競(jìng)合問(wèn)題研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-10-30 15:46
【摘要】：隨著我國(guó)社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展及政府職能的不斷擴(kuò)大，我國(guó)公務(wù)人員職務(wù)犯罪的犯罪模式又有了新的變化，目前我國(guó)職務(wù)犯罪呈現(xiàn)出犯罪行為更加隱蔽、犯罪形態(tài)更加多樣、犯罪構(gòu)成更加復(fù)雜的特點(diǎn)。在一些與社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展密切相關(guān)的經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)，例如工程開發(fā)、房地產(chǎn)建設(shè)、稅收征收等經(jīng)濟(jì)、社會(huì)管理中瀆職犯罪、賄賂犯罪等職務(wù)犯罪現(xiàn)象時(shí)有發(fā)生，尤其是在司法裁判中，司法機(jī)關(guān)工作人員收受賄賂徇私枉法的案件更是突出。根據(jù)不完全統(tǒng)計(jì)，2012年全國(guó)法院共審理瀆職犯罪案件4611件，較2011年案件數(shù)量同比上升2.7%。 在實(shí)踐中，當(dāng)前檢察機(jī)關(guān)在辦理瀆職侵權(quán)類案件中關(guān)于定罪量刑的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)并不明確，在法律適用中也存在一些爭(zhēng)議問(wèn)題。瀆職犯罪規(guī)定只有達(dá)到情節(jié)嚴(yán)重或者造成重大損失時(shí)，相應(yīng)行為才構(gòu)成瀆職犯罪；只有犯罪情節(jié)達(dá)到特別嚴(yán)重或者造成特別重大損失時(shí)，才可以對(duì)行為人處以更加嚴(yán)厲的刑罰。刑法規(guī)定的情節(jié)嚴(yán)重、情節(jié)特別嚴(yán)重、重大損失、特別重大損失等情形，除個(gè)別罪名之外，絕大多數(shù)罪名還沒(méi)有通過(guò)司法解釋給予明確具有可操作性的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。此外，瀆職類犯罪是十分特殊的一類犯罪，，在實(shí)際中認(rèn)定和處理上擁有不同于其他刑事犯罪的特性，存在較為復(fù)雜的不同看法。目前受我國(guó)職務(wù)犯罪偵查機(jī)關(guān)和偵查手段的限制，長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)瀆職侵權(quán)案件往往被檢察機(jī)關(guān)的反貪部門認(rèn)定為受賄罪。同時(shí)受我國(guó)刑事立法水平的影響，我國(guó)與其他大陸法系國(guó)家不同，沒(méi)有對(duì)罪數(shù)問(wèn)題做具體規(guī)定，這樣司法機(jī)關(guān)在查處這類案件的過(guò)程中缺乏明確統(tǒng)一的指導(dǎo)，這樣不可避免的出現(xiàn)了罪數(shù)的爭(zhēng)議。2012年12月，最高人民法院、最高人民檢察院頒布了《關(guān)于辦理瀆職刑事案件適用法律若干問(wèn)題的解釋（一）》，該解釋中十分明確的規(guī)定了瀆職類犯罪與受賄罪發(fā)生競(jìng)合時(shí)采取數(shù)罪并罰的處斷原則，但是由于相應(yīng)的罪數(shù)理論僅僅是刑法中對(duì)犯罪的一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的理論，所以我們實(shí)踐中十分迫切在這個(gè)問(wèn)題上給出更加具體、明確的界定。 本文從三個(gè)案例出發(fā)，對(duì)受賄罪與瀆職罪發(fā)生競(jìng)合的原因、受賄罪與瀆職罪發(fā)生競(jìng)合時(shí)的處理模式和受賄罪與徇私枉法型瀆職罪發(fā)生競(jìng)合時(shí)的特殊處罰方式進(jìn)行了探討，并提出了下一步的立法建議。
[Abstract]:With the development of our country's social economy and the continuous expansion of government functions, the crime pattern of official duty crime in our country has changed again. At present, the crime behavior of duty crime in our country is more concealed and the crime form is more diverse. Crime constitutes a more complex feature. In some economic activities closely related to social and economic development, such as engineering development, real estate construction, tax collection, malfeasance in social management, bribery and other job-related crimes occur from time to time, especially in the administration of justice. The case of judicial staff accepting bribes for favoritism and perverting the law is even more prominent. According to incomplete statistics, a total of 4611 cases of malfeasance were heard by courts across the country in 2012, up 2.7 percent from a year earlier in 2011. In practice, the current procuratorial organ in handling malfeasance infringement cases about the standard of conviction and sentencing is not clear, there are also some controversial issues in the application of the law. The crime of dereliction of duty shall constitute a crime of dereliction of duty only if the circumstances of dereliction of duty are serious or cause serious loss; only when the circumstances of the crime reach especially serious or cause especially heavy loss can the perpetrator be punished with a more severe penalty. The circumstances stipulated in the criminal law are serious, especially serious, heavy loss, and so on. Except for individual charges, most of the charges have not been given clear and operable standards through judicial interpretation. In addition, the crime of dereliction of duty is a very special kind of crime. In practice, it has different characteristics from other criminal offences and has different views. At present, limited by the investigation organs and investigative techniques of duty crime in our country, for a long time malfeasance infringement cases are often recognized as bribery crime by the anti-corruption department of the procuratorial organ. At the same time, under the influence of the level of criminal legislation in our country, unlike other civil law countries, our country has not made specific provisions on the number of crimes, so the judicial organs lack clear and unified guidance in the process of investigating and dealing with such cases. In December 2012, the Supreme people's Court and the Supreme people's Procuratorate promulgated the interpretation of several issues concerning the Law applicable to handling Criminal cases of malfeasance (1). The interpretation clearly stipulates the principle of combining punishment for several crimes when the crimes of dereliction of duty are competing with the crime of accepting bribes, but since the corresponding theory of the number of crimes is only a simple theory of crime in the criminal law, Therefore, we are very urgent in the practice of this issue to give a more specific, clear definition. Starting from three cases, this paper probes into the reasons for the concurrence of bribery crime and malfeasance crime, the handling mode of bribery crime and malfeasance crime, and the special punishment method when bribery crime and malfeasance crime of favoritism are competing. And put forward the next step of the legislative proposals.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：黑龍江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3
本文編號(hào)：2300436
[Abstract]:With the development of our country's social economy and the continuous expansion of government functions, the crime pattern of official duty crime in our country has changed again. At present, the crime behavior of duty crime in our country is more concealed and the crime form is more diverse. Crime constitutes a more complex feature. In some economic activities closely related to social and economic development, such as engineering development, real estate construction, tax collection, malfeasance in social management, bribery and other job-related crimes occur from time to time, especially in the administration of justice. The case of judicial staff accepting bribes for favoritism and perverting the law is even more prominent. According to incomplete statistics, a total of 4611 cases of malfeasance were heard by courts across the country in 2012, up 2.7 percent from a year earlier in 2011. In practice, the current procuratorial organ in handling malfeasance infringement cases about the standard of conviction and sentencing is not clear, there are also some controversial issues in the application of the law. The crime of dereliction of duty shall constitute a crime of dereliction of duty only if the circumstances of dereliction of duty are serious or cause serious loss; only when the circumstances of the crime reach especially serious or cause especially heavy loss can the perpetrator be punished with a more severe penalty. The circumstances stipulated in the criminal law are serious, especially serious, heavy loss, and so on. Except for individual charges, most of the charges have not been given clear and operable standards through judicial interpretation. In addition, the crime of dereliction of duty is a very special kind of crime. In practice, it has different characteristics from other criminal offences and has different views. At present, limited by the investigation organs and investigative techniques of duty crime in our country, for a long time malfeasance infringement cases are often recognized as bribery crime by the anti-corruption department of the procuratorial organ. At the same time, under the influence of the level of criminal legislation in our country, unlike other civil law countries, our country has not made specific provisions on the number of crimes, so the judicial organs lack clear and unified guidance in the process of investigating and dealing with such cases. In December 2012, the Supreme people's Court and the Supreme people's Procuratorate promulgated the interpretation of several issues concerning the Law applicable to handling Criminal cases of malfeasance (1). The interpretation clearly stipulates the principle of combining punishment for several crimes when the crimes of dereliction of duty are competing with the crime of accepting bribes, but since the corresponding theory of the number of crimes is only a simple theory of crime in the criminal law, Therefore, we are very urgent in the practice of this issue to give a more specific, clear definition. Starting from three cases, this paper probes into the reasons for the concurrence of bribery crime and malfeasance crime, the handling mode of bribery crime and malfeasance crime, and the special punishment method when bribery crime and malfeasance crime of favoritism are competing. And put forward the next step of the legislative proposals.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：黑龍江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條
1 劉伯就;;淺談受賄罪中“為他人謀取利益”[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年18期
2 馬克昌;共同犯罪理論中若干爭(zhēng)議問(wèn)題[J];華中科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年01期
3 徐林付;皇甫杰;;受賄罪中“為他人謀取利益”之分析[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)研究導(dǎo)刊;2011年05期
4 馮亞?wèn)|;受賄罪與瀆職罪競(jìng)合問(wèn)題[J];法學(xué)研究;2000年01期
5 張智輝;;受賄罪立法問(wèn)題研究[J];法學(xué)研究;2009年05期
6 高兵;徇私枉法罪疑難問(wèn)題分析[J];人民檢察;2003年01期
7 張明楷;;瀆職罪中“徇私”、“舞弊”的性質(zhì)與認(rèn)定[J];人民檢察;2005年23期
8 李文生;關(guān)于瀆職罪徇私問(wèn)題的探討[J];中國(guó)刑事法雜志;2002年04期
9 游偉,肖晚祥;論受賄罪構(gòu)成要件中的“為他人謀取利益”——現(xiàn)行立法及其與理論、司法的沖突研究[J];政治與法律;2000年06期
本文編號(hào)：2300436
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/jingjilunwen/fangdichanjingjilunwen/2300436.html
最近更新
教材專著
