How to check bribery together?
China News Weekly reporter/Zhou Qunfeng
Issued in the 1013th issue of China News Weekly on 2021.9.20
On September 8, the National Supervision Commission of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and the Organization Department of the Central Committee, the United Front Work Department, the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission, the Supreme People’s Court, and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate jointly issued the "Opinions on Further Promoting Bribery and Bribery Investigations" (hereinafter referred to as the "Opinions") , And made arrangements to further promote the "inspection of bribery and bribery".
The report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China clearly pointed out that “accepting bribes should be investigated together.” Each plenary session of the 19th Central Commission for Discipline Inspection has also made arrangements for insisting on carrying out bribery and bribery investigations together.
Luo Xing, an assistant researcher at the Chinese Academy of Discipline Inspection and Supervision, told China News Weekly that for a long time, there has been a situation of "re-checking bribes and lightly checking bribes". There are many reasons: on the one hand, compared with criminal crimes, duty crimes The concealment is relatively strong, and there is often no crime scene.
When bribers are investigated, they generally say that they are being asked for bribes, and the bribers generally say that they are passively accepting bribes, and both sides hold different opinions.
At the legal level, it is difficult to identify the briber.
Without the cooperation of the briber, the investigation and handling of official crime cases will be very difficult.
Secondly, many bribers are operators of private enterprises and have a certain influence in the local area. They contribute a lot to the local economic indicators and employment rate. In the process of handling the case, it is necessary to find out the problems of the people involved in the case of private enterprises, and to do everything possible. Avoid negative impacts on the production and operation of private enterprises, which is prone to a "dilemma" in practice.
Cut the interest chain of "encirclement hunting"
As early as March 4, 1999, the Supreme Law and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate jointly promulgated the "Notice on Seriously Investigating and Prosecuting Serious Criminals of Bribery While Handling Major Criminal Cases of Bribery." Seven types of bribery crimes, including bribery to many people, bribes to party and government officials, and judicial staff, are severely punished.
The Criminal Law Amendment (9), officially implemented on November 1, 2015, has tightened the conditions for lenient penalties for bribery crimes, and clarified that bribers can only “have a relatively minor crime and play a key role in the detection of major cases, or Only those who have performed significant meritorious service" can be mitigated or exempted from punishment.
The report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China issued on October 18, 2017 clearly stated that “insist on the investigation of bribery and bribery, and resolutely prevent the formation of interest groups within the party”.
The 4th and 5th Plenary Sessions of the 19th Central Commission for Discipline Inspection put forward for two consecutive years "persistence in taking bribes and bribery investigations together", and resolutely cut off the interest chain of "encircling hunting" and being willing to be "encircled hunting".
In spite of the long-established regulations, in practice, the proportion of bribers subject to judicial prosecution is too low.
According to relevant data from China Judgment Documents Network, from 2018 to 2019, there were 9,233 first-instance bribery judgments published by courts across the country, while only 3,322 first-instance bribery cases were announced in the same period.
The "Opinions" of the six departments pointed out that it is necessary to clearly understand that bribers' unscrupulous "hunting" of party members and cadres is an important reason for the current increase in corruption.
Mao Zhaohui, executive director of the Chinese Supervisory Society and director of the Anti-Corruption and Integrity Policy Research Center of Renmin University of China, told China News Weekly that one reason for the current increase in corruption is that the briber's motive for bribery has not been effectively curbed.
Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, the key targets of the anti-corruption policies that have been promulgated have been public officials who have taken bribes. Behind the phenomenon, bribery manpower attempts to persuade and induce bribery is an important factor by improving the security of corruption.
In order to please public officials, some bribers use "elegant bribery" and other methods to do what they like, which can be described as "precise bribery."
On the morning of February 28, 2015, the Shandong Dongying Intermediate People's Court publicly sentenced Ni Fake, the former vice governor of Anhui Province, in the case of bribery and a huge amount of unidentified property.
Ni Fake was sentenced to 17 years in prison and confiscated one million yuan of personal property.
Ni Fake is known as the "Governor of Jade".
Some bosses voted for Ni Fake’s favor, of which Ji Lichang, chairman of the board of supervisors of Anhui Dachang Mining Group Co., Ltd., was the most typical.
The "Analysis of Ni Fake Cases of Violation of Discipline and Law" published on the official website of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection revealed that Ni Fake does not leave his hands while watching TV and reading books; he wears a jade pendant around his neck when he wears a lot; Appreciate one by one; every two weeks, wax and oil the fine jade pieces one by one; when you are on business trips, no matter how busy you are, you will have to squeeze time to take a look at the local jade market or shopping mall.
The judgment of the Ni Fake case shows that from September 2006 to the end of 2011, Ni Fake had received 143 pieces of gold products, jade, jade and other items from Ji Lichang, the person in charge of Anhui Dachang Mining Group Co., Ltd. 11 times.
On June 27, 2018, a criminal ruling on the China Judgment Document Network showed that Ji Lichang was sentenced to five years of imprisonment and Dachang Mining Group Co., Ltd. was sentenced to a fine of 46 million yuan.
Mao Zhaohui said that from the perspective of investigating and handling corruption cases, the main point for taking bribes down is the confession of the briber.
For a long time, I thought that controlling public power would solve the problem of corruption.
In this sense, in order to encourage bribers to take the initiative to surrender, the case-handling agencies often agree to reduce or exempt them from legal responsibilities, and even allow them to retain illegitimate interests such as bidding projects that they had previously obtained through bribery and other means.
This phenomenon led to the fact that the bribers did not curb their hands after the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, and even worsened their costs.
For bribers, the deterrent effect of not daring to pay bribes has not been fully realized.
In an interview with China News Weekly, Wang Minggao, president of the China Association for Integrity Culture Research in Hunan Province, also stated that under the high pressure of anti-corruption in the past, it would be difficult for them to prosecute corrupt officials if they were too severely investigated against bribers. It is also the dilemma of the Commission for Discipline Inspection and Supervision in handling the case, and it is also the biggest crux of the long-term "re-investigation of bribes and under-investigation of bribes".
A person in charge of the Southern Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection told China News Weekly that recently, during the process of education and rectification of the political and legal teams, case handlers have discovered many cases of lawyers bribing judges. In order to break through cases as soon as possible, fewer disciplinary measures have been taken against bribery lawyers.
"After the "Opinions" is promulgated, the bribery lawyers should be transferred to the judicial department for handling in accordance with laws and regulations."
"Checking together does not mean treating equally"
Among the bribers, the bosses of private enterprises accounted for a large proportion.
On March 28, the website of the State Supervision Commission of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection reported that among the bribers investigated and dealt with in Hangzhou in the past three years, corporate personnel or self-employed individuals accounted for 88.4%, and many bribers were legal representatives of private enterprises.
Chen Zuyuan, owner of Shenzhen Anyuan Investment Group Co., Ltd., is known for his daring to offer bribes.
In the bribery case of Hu Xing, former deputy director of the Yunnan Provincial Communications Department, heard in 2007, the amount of bribes paid by Chen Clan Yuan amounted to 32 million yuan, ranking first among the 12 units and individuals involved, accounting for 80% of Hu Xing’s total bribes. "Yunnan Legal System News" once quoted local folk sayings and jokingly called him the "bribery champion."
In the end, Hu Xing was sentenced to life imprisonment, but Chen Czuyuan retreated strangely.
Eight years later, he once again entered the public eye because he dared to pay bribes.
In the case of Wan Qingliang, former member of the Standing Committee of the Guangdong Provincial Party Committee and former secretary of the Guangzhou Municipal Party Committee, was tried in 2015. Wan Qingliang was accused of accepting bribes of more than 110 million yuan. Nearly half of the total amount.
In addition, he also bribed RMB 900,000 and HK$1 million to Luo, the former deputy secretary-general of the Guangdong Provincial Government.
In June 2018, Chen Zuyuan was sentenced to 4 years in prison in the first instance for committing bribery.
It is worth noting that the 50 million yuan that the Chen family paid to Wan Qingliang in bribes stemmed from his encounter with "political liars."
Before Wan Qingliang was investigated at the end of June 2014, the whereabouts of the Chen family was unknown for half a year.
On June 28, 2018, the second instance of the Chen Zuyuan case was opened in Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court.
During the trial, Chen Zuyuan said that during that time, he heard that Wan Qingliang was under investigation. In order to help Wan avoid organizing the investigation, he frequently went to Beijing to meet with a man named Ouyang Ronghua in order to discuss with him how to pay bribes. Liaison with the central leadership.
With Wan Qingliang's consent, he paid 50 million yuan to Ouyang Ronghua.
Wan Qingliang and Chen Clanyuan were convinced of their ability to "lobby the central leadership" and "help themselves out of crime", and neither realized that this was a scam set up by Ouyang Ronghua.
On June 15, 2014, Chen Zuyuan explained to the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection that he asked Ouyang Ronghua to help Wan Qingliang to "settle" the investigation.
Twelve days later, Wan Qingliang was investigated.
A staff member of the Propaganda Classroom of the District Discipline Inspection Commission and Supervisory Committee of a certain city in the south has long-term front-line case handling experience.
He told China News Weekly that for a long time, the main reason that discipline inspection and supervision agencies "re-examine bribes and lightly examine bribes" is that bribers are generally not party members or targets of supervision, and there are limitations to the application of party discipline and regulations.
Generally, bribers are mostly corporate bosses. In terms of the scope of anti-corruption coverage, the anti-corruption of private enterprises is out of touch with the anti-corruption within the system, and there is no interactive connection.
A very small number of private enterprises use bribes to grab resources, and even subconsciously, they must use bribes to obtain a certain amount of space for participation in social and economic construction.
After the reform of the national supervision system, the bosses of private enterprises were included in the supervision targets.
In March 2018, the "Supervision Law of the People's Republic of China" was promulgated and implemented.
Article 22 clearly stipulates that the supervisory organ may take lien measures for the persons involved in the crime of bribery or joint duty crime.
The "Opinions" clarified the focus of investigation work: repeated bribery, huge bribes, and bribery to many people, especially those who did not stop after the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China; those who paid bribes by party members and state officials; important work in the country, Bribery in key projects and major projects; bribery in the fields of organization of personnel, discipline, law enforcement, environmental protection, finance, safety production, food and medicine, disaster relief, pension and social security, education and medical treatment; conduct of major commercial bribery .
The person in charge of the case supervision and management office of the State Supervision and Administration Commission of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection also emphasized that the investigation of bribery and bribery is not equivalent to the same treatment. It is necessary to coordinate the use of disciplinary, legal, administrative, economic and other means to implement comprehensive policies and deal with them separately.
Disciplinary inspection and supervision agencies should consider not only the amount, frequency, and field of bribery, but also the subjective viciousness of the briber, the harmful consequences, the attitude of acknowledging mistakes and regrets, refunding compensation, and other factors, and making accurate proposals for handling. opinion.
Punishment of bribers still faces many difficulties
The "Opinions" emphasized that it is necessary to organize and carry out research on issues such as market access and qualification restrictions for bribers, and to explore the implementation of a "bribery blacklist" system.
The "Blacklist of Bribers" was first initiated in Beilun District, Ningbo, Zhejiang.
"Ningbo Daily" reported that in early 2002, the Beilun District Procuratorate collected and sorted out the relevant data of more than 90 bribers investigated and dealt with since 1998, and selected 17 people with bad circumstance to be included in the "bribery blacklist." The database of bribers in the construction industry is used to provide relevant units with "integrity consulting services" with bribery records inquiries as the main content.
According to the regulations of the Beilun District Procuratorate of Ningbo, the people included in the "blacklist" include: those who were sentenced by the court for the crime of bribery; those who had not been sentenced but paid a huge amount of bribes exceeding 50,000; the prosecutors had known the facts of their bribery , But I did not voluntarily explain or refuse to admit, etc.
According to the regulations of the Beilun District Procuratorate of Ningbo, if a person on the "blacklist" has no record of paying bribes for five consecutive years, the name will disappear from the "blacklist". As a result, it is not mandatory.
In addition, Hunan, Shaanxi and other provinces also have similar "bribery blacklist" systems.
This system faces greater resistance in related practices.
Mao Zhaohui said that the reform of Ningbo Beilun was promoted by the procuratorate, but the disciplinary committee, organization, court and other important departments did not participate, and the effect was not satisfactory.
In the past, in order to evade the punishment of the "blacklist of bribers", many bribers often adopted methods such as "changing vests" and "secretly changing pillars" to avoid punishment.
For example, some bosses replaced the company’s legal representative with a specific person such as a wife or children, hiding behind the scenes, and some even cancelled the company and re-registered a new company.
The above-mentioned Disciplinary Committee staff told China News Weekly that “changing vests” has two meanings: if the real briber “retreats behind the scenes” and there are many internal levels, it is very difficult to investigate and deal with. Who is the manipulator.
Secondly, many cases currently show that the field of corruption has penetrated into the financial field, and bribers use financial tools to manipulate and realize cash. This disguised bribery method is very concealed, which is generally lacking in professional experience for the case handlers of disciplinary inspection and supervision agencies. In other words, it is very difficult to investigate and deal with.
Mao Zhaohui said that this time the six central departments jointly issued a document, indicating that they are trying to find a more effective solution.
It will help to coordinate anti-corruption forces and technical means, especially after digital technology is applied in anti-corruption, big data analysis can find out the correlation between people and enterprises, and effectively combat bribers." Change the vest" behavior.
Luo Xing, an assistant researcher at the China Academy of Discipline Inspection and Supervision, told China News Weekly that when investigating bribery cases, there are still some difficulties at the operational and cognitive levels.
At present, the coordination mechanism for punishing bribery is not perfect. Now the discipline inspection and supervision organs mainly investigate and deal with the problems of party members and cadres. In the investigation and punishment of bribers, coordination and cooperation with judicial and administrative agencies needs to be strengthened.
Ordinary people and even some party members and cadres don't have enough awareness of the harmfulness of bribery. Many people think that it is not wrong to spend money to give gifts and find someone to do things, especially for those who attempted to pay bribes.
Some scholars argue that in the face of bribers, leading cadres should not just drive them away.
According to the "Criminal Law": In order to seek illegitimate benefits, giving money to state personnel is guilty of bribery.
Therefore, the briber has already seen the briber with the bribery items and clearly expressed his intention, which has constituted a bribery crime. At this time, the leading cadre should promptly report (to the relevant departments) (the briber’s bribery behavior).
Only in this way can we effectively combat bribery.
Luo Xing also said that at present, in order to obtain practical results in investigating and punishing bribers, there are still some problems: some bribers pay bribes in cash, and it is a "one-to-one" form, which is highly concealed, which makes it difficult to obtain evidence. .
There are also “one-to-many” or “many-to-one” situations, that is, it is not uncommon for a case where “one briber bribes to multiple bribes” or “multiple bribers bribe to one bribe” is not uncommon. It takes a long time for personnel to verify evidence, the process is complicated, and it is difficult to obtain evidence.
China News Weekly, Issue 35, 2021
Statement: The publication of the "China News Weekly" manuscript is authorized in writing