Abstract：Since the introduction of fines for the crime of offering bribes in the 2015 Amendment IX to the Criminal Law, nearly a decade has passed, yet the current application of fines for this crime in China continues to fall short of its intended objectives. Regarding sentencing guidelines, the Interpretations on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law of the People’s Republic of China in Handling Criminal Cases of Corruption and Bribery, jointly issued by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate in 2016, stipulated that fines for the crime of offering bribes should fall within the range of over 100,000 yuan and no more than twice the amount of the crime. Upon examination, several critical issues arise. Firstly, from a theoretical standpoint, a notable selection bias is evident in the criteria for determining fines for the crime of offering bribes. The lack of clarity in the judicial interpretation regarding whether the “twice the amount of the crime” limit pertains to the bribe itself or the illicit gains introduces ambiguity. Secondly, in a comparative context, the ceiling for fines imposed for the crime of offering bribes in China pales in comparison to countries such as Russia and Vietnam, where a multiple-based fine system is in place. Lastly, from a practical standpoint, the calculation logic presents challenges as many bribery cases struggle to ascertain the exact amount of illicit gains.In an analysis of 1,180 cases involving the crime of offering bribes spanning from 2020 to 2023, significant issues were identified in the discretionary sentencing process, particularly concerning the application of fines in the court system. Initially, discrepancies emerged as some judges incorrectly interpreted sentencing guidelines, leading to inaccuracies in fine assessments that were subsequently challenged and overturned on appeal. Moreover, a concerning trend was observed where the fine amounts in over 51 bribery cases fell below the mandated minimum fine of 100,000 yuan as outlined in judicial interpretations. Overall, the fines levied in bribery cases were notably lenient, with the mean fine ratio (fine amount divided by bribery amount) across the sample standing at a mere 67.1%. For cases with substantial bribery amounts, the fine ratio is 80.2%; for cases with significant bribery sums, the fine ratio is 16.5%; and for cases with exceptionally high levels of bribery, the fine ratio drops down to 7.3%.To address the aforementioned concerns, judicial authorities are advised to enhance their focus on imposing fines for the crime of offering bribes and promptly revise judicial interpretations. It is proposed that sentencing guidelines be revised to differentiate between ordinary and extraordinary circumstances in determining fine ranges based on whether the illicit gains from the bribery have been identified and recovered. In ordinary cases, the minimum fine for the crime of offering bribes should be set at the lower end of the sentencing range or the bribery amount multiplied by 1, whichever is higher, while the maximum fine should be capped at five times the bribery amount. In exceptional circumstances where the illicit gains cannot be quantified and recovered, fines should range from five to ten times the bribery amount.
金鸿浩. 行贿罪罚金刑的实证分析与裁量改进[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2026, 56(3): 118-135.
Jin Honghao. Empirical Insights and Sentencing Reforms of Fines for the Crime of Offering Bribes. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2026, 56(3): 118-135.
2026, Vol. 56 
