非國(guo)家工(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)(zuo)人(ren)(ren)員(yuan)與(yu)國(guo)家工(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)(zuo)人(ren)(ren)員(yuan)成立共(gong)同(tong)(tong)受賄(hui)(hui)犯罪的(de)問題，在實踐(jian)認(ren)定中常遇(yu)爭議。根據相關(guan)司法解釋，非國(guo)家工(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)(zuo)人(ren)(ren)員(yuan)與(yu)國(guo)家工(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)(zuo)人(ren)(ren)員(yuan)成立共(gong)同(tong)(tong)受賄(hui)(hui)犯罪，雙方需具備“通謀(mou)(mou)”。“通謀(mou)(mou)”作(zuo)(zuo)(zuo)為成立共(gong)同(tong)(tong)受賄(hui)(hui)犯罪的(de)必備要件(jian)，能夠起到體現行為人(ren)(ren)雙方是否具有(you)共(gong)同(tong)(tong)受賄(hui)(hui)故意(yi)的(de)作(zuo)(zuo)(zuo)用。對“通謀(mou)(mou)”進(jin)(jin)行合(he)理界定，有(you)利于準確把握共(gong)同(tong)(tong)受賄(hui)(hui)犯罪的(de)主觀要件(jian)，進(jin)(jin)而指導辦案(an)實踐(jian)。

　　一、對“通謀”的理解

　　所謂“通(tong)(tong)謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)”，是(shi)指行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)人(ren)(ren)之間為(wei)(wei)實(shi)施(shi)犯(fan)(fan)(fan)罪(zui)(zui)而進行(xing)(xing)的(de)(de)(de)(de)溝(gou)通(tong)(tong)、謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)劃。有(you)人(ren)(ren)習慣(guan)將“通(tong)(tong)謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)”理解為(wei)(wei)共(gong)同(tong)犯(fan)(fan)(fan)罪(zui)(zui)的(de)(de)(de)(de)主觀要(yao)件，即共(gong)同(tong)犯(fan)(fan)(fan)罪(zui)(zui)的(de)(de)(de)(de)故意(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)。但在筆者看來，“通(tong)(tong)謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)”實(shi)質上(shang)是(shi)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)人(ren)(ren)共(gong)同(tong)實(shi)施(shi)犯(fan)(fan)(fan)罪(zui)(zui)的(de)(de)(de)(de)一種意(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)思聯絡(luo)，但這種意(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)思聯絡(luo)并(bing)不(bu)必然等同(tong)于(yu)共(gong)同(tong)犯(fan)(fan)(fan)罪(zui)(zui)的(de)(de)(de)(de)故意(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)。“通(tong)(tong)謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)”雖然不(bu)能(neng)等同(tong)于(yu)共(gong)同(tong)犯(fan)(fan)(fan)罪(zui)(zui)的(de)(de)(de)(de)故意(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)，但卻能(neng)夠反(fan)映犯(fan)(fan)(fan)罪(zui)(zui)故意(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)的(de)(de)(de)(de)內容(rong)，并(bing)且在典型(xing)的(de)(de)(de)(de)故意(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)犯(fan)(fan)(fan)罪(zui)(zui)中(zhong)，“通(tong)(tong)謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)”的(de)(de)(de)(de)內容(rong)與共(gong)同(tong)犯(fan)(fan)(fan)罪(zui)(zui)故意(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)的(de)(de)(de)(de)內容(rong)具(ju)有(you)一致性。如(ru)在共(gong)同(tong)受(shou)(shou)(shou)(shou)賄(hui)(hui)犯(fan)(fan)(fan)罪(zui)(zui)中(zhong)，共(gong)同(tong)受(shou)(shou)(shou)(shou)賄(hui)(hui)故意(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)的(de)(de)(de)(de)內容(rong)是(shi)，行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)人(ren)(ren)雙(shuang)方(fang)(fang)要(yao)認識到國家工作人(ren)(ren)員利用(yong)職權為(wei)(wei)請托人(ren)(ren)謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)利并(bing)收受(shou)(shou)(shou)(shou)了財物這一事實(shi)。“通(tong)(tong)謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)”則(ze)要(yao)求行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)人(ren)(ren)雙(shuang)方(fang)(fang)必須在受(shou)(shou)(shou)(shou)賄(hui)(hui)罪(zui)(zui)實(shi)行(xing)(xing)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)“為(wei)(wei)他人(ren)(ren)謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)利”和“收受(shou)(shou)(shou)(shou)財物”兩方(fang)(fang)面均(jun)具(ju)有(you)意(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)思聯絡(luo)。二者明顯具(ju)有(you)一致性。因此，在共(gong)同(tong)受(shou)(shou)(shou)(shou)賄(hui)(hui)犯(fan)(fan)(fan)罪(zui)(zui)中(zhong)，“通(tong)(tong)謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)”能(neng)夠起到征表共(gong)同(tong)受(shou)(shou)(shou)(shou)賄(hui)(hui)故意(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)的(de)(de)(de)(de)作用(yong)，與共(gong)同(tong)受(shou)(shou)(shou)(shou)賄(hui)(hui)的(de)(de)(de)(de)故意(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)(yi)實(shi)際上(shang)是(shi)一種表里關系(xi)。

　　二、司法解釋關于“通謀”的規定

　　針(zhen)對共(gong)(gong)同(tong)受(shou)(shou)賄(hui)(hui)犯罪(zui)問題(ti)，2003年的《全國(guo)(guo)(guo)法(fa)院審理(li)經(jing)濟(ji)犯罪(zui)案件工(gong)作(zuo)座談(tan)會紀要(yao)(yao)》（以下簡稱(cheng)《紀要(yao)(yao)》）和(he)2007年的《關(guan)于辦理(li)受(shou)(shou)賄(hui)(hui)刑事(shi)(shi)案件適用法(fa)律若干問題(ti)的意(yi)見(jian)》（以下簡稱(cheng)《意(yi)見(jian)》）分別作(zuo)出了(le)(le)規(gui)(gui)(gui)定(ding)(ding)。其中(zhong)，《意(yi)見(jian)》明確(que)規(gui)(gui)(gui)定(ding)(ding)了(le)(le)特(te)定(ding)(ding)關(guan)系(xi)人(ren)、非特(te)定(ding)(ding)關(guan)系(xi)人(ren)與國(guo)(guo)(guo)家工(gong)作(zuo)人(ren)員(yuan)成(cheng)立(li)(li)共(gong)(gong)同(tong)受(shou)(shou)賄(hui)(hui)犯罪(zui)需要(yao)(yao)具(ju)備(bei)(bei)“通(tong)(tong)謀”。《紀要(yao)(yao)》在(zai)規(gui)(gui)(gui)定(ding)(ding)近(jin)(jin)親屬(shu)(shu)、非近(jin)(jin)親屬(shu)(shu)與國(guo)(guo)(guo)家工(gong)作(zuo)人(ren)員(yuan)成(cheng)立(li)(li)共(gong)(gong)同(tong)受(shou)(shou)賄(hui)(hui)犯罪(zui)時，僅明確(que)了(le)(le)非近(jin)(jin)親屬(shu)(shu)成(cheng)立(li)(li)受(shou)(shou)賄(hui)(hui)罪(zui)的共(gong)(gong)犯需具(ju)備(bei)(bei)“通(tong)(tong)謀”，在(zai)近(jin)(jin)親屬(shu)(shu)成(cheng)立(li)(li)受(shou)(shou)賄(hui)(hui)罪(zui)共(gong)(gong)犯問題(ti)上，并未使用“通(tong)(tong)謀”一詞，而(er)是規(gui)(gui)(gui)定(ding)(ding)了(le)(le)近(jin)(jin)親屬(shu)(shu)構成(cheng)受(shou)(shou)賄(hui)(hui)罪(zui)共(gong)(gong)犯的兩(liang)種(zhong)情形，即近(jin)(jin)親屬(shu)(shu)代為轉達(da)請托事(shi)(shi)項，收受(shou)(shou)財物(wu)后告知國(guo)(guo)(guo)家工(gong)作(zuo)人(ren)員(yuan)的，以及國(guo)(guo)(guo)家工(gong)作(zuo)人(ren)員(yuan)明知近(jin)(jin)親屬(shu)(shu)收受(shou)(shou)請托人(ren)財物(wu)，仍按(an)照近(jin)(jin)親屬(shu)(shu)要(yao)(yao)求為請托人(ren)謀取利益(yi)的。據(ju)此(ci)，有人(ren)認為，近(jin)(jin)親屬(shu)(shu)成(cheng)立(li)(li)受(shou)(shou)賄(hui)(hui)罪(zui)的共(gong)(gong)犯不需要(yao)(yao)與國(guo)(guo)(guo)家工(gong)作(zuo)人(ren)員(yuan)具(ju)備(bei)(bei)“通(tong)(tong)謀”，且成(cheng)立(li)(li)共(gong)(gong)犯的條件必須滿足(zu)《紀要(yao)(yao)》所規(gui)(gui)(gui)定(ding)(ding)的兩(liang)種(zhong)類型（即代為轉達(da)請托事(shi)(shi)項型和(he)明知近(jin)(jin)親屬(shu)(shu)收受(shou)(shou)財物(wu)型）。

　　筆者認(ren)為，其一(yi)，在共(gong)同受(shou)賄犯罪中(zhong)，“通謀”與共(gong)同受(shou)賄的(de)(de)故意(yi)是一(yi)種表里(li)關(guan)系，行(xing)(xing)為人雙方只(zhi)要具(ju)(ju)備(bei)共(gong)同受(shou)賄的(de)(de)故意(yi)，即說明二者具(ju)(ju)備(bei)“通謀”。《紀(ji)要》關(guan)于(yu)(yu)近親屬成(cheng)(cheng)立受(shou)賄罪共(gong)犯的(de)(de)規(gui)定，實(shi)(shi)際上仍(reng)(reng)是以(yi)雙方具(ju)(ju)備(bei)“通謀”為要件的(de)(de)。其二，認(ren)為近親屬成(cheng)(cheng)立受(shou)賄罪的(de)(de)共(gong)犯需要符合《紀(ji)要》中(zhong)所(suo)規(gui)定的(de)(de)兩(liang)種類(lei)型(xing)，實(shi)(shi)際上是對(dui)共(gong)同受(shou)賄犯罪的(de)(de)相關(guan)規(gui)定缺乏全面理解。《刑(xing)事審判參考》第1143號案(an)例（羅菲受(shou)賄案(an)）解析(xi)指出(chu)，《紀(ji)要》關(guan)于(yu)(yu)近親屬成(cheng)(cheng)立受(shou)賄罪共(gong)犯的(de)(de)兩(liang)種類(lei)型(xing)性規(gui)定，主(zhu)要針對(dui)的(de)(de)是當時司法實(shi)(shi)踐中(zhong)較為突出(chu)的(de)(de)情形，為了統(tong)一(yi)認(ren)識，才予以(yi)例示性寫入《紀(ji)要》，屬于(yu)(yu)注意(yi)規(gui)定而非創設新的(de)(de)共(gong)犯認(ren)定標(biao)準。對(dui)共(gong)同受(shou)賄犯罪的(de)(de)認(ren)定上，仍(reng)(reng)應以(yi)雙方具(ju)(ju)備(bei)共(gong)同受(shou)賄的(de)(de)故意(yi)和行(xing)(xing)為為準。

　　三、對“通謀”的實踐認定

　　“通謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)”作(zuo)(zuo)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)共同(tong)實(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)施(shi)犯(fan)(fan)(fan)罪(zui)(zui)的(de)(de)(de)(de)一(yi)種意思聯(lian)絡，按照發生的(de)(de)(de)(de)時間段，可(ke)分為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)“事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)先(xian)通謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)”和“事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)中(zhong)通謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)”兩種類(lei)型。在(zai)共同(tong)受(shou)(shou)賄(hui)犯(fan)(fan)(fan)罪(zui)(zui)中(zhong)，由于(yu)“事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)先(xian)通謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)”一(yi)般表現為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)實(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)施(shi)受(shou)(shou)賄(hui)犯(fan)(fan)(fan)罪(zui)(zui)前的(de)(de)(de)(de)溝(gou)通交(jiao)流、分工(gong)(gong)協作(zuo)(zuo)等(deng)，在(zai)認(ren)(ren)(ren)定中(zhong)較(jiao)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)簡單。而(er)對(dui)“事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)中(zhong)通謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)”的(de)(de)(de)(de)認(ren)(ren)(ren)定則相對(dui)復(fu)雜。受(shou)(shou)賄(hui)罪(zui)(zui)作(zuo)(zuo)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)復(fu)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)犯(fan)(fan)(fan)，其實(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)包(bao)含“為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)他(ta)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)利”和“收(shou)(shou)(shou)受(shou)(shou)財(cai)(cai)物”兩個(ge)方面，因此，對(dui)“通謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)”的(de)(de)(de)(de)認(ren)(ren)(ren)定不(bu)僅要求行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)雙(shuang)方要認(ren)(ren)(ren)識到所收(shou)(shou)(shou)受(shou)(shou)的(de)(de)(de)(de)財(cai)(cai)物是(shi)賄(hui)賂物，還要認(ren)(ren)(ren)識到國家(jia)(jia)工(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)他(ta)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)利的(de)(de)(de)(de)事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)實(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)。實(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)踐中(zhong)，對(dui)“事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)中(zhong)通謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)”的(de)(de)(de)(de)認(ren)(ren)(ren)定所要解(jie)決的(de)(de)(de)(de)一(yi)個(ge)重(zhong)要問(wen)題是(shi)：非(fei)國家(jia)(jia)工(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)代收(shou)(shou)(shou)財(cai)(cai)物后，是(shi)否與國家(jia)(jia)工(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)具有(you)“通謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)”，進而(er)成立共同(tong)受(shou)(shou)賄(hui)犯(fan)(fan)(fan)罪(zui)(zui)。對(dui)此，《刑事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)審判參考》第1143號案(an)例(li)解(jie)析指出，雖(sui)然行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)與國家(jia)(jia)工(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)先(xian)未就為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)請(qing)(qing)托(tuo)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)利并收(shou)(shou)(shou)受(shou)(shou)財(cai)(cai)物形(xing)成共同(tong)的(de)(de)(de)(de)犯(fan)(fan)(fan)意聯(lian)絡，但其對(dui)國家(jia)(jia)工(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)利用職務便(bian)利為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)他(ta)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)利的(de)(de)(de)(de)事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)實(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)明(ming)(ming)知(zhi)的(de)(de)(de)(de)情況下仍代國家(jia)(jia)工(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)收(shou)(shou)(shou)受(shou)(shou)財(cai)(cai)物，應認(ren)(ren)(ren)定與國家(jia)(jia)工(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)具有(you)通謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)。不(bu)難看出，該解(jie)釋是(shi)基于(yu)共同(tong)犯(fan)(fan)(fan)罪(zui)(zui)的(de)(de)(de)(de)一(yi)般性(xing)原(yuan)理對(dui)“事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)中(zhong)通謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)”所作(zuo)(zuo)的(de)(de)(de)(de)界定，具有(you)合理性(xing)。但在(zai)實(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)踐中(zhong)，行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)收(shou)(shou)(shou)受(shou)(shou)請(qing)(qing)托(tuo)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)財(cai)(cai)物，很少明(ming)(ming)確(que)知(zhi)曉(xiao)國家(jia)(jia)工(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)在(zai)哪些具體(ti)的(de)(de)(de)(de)事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)項(xiang)上為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)請(qing)(qing)托(tuo)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)取了利益。在(zai)具體(ti)認(ren)(ren)(ren)定中(zhong)，應將“為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)他(ta)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)利的(de)(de)(de)(de)事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)實(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)”解(jie)釋為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)一(yi)種概括(kuo)(kuo)性(xing)事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)實(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)，而(er)非(fei)具體(ti)、特(te)定性(xing)事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)實(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)，行(xing)(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)只需(xu)對(dui)國家(jia)(jia)工(gong)(gong)作(zuo)(zuo)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)(yuan)(yuan)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)他(ta)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)謀(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)利的(de)(de)(de)(de)事(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)實(shi)(shi)(shi)(shi)具有(you)概括(kuo)(kuo)性(xing)明(ming)(ming)知(zhi)即可(ke)。

　　需(xu)要說明的(de)(de)是，“兩高”2016年《關(guan)于辦理貪污賄賂刑(xing)事案(an)件(jian)適用法律若干(gan)問題的(de)(de)解釋》（以下簡稱《解釋》）第十六條(tiao)規定：特(te)(te)定關(guan)系(xi)人(ren)索取、收受(shou)(shou)他(ta)人(ren)財(cai)物(wu)，國(guo)家(jia)工作(zuo)人(ren)員(yuan)知(zhi)道后(hou)(hou)未退(tui)還(huan)或者上交的(de)(de)，應當認(ren)定為國(guo)家(jia)工作(zuo)人(ren)員(yuan)具(ju)有受(shou)(shou)賄故意(yi)。對(dui)于共(gong)同(tong)(tong)受(shou)(shou)賄犯罪的(de)(de)這一特(te)(te)別規定，是否仍以行為人(ren)雙(shuang)方具(ju)備“通謀”呢(ni)？筆者認(ren)為，國(guo)家(jia)工作(zuo)人(ren)員(yuan)與特(te)(te)定關(guan)系(xi)人(ren)具(ju)有共(gong)同(tong)(tong)利益(yi)關(guan)系(xi)，國(guo)家(jia)工作(zuo)人(ren)員(yuan)在知(zhi)曉后(hou)(hou)，不要求退(tui)還(huan)或上交的(de)(de)，表(biao)明對(dui)另一方收受(shou)(shou)財(cai)物(wu)的(de)(de)行為持(chi)認(ren)可態度(du)，仍屬于雙(shuang)方具(ju)備“通謀”，國(guo)家(jia)工作(zuo)人(ren)員(yuan)應與特(te)(te)定關(guan)系(xi)人(ren)共(gong)同(tong)(tong)承擔責任。

　　（李丁(ding)濤 作者單(dan)位：重慶(qing)市(shi)紀委(wei)監委(wei)第十二審查(cha)調查(cha)室）