What does the fact that more than 90% of the cash transactions in bribery cases illustrate?

□ Wang Gangqiao

A law firm in Guangdong set up a research team to classify, sort and analyze 210 valid judgment documents for bribery crimes in the jurisdiction area of the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court from January 1, 2013 to November 5, 2016 through the search of relevant legal databases, summarize some basic conditions of bribery cases in Guangzhou, form reports and draw some interesting conclusions. For example, in these cases, there were 178 cases targeting cash, accounting for 84.80%, and 12 cases targeting cash + shopping cards, accounting for 5.70%. Others, such as through bank transfers, or accepting bribes in calligraphy, painting, computers or iPad electronics, accounted for less than 10%.

As Friedman put it, "The world is flat." Judging from the above research conclusions, even the manifestation of bribery crimes is "flat", and the boundaries of criminal methods (techniques) seem to be disappearing. The common choice of so many bribe-givers will certainly not be a coincidence. It counters the fact that the vast majority of bribery offenders still believe that "cash transactions are the safest." Because cash transactions often take place in confined spaces, the entire criminal process can easily fall into the hidden world of "you know what I know and what I know". To break through such cases, confessions are particularly important. Among all the statutory evidence, the confession is the most unstable and relatively weak type of statutory evidence. This undoubtedly places higher demands on investigations and allegations.

In the case of cash transactional bribery, the briber is both a participant (usually a beneficiary) of the crime and the most important witness in the case. If the evidence is truthful, the briber himself will not be able to escape the punishment of the law. Therefore, the briber's silence in responding to the investigation is a common option for self-protection. What's more, many bribers also fear retaliation for "betraying" allies of interest. How to dispel the doubts of bribers and strive to win the case after dividing the "bribery-bribery community" is a difficult work that anti-corruption departments in various places are anxious about. In judicial practice in some places, bribe-givers who cooperate with the investigation and prosecution in collecting evidence are often "extrajudicially granted grace", which is also one of the important reasons why the proportion of bribery cases is much higher than that of bribery cases. According to the dual relationship between bribery and bribery, the number of cases between the two should be balanced.

Of course, the call for the establishment of a "tainted witness" system to dispel the worries of bribe-givers has not stopped for more than a decade. This pragmatic choice of system may not be consistent with the criminal policy of "breaking the law", but when justice and efficiency cannot be combined, the system must make a choice. A "fair-first, efficiency-oriented" approach may be the option that could eventually lead to a majority consensus.

Another solution is to call for a loosening of technical reconnaissance for the anti-corruption sector. In fact, the current Criminal Procedure Law already has clear provisions on technical investigation. In the front-end investigation of bribery cases, the problem is more reflected in the "timeliness" of the use of technical investigative measures. For example, technical surveillance of a suspect is likely to conflict with personal privacy, and based on the needs of the public interest, this conflict can be reversed to investigation if necessary. But the question is, who will judge the necessity? Who regulates the use of technical investigation? And, under what procedure is used to conclude technical investigations? How to use the evidentiary resources of technical investigation, etc. Although there are more and more standardized documents on technical investigation and procedures are becoming more and more sound, the balance between public interest and individual freedom will continue to affect the generation and evolution of institutions for a long time.

(The author is a legal scholar)