受贿行贿一起查的证据法挑战及其应对

Evidentiary Challenges and Countermeasures in Joint Investigation of Bribery and Corruption Cases

受贿行贿一起查是党中央作出的决策部署。坚持受贿行贿一起查,对于净化权力运行环境、消除受贿犯罪诱因、推进贿赂犯罪的源头治理具有重要意义。在传统的贿赂犯罪查办模式中,办案机关通常采取特别减免行贿者刑事责任的方式,以换取行贿者的证言及其对办案活动的配合,进而实现对受贿者刑事责任的追究。受贿行贿一起查必然要求严格控制对行贿者适用此种激励机制,从而会影响行贿者认罪和供述的积极性,给贿赂犯罪的证明和追诉带来重大挑战。贯彻受贿行贿一起查的反腐败方略,需要在遵循罪责刑相适应原则追究受贿人和行贿人刑事责任的同时,破解贿赂犯罪的证明难题,审慎构建污点证人豁免制度,重视发挥技术调查措施的作用,优化推定证明机制,有限度地引入合意事实观。

The joint investigation of bribery and corruption cases is a strategic decision made by the CPC Central Committee.This approach is significant for purifying the environment of power operations,eliminating incentives for bribery crimes,and addressing the root causes of corruption.Traditionally,investigating authorities often reduced criminal responsibility for bribers in exchange for testimony and cooperation,facilitating the prosecution of bribe recipients.This undoubtedly objectively promotes the occurrence of bribery crimes,which not only does not help to reduce corruption crimes,but also leads to the coexistence of the advocacy of“cracking down on bribery crimes”and the practical problem of“increasingly rampant bribery crimes”.However,the new approach of joint investigation necessitates stricter control over such incentive mechanisms,potentially reducing bribers’willingness to confess and increasing difficulties in evidence gathering and fact-finding,thus presenting significant challenges to proving and prosecuting bribery crimes.Implementing this anti-corruption strategy requires balancing the principle of proportionality between crime and punishment with the need to overcome evidentiary challenges.To address these challenges,several measures are proposed.Firstly,expanding evidence sources is crucial.This involves carefully constructing an immunity system for tainted witnesses,with limitations based on crime severity,probative value,necessity,and criminal history.Additionally,emphasizing technical investigation measures is important,albeit with rational and scientific restrictions to ensure their appropriate use in bribery cases.Secondly,optimizing presumptive proof mechanisms can enhance prosecution effectiveness.This includes extending presumptions beyond seeking benefits for others and joint bribery intention to other subjective attitudes and behavioral characteristics.While this expansion can improve prosecution outcomes,it may increase the risk of wrongful convictions.Therefore,measures to ensure the reliability of presumptive conclusions are necessary,such as limiting basic facts and clarifying rebuttal paths.Thirdly,introducing the concept of consensual facts in cases where defendants plead guilty can reduce the burden of proof while maintaining legal,practical,and comparative law rationality.To ensure that such agreements reflect defendants’true intentions,improvements in simultaneous audio-video recording and lawyer intervention systems are recommended.These strategies aim to balance the need for effective prosecution with the protection of defendants’rights,addressing the unique challenges posed by the joint investigation of bribery and corruption cases.In the future,we still need to regard the governance of bribery crimes as a major legal issue and provide sustained attention in order to truly achieve the governance goal of“not daring to be corrupt,not being corrupt,and not wanting to be corrupt”.