Analysis of Bribery: Three Types and Key Points of Defense
Authors | Mak Cheuk-lam and Yiu Nok-hei, Zhuosheng Criminal Law Team
1. Introduction
According to data released by the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the CPC and the National Supervisory Commission, together with the Publicity Department of the CPC Central Committee, in 2025, disciplinary inspection and supervision organs nationwide received a total of 4.168 million complaints and reports, including 1.282 million complaints and reports of a disciplinary or supervisory nature. 2.63 million leads were handled. A total of 1.012 million cases were filed, including 115 officials at the provincial or ministerial level and above, 5,016 officials at the department or bureau level, 41,000 officials at the county or division level, and 137,000 officials at the township or section level; 91,000 cases involved incumbent or former village Party branch secretaries and village committee directors.
A total of 983,000 people were disciplined, including 727,000 receiving disciplinary sanctions from the Party and 321,000 receiving administrative sanctions. Among them, 69 officials at the provincial or ministerial level and above, 4,155 at the department or bureau level, 35,000 at the county or division level, 125,000 at the township or section level, 133,000 ordinary cadres, and 686,000 individuals from rural areas, enterprises, and other sectors were disciplined.
In addition, disciplinary inspection and supervision authorities have consistently investigated both bribe-takers and bribe-givers, filing cases against 33,000 individuals involved in bribery and transferring 4,306 cases to the procuratorial organs. These data not only demonstrate the resolve to combat corruption and promote integrity, but also reveal the perilous path that people may take when succumbing to the lure of money.1
At present, with the development of the social economy and the advancement of the rule of law, the definition and investigation of bribery are facing new challenges and opportunities. To better address these situations, it is particularly important to conduct an in-depth analysis of the legal definition of bribery, the identification of various bribery offenses, and the key points for defense.
1Excerpted from “The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and the National Supervisory Commission Releases 2025 Report on the Supervision, Inspection, and Investigation Work of Disciplinary and Supervisory Organs Nationwide,” website of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and the National Supervisory Commission, January 17, 2026.
2. The legal basis for defining bribery behavior
(I) Subjective Requirements
The subject of this crime is a special subject, namely, a state functionary. State functionaries include: persons engaged in official duties within state organs; persons engaged in official duties in state-owned companies, enterprises, institutions, and people’s organizations; persons dispatched by state organs, state-owned companies, enterprises, or institutions to non-state-owned companies, enterprises, institutions, or social organizations to perform official duties; as well as other persons who engage in official duties in accordance with the law, all of whom shall be regarded as state functionaries.
(II) Subjective Requirements
The establishment of this crime requires intent, meaning that the perpetrator consciously commits the act of accepting a bribe.
(III) Objective Elements
The object of the crime of accepting bribes is dual in nature: on the one hand, it infringes upon the integrity of official conduct by state functionaries; on the other hand, it disrupts the normal administrative order of public institutions, such as state organs, state-owned enterprises, public institutions, and people’s organizations. The object of a crime typically involves property, which should not be limited to cash or tangible items but should be extended to encompass any form that embodies monetary value or other interests.
These benefits may be immediate or anticipated. Therefore, the property involved in the crime of accepting bribes must confer a material benefit and exist in an objective form, including currency, negotiable securities, commodities, and the like. The essence of bribery lies in material gain; whether viewed in terms of its value or its utility, it can be regarded as a commodity.
(IV) Objective Elements
From the perspective of the objective elements of the crime of accepting bribes, there are two specific forms of conduct:
① Taking advantage of one’s position to solicit property from others.Extortion of bribes refers to the act by state functionaries of actively demanding or coercing property by taking advantage of their official positions. Its subjective culpability and objective harm are even greater than those of bribery. The law provides a very concise definition of “demanding bribes.” There are two prevailing views: first, that the recipient of a bribe initiates the request, which is considered solicitation and emphasizes the element of initiative; second, that the recipient takes advantage of another person’s difficulties or needs to demand property—either explicitly or implicitly—in a coercive manner, emphasizing the elements of extortion and duress.
The former is more operational and effective in combating bribery but risks over‑inclusiveness, potentially misclassifying legitimate official interactions; the latter aligns with the essential nature of bribery but is difficult to prove and requires a comprehensive assessment of multiple factors, such as disparities in status.
② The act of taking advantage of one’s position to accept property from others and seek benefits for them.In this pattern of conduct, the act of “accepting property from others” takes various forms, including the direct receipt of cash or physical goods, as well as the acceptance of disguised forms of property such as kickbacks, handling fees, gift certificates, and shopping cards. The requirement of “seeking benefits for others” is highly controversial and complex in practice. Its manifestations include both acts—such as actively handling matters for the briber or providing facilitation to expedite project approvals—and omissions—such as deliberately delaying or shelving the oversight or review of the briber’s competitors in order to derive indirect gains.
3. Identification of Different Acts of Bribery and Relevant Case Analyses
As the economy and society continue to develop, bribery, beyond the most traditional form of direct exchange of money for power, has also come to exhibit increasingly diverse characteristics. According to the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Smuggling Criminal Cases, and the Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Cases of Bribery and Corruption, we will now discuss the definition of various types of bribery behaviors.
(I) Accepting bribes in the form of gambling
Accepting bribes in the form of gambling refers to the act by state functionaries who, taking advantage of their official positions to secure benefits for others, receive property from those seeking favors through gambling.
1. Legal Basis
Article 7 of the “Interpretation by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Gambling” clearly stipulates that if a state functionary, by taking advantage of his or her position, seeks benefits for others and accepts property from those individuals through gambling, such conduct constitutes bribery.
2. Key Points for Judicial Determination
The context, setting, time, and frequency of gambling:If gambling activities occur during the course of a state functionary’s actions to secure benefits for an interested party, or in certain specific contexts related to their official duties, and if the timing and frequency are unusually frequent, this may suggest the existence of bribery. For example, before and after the bidding for certain major projects, they frequently organized or participated in gambling activities with the bidders.
Source of gambling funds:If the gambling funds are provided by the person seeking favor and do not constitute a legitimate loan or reasonable financial transaction, but are instead intended to enable a state functionary to profit from the gambling, this may constitute a form of bribery. For example, an intermediary may directly provide gambling funds to a state functionary, or arrange for such funds through other means.
Whether other gambling participants had prior collusion:If other gambling participants collude in advance with a state functionary or a person seeking to influence the outcome and intentionally allow the state functionary to win in order to transfer property, such conduct may constitute bribery. For example, the participants may have previously agreed to deliberately lose to state functionaries, or to ensure the latter’s profits by manipulating the game.
The specific circumstances and amounts involved in winning or losing money or property:If a state functionary consistently wins at gambling, with the winnings significantly exceeding the typical range of gains or losses in legitimate gambling, or if the outcomes deviate from what would be expected by chance, and if there is also a conflict of interest with the person seeking favors, then it becomes necessary to further investigate whether bribery has occurred. For example, a state functionary acquires a huge sum of money through gambling within a short period, far exceeding their normal income level.
3. Typical Cases
The case of He Tao, former director of the Urban and Rural Road Transport Affairs Center of Yibin City, Sichuan Province. From 2015 to 2023, He Tao, taking advantage of his position, repeatedly solicited and accepted property from entities under his administrative oversight under the pretext of borrowing, using such funds for purposes such as purchasing lottery tickets; this included accepting bribes through gambling. He used the proceeds from his bribery to make long-term, multiple, large-scale lottery purchases, with a total investment exceeding 16 million yuan.
In January 2024, He Tao was expelled from the Communist Party and dismissed from public office, and his suspected criminal offenses were referred to the judicial authorities for legal handling.
The case of Wang Honggang, Director of the Jiang’an County Land and Resources Bureau. Zhang Mingming, the former Party Secretary of Jiang’an County, was an avid card player. Wang Honggang, the deputy director of the Jiang’an County Public Security Bureau, used mahjong and other card games to curry favor with Zhang Mingming. By deliberately letting Zhang win money during their card sessions, Wang gradually secured promotions and eventually became the director of the Jiang’an County Land and Resources Bureau.
(II) Surprise Equity Acquisition Type
“Rush‑in” bribery refers to the act by state functionaries who, taking advantage of their official positions, violate regulations by acquiring company shares at a low price or through other improper means at specific junctures during a company’s shareholding reform or business development, and subsequently reaping substantial profits through the company’s operations or its public listing. At its core, this constitutes an illegal exchange of power for personal gain.
1. Characteristics
Strong concealment:Front‑running equity investments, on the surface, appear to be a legitimate investment activity. By holding shares in a company, the recipient of bribes obtains benefits that are more concealed and less easily detected than direct receipt of money or property.
Complexity of benefit transfer:It involves multiple stages, including the acquisition of equity interests, corporate operations, and profit distribution, resulting in a lengthy chain of illicit transfers of benefits that may be intertwined with legitimate business activities, thereby increasing the difficulty of detection and identification.
Key time nodes:Surprise equity investments typically occur at specific junctures, such as on the eve of a company’s IPO, around the time a major project is awarded, or prior to the implementation of significant policies. At these times, the company’s expected returns are markedly higher, and the recipient of bribes takes advantage of their official position to make a last-minute equity investment in order to secure substantial profits.
2. Form of expression
Low-price or non-compensated equity participation:The recipient of the bribe, taking advantage of his or her official position, subscribed for shares at a price far below the company’s actual value, or directly obtained shares without payment, without conducting a proper asset valuation or adhering to market-based pricing principles.
Equity participation by power:Rather than contributing actual capital, the individual uses the power vested in their position as “capital,” coercing or implying that the company grant them shares. Due to the individual’s positional influence, the company is compelled to accept this inequitable equity arrangement.
Fraudulent investment and shareholding:Although the investment was made in form, the funds may have been provided by the briber or obtained through other illegal means. The recipient of the bribe acquires company equity through such a sham investment and thereby shares in the benefits generated by the company’s growth.
3. Key Points for Judicial Determination
Whether or not to take advantage of one's position:The key focus of the review is the relationship between the bribe recipient’s equity investment and his or her official duties. If the position held by the individual can exert a substantial influence on the invested company’s operations, management, project acquisition, or other aspects, and if the equity investment clearly violates normal market transaction principles, there may be an issue of exploiting one’s official position for personal gain.
Legality of Equity Acquisition:Analyze whether the procedures, pricing, and sources of funds for the equity investment are lawful and compliant. For example, whether the transaction was approved through a proper shareholders’ meeting resolution, whether a reasonable asset valuation was conducted, and whether the capital contribution was actually made in full—any such circumstances that clearly violate laws or regulations may be deemed to constitute bribery.
The correlation of benefit transfer:Examine whether, after the recipient of the bribe acquired equity interest, their official actions conferred an improper benefit upon the company, and whether the company’s grant of shares to them was motivated by a deliberate transfer of benefits. If there is a situation in which an individual provides assistance to the company in areas such as project approval, resource allocation, and policy support, while the company reciprocates by offering shares, the causal link between the two shall be regarded as a crucial basis for determining whether a bribery offense has been committed.
4. Typical Cases
Case No. 1594 in the “Criminal Trial Reference,” the bribery case involving Huang. In the context of a request by Huang, a state functionary, to Company A in Sichuan for assistance in expanding its market presence in Guangxi, Huang purchased non-publicly issued founder shares in the name of his wife, Zhong Mouling. The value of a stock comprises its current market value as well as ancillary values such as dividends and the potential appreciation upon listing. Although Mr. Huang paid the immediate market value of the pre-IPO shares, the prospective benefit arising from the anticipated post-listing appreciation constitutes an unearned gain.
This listing-related benefit is one that the party in question should not have obtained and was, in fact, unable to obtain; in substance, it constitutes a quid pro quo paid by Sichuan Company A to Huang. Huang’s payment of share capital merely served as a means and formality to conceal the transfer of benefits, rather than constituting a genuine investment. Subjectively, when Company A of Sichuan proposed that Huang could purchase pre-IPO shares, it disclosed that the company was planning an IPO and that the shares would appreciate in value upon listing. Both parties had a clear and explicit understanding and reached an agreement that the post-listing appreciation of the pre-IPO shares would serve as the object of the bribe—both the offering and accepting sides.
Furthermore, if a state functionary purchases pre-IPO shares and the company subsequently issues bonus shares on an irregular basis without charge, the profits derived from such bonus shares shall also be included in the amount of the bribery offense. It is evident that Huang’s conduct satisfies both the subjective and objective elements of the crime of bribery, thus constituting the crime of bribery.
(III) Loan-sharking with interest collection
1. Definition
Bribery involving the provision of loans at interest typically refers to a situation where the briber, even without any actual need for funds, willingly pays interest, or, even if there is such a need, pays interest at a rate that is significantly higher than the normal market level. In such cases, the focus is not on the loaned funds themselves, but rather on the transfer of the briber’s own property to a state functionary in order to obtain illicit benefits, thereby constituting a disguised form of bribery.
2. Characteristics
Form concealment:On the surface, it appears to be a normal lending relationship. The two parties will enter into a loan agreement, which shall include formal requirements such as the loan amount and the agreed-upon interest rate.
Correlation of benefit transfer:This conduct is closely related to the official duties of state functionaries. Typically, business owners or other intermediaries seek to secure favorable treatment in matters related to their official duties—such as project approvals, contract awards, and resource allocation—by paying state functionaries what are ostensibly “loan interest” payments.
For example, Mr. Li is the director of the Municipal Housing and Urban–Rural Development Bureau, responsible for the approval and oversight of construction projects in the city. In order to secure more construction projects in the city, Zhang, the owner of a certain construction company, proactively established a “loan relationship” with Li. The two parties entered into a loan agreement stipulating an annual interest rate of 20%, which was significantly higher than the prevailing bank lending rate at the time (approximately 5%).
In accordance with the contract, Zhang pays Li an annual “interest” of RMB 200,000. In reality, however, Li did not actually provide any funds; the so‑called “loan” was merely a pretext used by both parties to conceal their acceptance of bribes. Zhang bribed Li in disguise by paying exorbitant interest.
Interest rate anomaly:The interest charged may exceed the prevailing market interest rates. Article 25 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Private Lending” stipulates: “Where a lender requests a borrower to pay interest at the rate agreed upon in the contract, the people’s court shall grant such support, unless the agreed-upon interest rate exceeds four times the one-year Loan Market Quote Rate prevailing at the time the contract was formed.”
“If the interest rate agreed upon by the borrower and the lender exceeds four times the one-year Loan Market Quote Rate prevailing at the time the contract was formed, it may generally be deemed to constitute usurious interest.” Although bribery involving lending money at interest does not always involve stipulated high interest rates, such high interest is one of its defining characteristics; instances involving high interest are generally not ordinary loans.
For example, while the prevailing bank lending rate in the market is around 5%, in such bribery schemes, an annual interest rate of 20% or even higher may be agreed upon.
3. Key Points for Judicial Determination
Sources and uses of funds:It is necessary to examine the sources and destinations of funds. If the funds originate from a state functionary’s own lawful assets, are genuinely lent out to meet legitimate financing needs, and are subsequently used for normal borrowing purposes—such as personal consumption or lawful investments—then the transaction may be considered a bona fide loan.
Completeness of Loan Documentation:In genuine lending transactions, there are usually comprehensive formalities, such as a properly drafted promissory note, a clearly defined repayment period, and reasonable collateral or guarantees. If the formalities are incomplete—such as when there is only a simple verbal agreement, or the promissory note contains vague terms and key provisions like the repayment period and interest rate are left to arbitrary determination—this may be an indication of concealed bribery.
On the Determination of the Amount of Bribery Received:With regard to bribery involving lending money in one’s personal capacity to a person seeking favor and charging exorbitant interest, the amount of the bribe shall be determined by the portion of the interest that exceeds the highest annual interest rate at which the borrower could have obtained funds from other sources during the same period.2
4. Typical Cases
(2019) Zhejiang 0522 Criminal Case No. 200: Bribery case involving Shen Mougen. From 2007 to 2017, Shen Mogen, former Party Secretary and Director of the Huzhou City Supply and Marketing Cooperative, took advantage of his position overseeing the cooperative’s assets to accept bribes, either alone or in collusion with others. Since 2009, Shen has repeatedly lent money to Yang, who, under the guise of “interest,” offered bribes, resulting in actual illicit gains totaling over RMB 1.74 million upon calculation.
From 2009 to 2014, Shen Mogen also accepted bribes from Zhong Mosheng and several other individuals. From 2010 to 2014, Shen Mougen instructed Xie Mouxiang to solicit RMB 250,000 worth of delivery vouchers from Wang Mouguo, of which he personally received RMB 190,000. Following the incident, the family members returned the ill-gotten gains on behalf of the defendant. In 2019, the Changxing County People’s Court sentenced Shen Mogen to four years and nine months’ imprisonment and imposed a fine of RMB 200,000, with the illegal proceeds to be confiscated and turned over to the state treasury.
2 Source: Case Database of the People’s Courts: The bribery case of Shen Mougen—How should the act of accepting exorbitant interest from a petitioner in the form of a private loan, by taking advantage of one’s official position, be characterized?
4. Key points for defending against bribery charges
(I) Key points of a not-Innocent Defense
1. The perpetrator does not possess the status of a state functionary and therefore fails to meet the subjective element required for the constitution of the crime.
2. No abuse of official position to seek personal gain, and no losses have been caused to the interests of the state or the people.
3. The facts alleged in the charges are unclear, and the evidence is insufficient (this crime typically involves a private transaction between the bribe‑taker and the bribe‑giver, which is highly concealed and lacks physical evidence; therefore, the examination of testimonial evidence is of paramount importance). During the trial, particular attention should be paid to the statements of the defendant and the briber, examining whether their testimonies are consistent and corroborating them with other evidence to establish the facts.
When there is a “one-on-one” contradiction in the evidence, bribery cannot be established under the law. If the testimonies are consistent on the essential facts but differ in certain details, a comprehensive assessment should be made in conjunction with other evidence, and the principle favorable to the defendant should be applied.
4. Subjectively, there was no intent to accept a bribe, nor were there any objective acts of accepting a bribe.
5. Where the amount involved does not reach the threshold for conviction of the crime of bribery, it shall not be treated as a criminal offense; however, it still constitutes a violation of discipline.
6. Although the perpetrator received property, the evidence on file is insufficient to ascertain the nature of the funds, and the relevant evidence fails to prove that the perpetrator leveraged their official position to procure benefits for others.
(II) Key points for a defense arguing for a lesser charge3
When conducting a defense aimed at mitigating the severity of the charges, the defense counsel shall comprehensively identify all circumstances that may exempt the suspect or defendant from punishment, or warrant a reduction or leniency in sentencing, encompassing both statutory and discretionary factors.
1. For an attempted offender, depending on the degree of implementation, the extent of the harm caused, and the reasons for failure, the base sentence may be reduced by less than 50% in comparison to that for a completed offense.
2. For an accomplice, punishment shall be mitigated based on their status and role in the joint crime, with the base sentence reduced by 20% to 50%. For those whose offense is relatively minor, the sentence may be reduced by more than 50% or they may be exempt from punishment.
3. Depending on the motive, timing, manner of surrender, severity of the offense, extent of the confession, and degree of remorse, a reduction of up to 40% of the base sentence may be applied; for less serious offenses, the reduction may exceed 40%, or punishment may be waived, except in cases where the offender maliciously seeks to evade sanctions.
4. The extent of leniency shall be determined based on the stage and degree of the confession, the severity of the offense, and the defendant’s remorseful conduct. A truthful confession of one’s own crimes may result in a reduction of up to 20%; the confession of an uninvestigated, similarly serious offense may lead to a reduction of 10% to 30%; and the prevention of particularly severe consequences may warrant a reduction of 30% to 50%.
5. The extent of credit for meritorious service shall be determined based on its magnitude, frequency, content, source, effectiveness, and the severity of the offense. Generally, ordinary meritorious service entitles the offender to a reduction of up to 20%; significant meritorious service may result in a reduction of 20% to 50%; and for less serious offenses, the penalty may be reduced by more than 50% or waived altogether.
6. For restitution or compensation, depending on the nature of the crime, the extent to which the harm has been redressed, the amount involved, and the degree of voluntariness, the base sentence may be reduced by up to 30%; stricter application shall be made in cases involving crimes that seriously endanger public order.
7. If the defendant demonstrates good behavior during detention, the base sentence may be reduced by less than 10%.
8. If the defendant pleads guilty and accepts punishment, the base sentence may be reduced by less than 30%; where circumstances such as voluntary surrender, substantial confession, restitution or compensation, victim’s forgiveness, or criminal reconciliation are present, the base sentence may be reduced by less than 60%. For less serious offenses, the base sentence may be reduced by 60% or more, or the defendant may be exempted from punishment in accordance with the law.
9. Consider other factors such as the illegality of the act, its social harm, culpability, and the risk of recidivism.
3The Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate jointly formulated the "Guiding Opinions on Sentencing for Common Crimes (II) (Trial Implementation)" (Fa Fa [2024] No. 132), which clarifies sentencing guidelines for seven types of common crimes, to be implemented on a trial basis starting July 1, 2024, in addition to the "Guiding Opinions on Sentencing for Common Crimes (Trial Implementation)" (Fa Fa [2021] No. 21) jointly issued by the two courts in 2021.
5. Conclusion
Throughout the long river of history, the influence of money has been like an undercurrent. In “Timon of Athens,” Shakespeare, with his incisive pen, profoundly revealed the magic of money: “Gold—this almighty staff—easily reshapes the very image of men.” It can turn black into white, beauty into ugliness, and right into wrong; the poor become noble, the old grow young, and the roles of the brave and the cowardly are reversed.
The power of money can even bring blessings to the cursed, grant respect to the infirm, elevate thieves to high positions, and restore youth to widows.
The allure of money has persisted throughout history, and in modern society, the corruption arising from its entanglement with power is a problem that cannot be taken lightly. In recent years, defending clients charged with bribery has become increasingly challenging, which necessitates that defense counsel possess a solid foundation in criminal law theory, strong evidentiary analysis skills, and a keen awareness of the state’s major policies and guidelines.
When investigating the crime of bribery, investigative authorities typically begin by examining the testimony of the briber and then follow up based on the statements of the person under investigation. Defense counsel can, in fact, leverage this approach to identify potential avenues for the defense. Therefore, when handling cases of this nature, examining the evidence is paramount. It is essential to determine whether there are any inconsistencies between the testimonies of the briber and the recipient, whether the evidence fits together seamlessly, and whether any evidence favorable to the suspect has been overlooked.
To effectively defend in bribery cases, one must not only formulate an overall defense strategy but also meticulously address each stage of the defense process. After formulating a comprehensive defense strategy, it is essential to make full use of opportunities such as client meetings, review of case files, presentation of defense arguments, and communication with the case-handling authorities, so as to effectively safeguard the lawful rights and interests of the suspect or defendant and, within the framework of the law, strive to find the balancing point between fairness and justice.
Zhuosheng Criminal
Team Introduction
Zhiheng · Introduction