|
Abstract As the anti-corruption campaign gains momentum, there is a growing consensus on the necessity of imposing stricter penalties for offering bribes. However, despite this shift, both judicial authorities and academia have largely overlooked the role of fines in deterring the crime of offering bribes, focusing instead on imprisonment as the primary form of punishment for this offense. 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 and other corruption-related offenses should fall within the range of over 100,000 yuan and no more than twice the amount of the crime. While this interpretation initially helped standardize the imposition of fines for the crime of offering bribes, the underlying scientific rationale for these sentencing rules remains lacking. The explanation fails to establish clear criteria for determining the minimum and maximum fines for the crime of offering bribes, resulting in overly broad discretion and contributing to the perceived disorder in fines for this crime, as noted by some scholars. Upon further 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, especially considering the substantial discrepancies that can exist in various bribery cases. 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. Even more strikingly, the upper limits of fines for the crime of offering bribes in China are lower than or equal to the lower thresholds observed in the Philippines and Malaysia. Lastly, from a practical standpoint, the calculation logic presents challenges as many bribery cases struggle to ascertain the exact amount of illicit gains. Consequently, the inability to recover the proceeds of bribery poses a significant obstacle. When factoring in the average return on investment for bribery cases, estimated at 4.6 times the bribe amount, it becomes apparent that even if the maximum fine of twice the bribe amount is imposed, bribe givers may still find the endeavor financially lucrative despite facing criminal repercussions.
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. Furthermore, a prevalent issue identified was the routine imposition of fines at the minimum threshold, with a striking 56.7% of the bribery cases in the sample receiving fines pegged at the 100,000 yuan baseline. This figure soared even higher to 85.7% in certain provinces, underscoring systemic mechanical flaws within the judiciary. Additionally, in several bribery cases, the fine imposition failed to adequately account for the specific circumstances of the offense. Factors such as meritorious service or voluntary surrender were not given due consideration, resulting in instances where cases involving economic losses due to bribery did not incur enhanced penalties in terms of fine sentencing. 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 to 7.3%. This trend highlights a growing concern regarding the disproportionately lenient imposition of fines in bribery cases as the severity and scale of the offenses escalate. This discrepancy undermines the principle of proportionality between the crime and its punishment, potentially weakening the deterrent effect of fine sentencing on serious acts of bribery.
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. On the one hand, 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, based on empirical data indicating a bribery profit ratio of 4.6 times. By enhancing financial penalties for the crime of offering bribes and establishing fines systematically, individuals engaging in bribery should not profit from their illicit activities. On the other hand, it is recommended to standardize the imposition of fines for the crime of offering bribes. When determining fines, it is important to refer to the Guiding Opinions on Sentencing for Common Crimes issued by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate to ensure consistency. The fines should be set within the recommended range based on the specific circumstances of each case. In instances where a suspended prison sentence is given for the crime of offering bribes, the fine should be properly higher than in cases where the prison sentence is actually served. By improving the application of fines in bribery cases, the deterrent effect of punishment can be strengthened, thus deterring the prevalence of bribery activities.
|
|
Published: 05 March 2026
|
|
|
|
