法学院知识库

徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪确立后，在打击行政执法人员“以罚代刑”等违法行为方面起到了很大的作用。但此罪在司法实践中仍存在着诸多难题，因此，结合具体案例对本罪在实践中存在的难题进行具体分析，这对司法实践中本罪的正确适用及我国刑事立法的完善具有重要的意义。

本文由一则典型案例入手，首先简述法院对该案的审理结果及判决依据，介绍了案件审理过程中产生的三种分歧意见，进而指出本案在认定方面存在的四个焦点。随后结合案情重点对这四个问题进行分析：第一，行政执法人员的定义，结合学术界对行政执法人员的不同观点，分析本案被告人的工作职责属于“从事公务”，身份属于行政执法人员；第二，本罪中的“徇私”，应该既包括出于个人目的，徇私情、私利，又包括为单位谋取不正当利益，在范围上属于广义的徇私。本罪中的“舞弊”应该作为判定罪行轻重的重要标尺，而不是衡量是否犯罪的关键因素；第三，在本罪中，应推定出不移交相关案件的人员是“明知”的，“明知”应具体包含两个方面，即确切知道和推定应当知道。而移交的对象应该是执法过程中查处的具体案件而不是与此案件相关的犯罪嫌疑人；第四，在“情节严重”的认定方面本文的分析紧扣了法条的规定。最后一部分根据第二部分的分析提出了本罪的立法完善，主要建议有：考虑单位成为本罪主体的合理性；把“徇私舞弊”规定为本罪的从重情节；“应当移交”的判断标准是以原案有刑法所追究刑事责任的事实存在；将法律条文中规定的“情节严重”的构成要件予以取消。

徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪确立后，在打击行政执法人员“以罚代刑”等违法行为方面起到了很大的作用。但此罪在司法实践中仍存在着诸多难题，因此，结合具体案例对本罪在实践中存在的难题进行具体分析，这对司法实践中本罪的正确适用及我国刑事立法的完善具有重要的意义。

本文由一则典型案例入手，首先简述法院对该案的审理结果及判决依据，介绍了案件审理过程中产生的三种分歧意见，进而指出本案在认定方面存在的四个焦点。随后结合案情重点对这四个问题进行分析：第一，行政执法人员的定义，结合学术界对行政执法人员的不同观点，分析本案被告人的工作职责属于“从事公务”，身份属于行政执法人员；第二，本罪中的“徇私”，应该既包括出于个人目的，徇私情、私利，又包括为单位谋取不正当利益，在范围上属于广义的徇私。本罪中的“舞弊”应该作为判定罪行轻重的重要标尺，而不是衡量是否犯罪的关键因素；第三，在本罪中，应推定出不移交相关案件的人员是“明知”的，“明知”应具体包含两个方面，即确切知道和推定应当知道。而移交的对象应该是执法过程中查处的具体案件而不是与此案件相关的犯罪嫌疑人；第四，在“情节严重”的认定方面本文的分析紧扣了法条的规定。最后一部分根据第二部分的分析提出了本罪的立法完善，主要建议有：考虑单位成为本罪主体的合理性；把“徇私舞弊”规定为本罪的从重情节；“应当移交”的判断标准是以原案有刑法所追究刑事责任的事实存在；将法律条文中规定的“情节严重”的构成要件予以取消。

The crime of favoritism does not transfer criminal cases after the establishment of the law enforcement officers in the fight against "punishment for punishment" and other illegal acts played a significant role. But this crime in the judicial practice there are still many problems, therefore, combined with specific cases of this crime in practice in the practical problems of the specific analysis of the judicial practice of the correct application of this crime and the improvement of criminal legislation is of great significance .

This paper starts from a typical case, first of all, the court on the case of the trial results and the basis of the decision to introduce the case of the three different opinions arising from the trial, and then pointed out that the case identified in the existence of four focus. The definition of administrative law enforcement personnel, combined with the different viewpoints of administrative law enforcement personnel, analyzes the duty of the defendant in this case is "engaged in public service", the identity belongs to the administrative law enforcement personnel ; Second, the "favoritism" in this crime, should include both for personal purposes, favoritism, self-interest, but also for the unit to seek unjustified interests, in the broad sense of the scope of favoritism. Third, in this crime, should be presumed not to transfer the relevant cases of the staff is "knowingly", "knowingly", "crime" should be used as the basis for the determination of the severity of the crime, rather than to determine whether the crime is a key factor; "Should be specifically included in two aspects, namely, the exact knowledge and presumption should be known. And the transfer of the object should be the law enforcement process to investigate the specific case rather than the case related to the suspect; Fourth, the "serious circumstances" in the identification of this article closely linked to the provisions of the law. The last part puts forward the legislative perfection of this crime according to the analysis of the second part. The main suggestions are as follows: considering the rationality of the unit as the subject of this crime, the "affirmation of wrongs" as the accusation of this crime; Is the existence of the fact that the original criminal case has been held criminally responsible; the legal requirements of the "serious circumstances" of the elements to be abolished.