特定关系人收受财物国家工作人员事后知情如何定性

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal interpretation of bribery involving state officials and their specific relations, highlighting the distinction between complicity in bribery and the crime of using influence to accept bribes [1][3]. Group 1: Case Summary - The case involves a state-owned enterprise, A City Guolian Development Group Co., Ltd., where the chairman, referred to as A, facilitated projects for his specific relation, B, who received a total of 2.035 million yuan in kickbacks from third parties [2][7]. - A was aware of B's receipt of kickbacks but claimed ignorance of the specifics, leading to differing interpretations of their culpability [3][6]. Group 2: Legal Interpretations - Two viewpoints exist regarding the legal classification of A and B's actions: one suggests A violated discipline but does not constitute complicity in bribery, while the other argues they should be considered accomplices due to A's knowledge and tacit approval of B's actions [3][4]. - The article emphasizes that the essence of both crimes is the violation of the integrity of public office, with complicity requiring a shared intent to commit bribery, which can be inferred from A's failure to act against B's receipt of kickbacks [4][5]. Group 3: Subjective and Objective Analysis - Subjectively, A's awareness of B's actions and failure to demand the return of the kickbacks indicates complicity, as A's actions were aimed at benefiting third parties through his official capacity [5][6]. - Objectively, the collaboration between A and B, despite the lack of prior conspiracy, demonstrates a mutual benefit from the bribery, thus fulfilling the criteria for joint criminal responsibility [6][7].