贪污贿赂司法解释中应然与实然的博弈——兼评“两高”办理贪污贿赂刑事案件司法解释第15条  

Game Between Ideal and Actuality in Judicial Interpretations of Embezzlement and Bribery: with an Analysis of Article 15 of “Judicial Interpretations”

作　　者：李皓[1] 

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学法律学院,上海200042

出　　处：《廉政文化研究》2017年第2期41-47,共7页Anti-corruption and Integrity Culture Studies

摘　　要：立法权的过度让与、司法权的就地膨胀,司法解释突破立法权限现象已非个例。基于严厉打击贪腐犯罪的需要和受贿罪传统犯罪构成间的冲突、博弈,近来由最高人民法院、最高人民检察院联合发布的关于办理贪污贿赂刑事案件司法解释第15条第2款关于"为他人谋利前的数额一并计入受贿罪数额"的规定有突破立法权限之嫌。在理性的立法层面,目前最可行的做法是沿袭巨额财产来源不明罪的立法模式,通过刑事立法方式设计贿赂犯罪主观方面的推定,提倡立法权的回归;在当前司法实践层面,应当严格适用司法解释第15条之规定,在坚持罪刑法定的基础上更多地应用出罪机制。Excessive relinquishments of legislative power, expansion of judicial power and breakthrough of legislative power by judicial interpretation are presently no longer uncommon. The need of fighting against bribery conflicts with traditional constitution of bribery. The judicial interpretation of embezzlement and bribery jointly released by Supreme People＇s Court and Supreme People＇s Procuratorate？is not devoid of the？suspicion of breaking legislative power in its Item 2, Article 15, which is about ＂the amount before benefit-seeking for others is to be accumulated.＂ On the reasonable legislative level, a practical means is imitating the model about the crime of holding huge amounts of properties from unidentified sources, designing means of presumption for the subjective aspect of bribery by criminal law, which will help the return of legislative powers. In practice, strict adherence to Article 15 of Judicial Interpretations should be stuck to with due stress laid on decriminalization system based on the fundamental principle of legality.

关 键 词：贪污贿赂 司法解释 立法权 罪刑法定 

分 类 号：D924.3[政治法律—刑法学]