Hou Yanfang: Research on the Criminal Governance of Manipulating Sports Events

The following article is from the Political and Legal Forum, written by Hou Yanfang

summary

The criminal governance of the manipulation of sports events is complex, and it mainly involves the governance of bribery crimes as means and gambling crimes as ends in the existing legislative system. In the context of the globalization of governance, the shortcomings of sports law in terms of the general description of the manipulation of sports events need to be made up through criminal legislation. The serious imbalance in the judicial application of the bribery charge system, the tightening of governance policies in the context of anti-corruption reform, the limitations of self-optimization of bribery charges, the weak compatibility of the application of gambling crimes, and the deviation of gambling charges from the demands of governance extension put forward requirements for the independent criminalization of sports events. For the crime of manipulating sports events, it is advisable to adopt a simple crime, adopt an abstract description of the harmful conduct, clarify the intentional crime, set the purpose of the crime, and set the establishment condition as a circumstantial crime, and at the same time set the establishment condition as a circumstantial crime, a lighter statutory punishment must be allocated. The criminal governance of manipulating sports events should focus on the crime of manipulating sports events, and at the same time, it should take into account the governance of bribery crimes and gambling crimes.

Keywords: manipulation of sporting events; criminal governance; bribery crimes; gambling crimes; Independent criminalization

The development of sports has made a historic contribution to strengthening the human body and strengthening international exchanges. In the context of the globalization of sports events, power corruption and gambling have become hidden problems restricting the development of sports in various countries, and the problem of manipulating sports events caused by them has seriously hindered the development of sports undertakings. The cause of the manipulation of sports events is not limited by the lack of sportsmanship, and the impact on the field is not limited to the fair order of sports competition. The infringement of legal interests in the manipulation of sports events is deepening day by day, and it has become an important task to carry out necessary and effective criminal governance. In the early part of this century, the criminal management of the manipulation of sports events in the mainland received phased attention, and the manipulation of sports events was effectively punished. Since the beginning of the anti-corruption campaign in football in 2009, the mainland has punished a series of cases such as the bribery of an entity with administrative management responsibilities represented by Xie Moumou, former vice chairman of the Chinese Football Association and former director of the China Football Sports Management Center, the bribery case of a referee with a specific identity represented by the bribery of a non-state functionary of the former referee Lu, and the bribery of an athlete represented by the bribery of a non-state functionary of the former player Qi. However, the criminal governance of the manipulation of sporting events is far from complete. Since November 2022, the scope of sports anti-corruption has expanded from football to basketball, winter sports, track and field, rowing and other fields. Compared with 2009, the anti-corruption campaign in sports is in a critical period of sports reform, with a wider scope and greater intensity. With the development of in-depth anti-corruption in the field of sports, the criminal governance of manipulating sports events must solve the crux and root causes. The Sports Law, amended in June 2022, leaves a blank on how to criminalize the manipulation of sports events, and criminal legislation must be improved in a timely manner to keep up with the needs of practice. In March 2024, the General Administration of Sports of the People's Republic of China passed the "Measures for the Management of Sports Events and Discipline Competitions", which included fraud and game manipulation as violations of competition style and discipline, and stipulated that illegal and criminal activities such as gambling through game manipulation and other methods should be investigated and dealt with in accordance with the law, but did not involve other event manipulation behaviors. With the vigorous development of sports and the continuous revision of sports legislation, the criminal governance of sports events is facing new problems and new solutions are urgently needed.

I. The complexity of criminal governance of manipulating sports events and the experience of governance

Sports is a powerful guarantee for human physical development, and its benign development has both biological value, spiritual value and economic value. The manipulation of sports events is a sabotage and impact on the multiple values of the development of sports, and its criminal governance is complex. Countries around the world have cooperated in criminal governance of the manipulation of sporting events and are constantly exploring useful domestic experiences.

(1) The complexity of criminal governance of manipulating sports events

The sports industry has moved from a sunrise industry to a new growth point of the national economy, becoming an important force to promote the sustainable development of the economy and society, and then becoming a pillar industry of the national economy. The spirit of sports lies in competition, and sports events should be a demonstration of the strength of all participants. Manipulating sports events violates the principle of fair competition and achieves the desired result through artificial manipulation. Manipulating sports events to replace strength with interests artificially changes and violates the basic laws of sports development, and undermines the good governance of the country and society. Sports has become a professional sport, and manipulation has transformed sports events from a battle of charm with uncertain results to performances, and the gradual lack of competitive talents, the increasing indifference of event audiences, and the gradual loss of attraction to upstream talents and downstream industries, ultimately hindering the development of the sports industry. The manipulation of sports events is concealed and seriously infringes on the fair order maintained by the state to protect the development of sports. The manipulation of sporting events is in the form of a fraudulent attempt to disrupt a fair order. There are no crimes in the existing criminal law of the mainland that are completely consistent with the need to protect the legal interests of the governance and manipulation of sports events. In practice, the administrative punishment of simple manipulation is generally carried out by sports associations, and the criminal governance of manipulation of sports events is mainly achieved through the punishment of bribery as a means and gambling as an end.

The main means of manipulating sporting events is the exchange of benefits. The weights used to manipulate the exchange of interests in sporting events include economic interests, power, and other interests. Using economic interests as an exchange weight, suspected of infringing on public power or the non-bribery of the unit's authority; using power as an exchange weight, suspected of infringing on the normal exercise of public power; Using other benefits as exchange weights is suspected of infringing on the fair order of employment, further education, transfers, etc. The exchange of weights for the manipulation of sporting events can also be a combination of the above interests. The exchange of benefits is not limited to direct exchanges, but also includes the types of direct exchanges combined with some indirect exchanges. The impossibility of power and the infringement of fair order in related fields by means of manipulating sports events make criminal governance not only extremely necessary, but also very complicated.

The main purpose of manipulating sporting events is the pursuit of economic gain. In view of the high incidence of gambling as the purpose of manipulating sports events in practice, this paper will focus on the analysis of sports betting behavior. The perpetrator benefits from legitimate sports betting by manipulating a sporting event to obtain a desired state or result, or by directly organizing illegal gambling. With the increasing precision of the mainland's crackdown on the manipulation of sports events, it is easier to detect the benefits of legal sports betting, so the number of cases of directly organizing illegal gambling to benefit is gradually increasing. The crime of gambling and the crime of opening a casino are both administrative offenses, and the act of directly organizing illegal gambling to gain benefits is an administrative offense, but it does not necessarily have a criminal offense. It is worth noting that a considerable proportion of cases benefit from legal sports betting, and the legal interests are more intrusive than directly organizing illegal gambling, but it is difficult to criminally evaluate them in the existing legislative framework.

(2) Experience in the criminal governance of manipulating sports events in the context of globalization

The background to the globalization of criminal governance for the manipulation of sports events is the globalization of sports development. Under the background of the globalization of sports development, the international cooperation of sports events has become more frequent, the international attention has increased significantly, and the manipulation of sports events has shown an international trend. The globalization of adjudication rules is a prerequisite for the globalization of criminal governance for the manipulation of sports events. International sports arbitration is in an authoritative position in resolving international sports disputes, and excessive judicial intervention in various countries will affect the global uniformity of sports rules and adjudication standards. International sports arbitration has relatively independent authority, and the premise of the globalization of adjudication rules determines that the criminal governance of the manipulation of sports events, especially through the abuse of adjudication rules, should be carried out in the context of globalization. The globalization of governance means is the basis for the globalization of criminal governance of manipulating sports events. International organizations and institutions such as the International Olympic Committee, FIFA, and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime have strongly called on sovereign states to criminally crack down on the rigging of sporting events. Regional organizations such as INTERPOL and Europol play an important role in the criminal governance of the manipulation of sporting events.

Countries and regions with advanced rule of law in sports have successively formulated criminal rules specifically for the manipulation of sports events. In 2011, Australia's federal and state sports ministers signed the National Policy on the Illegal Manipulation of Sport on behalf of all levels of government to ensure a level playing field. In 2014, the Council of Europe adopted the Convention against the Manipulation of Sporting Events, which came into force on 1 September 2019. On 24 November 2020, the European University Sports Federation stressed the role and importance of the aforementioned Convention. The federal and state governments of the United States have enacted criminal legislation on the crime of manipulating sports competitions, respectively. At the federal level of the United States, the Sports Bribery Act is mainly applicable to the regulation of cross-state and national sports event manipulation crimes, stipulating that any way to manipulate or change the process and outcome of sports events will be punishable by fines or imprisonment. In view of the serious legal infringement of the manipulation of sports events, the legislation of some countries adopts an independent criminalization approach. In 2017, the German Penal Code added the offences of sports fraud and manipulation of professional sporting events. Article 184 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation establishes the crime of manipulation of cultural and sports activities. Although there are differences in the specific scope and method of the independent criminalization of the manipulation of sports events, they are all examples of the criminal law directly protecting the management order in the field of sports.

In June 2022, the revision of the Sports Law was passed, which is intended to promote the modernization of the mainland's sports governance system and governance capacity. In response to issues such as match-fixing and black whistles in sports events, the new law requires "regulating the order of the sports market", and puts forward prohibitive requirements for athletes, coaches, referees and organizers of sports events. Compared with anti-doping provisions, the provisions of the sports law on the manipulation of sporting events are obviously principled and lack specific standards that can be operated. The law summarizes the method of bearing legal responsibility based on the subject as the standard, and provides detailed provisions on the administrative liability of state organs and their staffs, athletes, coaches, referees, and organizers of sports events for "fraud, malpractice, etc.", and adopts a general expression of "if a crime is constituted, criminal responsibility shall be investigated in accordance with law" for the criminal liability of the above-mentioned entities. The amended Sports Law has changed the previous enumerated provisions on the crimes of "bribery, fraud, and organizing gambling" in competitive sports activities, and replaced it with a general description, which objectively reduces the deterrent effect of the legislation on the manipulation of sports events. Since the academic community does not recognize the existence of "subsidiary criminal law", the shortcomings of the sports law in generalizing the description of the manipulation of sports events need to be made up through criminal legislation. The criminal legislation on the manipulation of sports events should not only follow the universal laws of advanced countries and regions in sports rule of law on legislative value and legislative technology, but also be based on the practice of mainland governance to provide a "universal paradigm in pluralism".

II. Criminal Governance of the Manipulation of Sports Events by Bribery

Punishing the manipulation of sports events through bribery is an important governance path, and it has achieved certain results at a specific stage. However, the serious imbalance in the judicial application of the bribery crime system, the stricter governance policies in the context of anti-corruption reform, and the limitations of self-optimization of bribery charges determine that it is difficult to achieve comprehensive and effective governance of the manipulation of sports events through the punishment of bribery crimes.

(1) There is a serious imbalance in the judicial application of the bribery charge system

In 2003, the case of Gong Moumou opened the prelude to the criminal governance of cracking down on "black whistles" and other manipulative sports events. By 2012, the handling of a series of cases in which entities with sports administrative management responsibilities were investigated for criminal liability for the crime of accepting bribes was gradually settled. Such cases are represented by the bribery case of Xie Moumou, former vice chairman of the Chinese Football Association and former director of the China Football Sports Management Center, the bribery case of Nan, former director of the Football Sports Management Center of the State General Administration of Sports and former vice chairman of the Chinese Football Association, the bribery case of Yang Moumou, former deputy director of the Football Sports Management Center of the State General Administration of Sports and former vice chairman of the Chinese Football Association, the bribery case of Wei XX, the former leader of the Chinese national men's football team, and the bribery case of Gao Moumou, former secretary general of the Chongqing Football Association, who offered bribes to non-state functionaries. At the same time, criminal responsibility for the manipulation of sports events by referees, players, clubs (units) and their staff will be investigated. This type of case includes the bribery case of the former referee Lu, the bribery case of the former player Qi, the bribery case of the non-state functionary of the former player Shen, the bribery case of the non-state functionary of the former player Li, the bribery case of the non-state functionary of the former player Jiang, the bribery case of the non-state functionary of the former player Zhao, the bribery case of the former chairman of Shaanxi Guoli Football Club Co., Ltd. Li Moumou, the former general manager of Tibet Huitong Luhua Football Club, The former assistant coach of the club, Ding, accepted bribes from non-state workers, the former general manager of Chongqing Lifan Club Chen offered bribes to non-state workers, Qingdao Hailifeng Football Club Co., Ltd. offered bribes to non-state workers, and Chengdu Sheffield United Football Club Co., Ltd. offered bribes to non-state workers. This paper studies the effective criminal judgments of the above-mentioned cases that have an important impact on the criminal governance of sports events, in order to make an in-depth analysis of the current situation of criminal governance of sports events manipulation by bribery. For bribe-givers and bribe-takers with different identities, depending on the nature of the perpetrator's use of position, there are different types of bribery crimes in Chapter 3 "Crimes of Undermining the Order of the Socialist Market Economy", Section 3 "Crimes of Obstructing the Management Order of Companies and Enterprises" and Chapter 8 "Crimes of Corruption and Bribery" of the Criminal Law. The main crimes involved in the manipulation of sports events are the crime of accepting bribes, the crime of accepting bribes by non-state functionaries, the crime of offering bribes, and the crime of offering bribes to non-state functionaries; The main identity includes referees, coaches, athletes, staff of sports associations, staff of state organs, and managers of sports clubs. Based on the legislative provisions of bribery, this paper conducts an empirical study on the criminal governance of the manipulation of sports events by bribery, and finds that:

In the criminal governance of the manipulation of sports events, the governance of bribery is much greater than that of bribery. The asymmetric mode has more advantages in reducing the willingness of the bribery parties to cooperate and breaking the offensive and defensive alliance. This is mainly influenced by the mainland's criminal policy of punishing bribery crimes. Amendment (IX) to the Criminal Law amends the method of pursuing criminal liability for the crime of bribery. Previously, since the crime of bribery was a reciprocal joint crime and highly relied on confessions, the accusation of the bribe giver became an important basis for the bribe taker to establish the crime and be investigated for criminal responsibility. In order to effectively crack down on the crime of accepting bribes, in judicial practice, where a bribe giver voluntarily confesses the facts of bribery before being prosecuted, criminal responsibility is generally no longer pursued. However, the motivation for the manipulation of sports events by bribery is generally that the bribe giver has a clear and strong interest claim, and the bribe-taker's power becomes the target of capture. Although the use of bribery to manipulate sports events cannot completely rule out the situation in which bribe-takers take the initiative to solicit bribes, from the perspective of the motives for the occurrence of crimes, the proportion of bribe-takers passively accepting bribes is relatively high, that is, the proportion of bribe-givers actively offering bribes is relatively high. If the bribe giver takes the initiative to bribe and seeks the improper benefit of "competitive advantage", he shall be investigated for criminal responsibility.

The crime of accepting bribes is to be applied in parallel with the crime of accepting bribes by non-state functionaries. After the reform of the supervision system in the mainland, the supervision power integrates party discipline supervision, political discipline supervision and legal discipline supervision, and the supervision commission has the power to investigate crimes involving the exercise of public power; The definition of "state functionary", the subject of the crime of accepting bribes, has also changed from "identity theory" to "authority theory", and the criminal governance of manipulating sports events by bribery means should closely focus on the "authority" of the subject. There is no controversy that the use of authority by a state organ functionary to accept bribes and manipulate sports events is found to be the crime of accepting bribes. The staff of the Football Association and other sports associations are personnel who have been appointed to engage in public affairs in social organizations, and their conduct in exercising public power to accept bribes and manipulate sports events shall be found to be the crime of accepting bribes. The competitive conduct of referees, coaches, and athletes is not the performance of their duties, but only professional conduct, so their acts of accepting bribes should be found to be the crime of accepting bribes by non-state functionaries. It is worth discussing that in the case of Gong Moumou, it was found to be a crime of accepting bribes on the basis that he was "appointed by the Chinese Football Association" and "regarded as a state functionary"; In Lu's case, he was directly identified as a non-state functionary.

The standards for criminal governance of different entities that manipulate sports events by means of bribery vary. The use of public power by the staff of state organs and sports organizations to influence referees, coaches, athletes, and other entities to manipulate sports events will generally form organized manipulation behavior, and the methods of influence mainly include facilitating false events, referee recommendations, head coach selection, maintaining team or individual qualifications, and promotion care. The above behaviors can be categorized into specific manipulative behaviors and specific qualification acquisition. There is generally direct evidence that the referees, coaches, and athletes who asked for the specific manipulation have committed fraud; The acquisition of specific qualifications often becomes an exchange weight for the manipulation of sports events, which is closely related to the direct manipulation of sports events by referees, coaches, and athletes in the future.

(2) Stricter governance policies in the context of anti-corruption reform

The reform of the supervision system has shaped the supervision power that integrates efficiency, authority and strong functions. The Supervision Law adopts a regulatory approach centered on the main body of conduct, with public employees and relevant personnel as the targets of supervision. According to article 15 of the Supervision Law, the supervision organs are to supervise the manipulation of sports events by "personnel performing public duties in accordance with law" such as staff of state organs and sports organizations. According to article 46 of the "Regulations for the Implementation of the Supervision Law", where referees, coaches, athletes, and other entities manipulate sports events, the Supervision Organs may have jurisdiction over them in accordance with law. The centralized jurisdiction of the Supervision Organs is conducive to the concentrated crackdown on the organized manipulation of sports events. Some scholars have pointed out that the centralized jurisdiction of "the supervision organs mainly investigate and other organs assist" can easily lead to the expansion of the jurisdiction of the supervision organs. However, the criminal governance of the manipulation of sports events involves both public and non-public officials, and the acts involve both bribery crimes related to and non-public officials, and the purpose of the acts also involves non-duty crimes. While giving play to the role of the supervision organs in promoting the centralized jurisdiction, it is necessary to properly handle the relationship between the criminal system of bribery and other crimes.

According to the provisions of the Ninth Amendment to the Criminal Law, if there are no statutory special circumstances, the bribe giver shall be investigated for criminal liability. However, in terms of concept and system, it is necessary to properly handle the crime of bribery and the crime of accepting bribes in proportion to the criminal punishment and realize the stable expectation of "joint investigation of bribery and bribery" through the path of standardization and rule of law. The roles of bribery and bribery change with the need to pursue interests, and the opportunities for bribery by sports organization staff, referees, coaches, and athletes may increase. Therefore, bribery and bribery in the manipulation of sports events should be governed in the same way, and through the supervision of events with obvious abnormalities in the process and widely questioned results, the investigation of bribery in the manipulation of sports events should be strengthened, and the manipulation behavior should be discovered and criminal governance should be carried out from the two dimensions of the source of manipulation and the result of infringement of legal interests.

The reform of the supervision system and the amendment of the criminal law have put forward new requirements for the criminal governance of the manipulation of sports events. On the one hand, the manipulation of sports events involves multiple entities such as public officials and non-public officials, and is suspected of bribery and other crimes. On the other hand, the governance of bribery itself involves the subject of bribery, the subject of accepting bribes and the subject of introducing bribes, and the criminal governance of manipulating sports events should properly handle the relationship between different subjects and roles.

(3) Limitations of self-optimization of bribery charges

The mainland's criminal governance of the manipulation of sports events relies too much on cracking down on bribery crimes, which obviously cannot meet the needs of protecting legal interests. There is a view that the refereeing activities of football referees in the professional football league are not in the nature of official activities, so there is no legal basis for determining that the "black whistle" act is a state functionary accepting bribes. The above argument is unscientific from the perspective of contract conclusion, which shows that the inappropriate crime should not be rashly applied for criminal evaluation in the context of the lack of legislation. With the expansion of the scope of the crime of accepting bribes by non-state functionaries in the Sixth Amendment to the Criminal Law, the crime of accepting bribes by non-state functionaries can be applied to the act of manipulating sports events by means of bribery. However, the essence of bribery is the exchange of power and money, and the manipulation of sports events does not only involve economic interests, and it is difficult to punish the crime of bribery for the manipulation of sports events involving non-economic interests. The behavior of manipulating sports events by bribery is mainly reflected in the acquisition of cash and other benefits, and the behavior of obtaining specific qualifications is more hidden. With the intensification of criminal governance, the ways of manipulating sports events will become more subtle and diverse. For example, the coaches and athletes of the club are offered high salaries or transfer fees as a condition to induce them to cheat at this stage and exchange the benefits realized in the future for the manipulation of sports events.

The crime of offering bribes by non-state functionaries stipulates that "if the bribe giver voluntarily confesses before being prosecuted, the punishment may be reduced or exempted". The crime of offering bribes stipulates that "if the bribe giver voluntarily confesses the bribery before being prosecuted, the punishment may be mitigated or commuted". In the crime of bribery, only under certain circumstances can the bribe giver be commuted or exempted from punishment. At the same time, the 12th Amendment to the Criminal Law incorporates some of the provisions of the judicial interpretation on the aggravating circumstances of the crime of bribery. There is a huge difference in whether the bribe giver will be held criminally liable for bribes offered to non-state functionaries and state functionaries. Based on the "economic human rationality" of the bribe giver seeking advantages and avoiding disadvantages, under the option of bribery, the bribe giver will directly bribe non-state functionaries, i.e., referees, coaches, and athletes to manipulate sports events, which can not only directly affect the event, but also may be more lenient or even exempt from criminal liability. However, whether it is the staff of state organs, sports organizations, referees, coaches, or athletes, the legal interests of the fair order of competitive sports are all infringed upon by their manipulative behavior. As far as the law of the bribery crime legislation system itself is concerned, there is indeed a big difference between the infringement of legal interests caused by bribery of non-state functionaries and the bribery of state functionaries, so it is not appropriate to rely on the provisions on bribery to solve the problem of criminal governance of manipulating sports events. The use of bribery to punish the manipulation of sports events instead of directly and independently taking the fair order of competitive sports as the legal interest protected by the criminal law will lead to the backlash of the criminal governance of the manipulation of sports events. The establishment of an independent crime of manipulating sports events is a legislative demand for implementing the principle of proportionality of criminal responsibility and punishment, which is conducive to solving the problem of bad criminal guidance caused by different legislative designs on the premise of achieving legislative coordination.

Bribery based on the will and interests of clubs or other units is a difficult point in criminal governance within the current legislative framework. As far as the bribery of clubs or other units is concerned, if the bribe is made to a non-state functionary, the offence of offering bribes to a non-state functionary may be committed; If the target of the bribe is a state functionary, the crime of offering bribes or offering bribes by a unit may be committed. As far as the bribery of clubs or other units is concerned, judicial practice generally pursues criminal liability for the club's coaches, general managers, chairmen and other entities on the basis of the crime of accepting bribes by non-state functionaries. This practice ignores the situation where a subject with specific responsibilities accepts a bribe and then includes it in an account controlled by the unit and uses it for the operation of the unit. The essence of this situation is that the club or other unit accepts bribes as a unit or collectively commits fraud, which is a unit accepting bribes, and should not be found to be a natural person accepting bribes, and it is not appropriate to pursue criminal responsibility for the crime of accepting bribes by non-state functionaries. At the same time, the criminal legislation does not criminalize the acceptance of property by units other than state organs, state-owned companies, enterprises, public institutions, and people's organizations on the basis of the interests of the units. The bribery of clubs or other units will seriously infringe on the fair order of competitive sports, but the existing legislation to pursue criminal liability for the crime of accepting bribes by non-state functionaries has largely broken the principle of legality, so it is necessary to establish an independent crime of manipulating sports events.

3. Criminal governance of manipulation of sports events for gambling purposes

Sports gambling is closely related to the manipulation of sports events, and the relationship between the two is reflected in the relationship between ends and means in the dimension of the interest chain. However, if only the crime of gambling is applied to the criminal governance of manipulating sports events for gambling purposes, there are problems such as the weak compatibility of the application of the crime and the deviation of the demand for the extension of governance.

(1) The suitability of the application of gambling charges is weak

The international criminal governance of manipulating sports events is relatively advanced, while the governance of manipulating sports events on the mainland shows a trend of international punishment forcing domestic punishment. For example, in June 2023, the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association imposed penalties including a lifetime ban on 10 Chinese players accused of match-fixing, and then the Chinese Billiards Association issued an announcement that it would impose severe and heavy penalties on the players involved. The Badminton World Federation and other authoritative organizations of world sports events announced that Chinese athletes were banned for suspected gambling and manipulation of events, which in turn triggered domestic accountability. Subsequent domestic accountability shows that domestic occupational penalties are often heavier than international occupational penalties. At the same time, the domestic accountability for the manipulation of sports events is usually caused by anti-gambling, but in the end, the relevant crimes of bribery are applied to the governance. Due to the limitations of criminal legislation, it is difficult for manipulative behavior to directly trigger criminal punishment through a negative evaluation of the act itself. At this stage, the mainland's criminal governance of the manipulation of sports events is based on the external governance of the existing criminal legislation: as far as international events are concerned, the space for the mainland's criminal jurisdiction to play a role is extremely limited due to factors such as the participation of domestic athletes and whether the location of the manipulation takes place in China; As far as domestic events are concerned, the legislation has a high tolerance for simple manipulation of sports events, and there is limited room for the application of punishment for manipulating sports events through gambling crimes.

Illegal sports betting is both a motivator and a target for the rigging of sporting events. Although the legislative basis of the crime of gambling is "a certain purpose" rather than ethics and morality, as a statutory offense, the criminal circle in the legislative and judicial dimensions must be carefully delineated. In the context of the decriminalization of gambling, the criminal punishment of illegal sports betting faces difficulties. Where the manipulation of sports events is carried out for the purpose of illegal sports betting, where the direct participants in the sports event and the gambling personnel have at least the same general criminal intent, the participants are subjectively vicious, and the participating acts interact with each other to jointly infringe on legal interests, criminal punishment shall be given. However, there are the following difficulties in practical governance: First, illegal sports betting is difficult to monitor, and it is difficult to achieve effective supervision like legal sports betting. For example, several European national football associations have reached agreements with their domestic gambling bookmakers to have formal legal gambling establishments, but criminal organizations rarely use formal European gambling establishments. Second, it is more difficult to prove the criminal contact between the direct participants in the sports event and the gambling personnel. Third, the content of illegal sports betting directly determines the state of the event after it is manipulated, such as the players who appear, the number of free throws, the time of the penalty, the type of punishment and other non-conclusive details of the event become the manipulated content. Obviously, there is no concrete basis for judging whether the above-mentioned non-consequence details are necessarily decisive for the outcome of the event, and there are great difficulties in proving the causal relationship.

(2) The deviation of gambling charges from the demands of governance extension

Regarding the punishment of gambling crimes, there are many situations in history that they are prohibited but not stopped. In the face of various legal provisions, gambling crimes still take many forms. Gambling crimes have a strong criminal policy nature because of their characteristics as administrative offenses. Article 51, paragraph 3, of the Sports Law stipulates that "it is strictly forbidden for any organization or individual to engage in gambling activities using sports events". In addition to bribery crimes, gambling crimes are mostly applicable to the criminal management of manipulating sports events. Gambling crimes are evaluated as acts for the purpose of manipulating sports events, and judicial practice uses the crime of gambling crimes as an act for the purpose of absorbing the manipulation of sports events and including them in the scope of adjustment of the Criminal Law. This is conducive to maintaining a good sports management order within the existing legislative framework, but it cannot fully guarantee the fair order of competitive sports.

Legalized sports betting is an economical operation based on the strength of all parties involved in the event, while taking into account the unexpected factors. The more developed the industry involved in the specific types of sports events, the higher the public's attention, the greater the possibility of benefiting, and the stronger the internal drive of capital to capture power. The larger the number of sports betting participants and the greater the cost of betting, the greater the expectations of participants for accurate outcome predictions, and the greater the desire for potential offenders to manipulate sporting events. Profiting from legitimate sports betting through the manipulation of sports events is uncontrollable, and illegal sports betting has become an important purpose of manipulating sports events. Illegal sports betting is gambling in nature, but it does not necessarily constitute a crime. The crime of gambling is an infringement on socialist customs, and the criminal legislation only punishes the act of "gathering a crowd" to gamble or gambling "as a business", and other gambling behaviors can only be evaluated as administrative violations. The modest legislation on the boundary between administrative and criminal violations of gambling behavior makes the role of gambling crimes in the criminal governance of manipulating sports events limited. At the same time, in addition to benefiting from illegal sports betting, the manipulation of sports events can also obtain material rewards or other economic benefits through advertising endorsements, etc., which are obviously not within the scope of the regulation of gambling crimes.

Gambling crimes are unable to deal with the manipulation of sporting events motivated by non-financial gain. The non-economic interests that are the driving force for manipulating sports events mainly include the pursuit of individual rankings, development opportunities, and team honors and corresponding grades. The non-economic interest appeal of individualization or group is the basic driving force for people's self-development, but once its realization is related to the manipulation of sports events, it will become an important internal factor affecting the healthy development of sports. This behavior is often manifested in the fact that referees, coaches, and athletes directly manipulate sports events to achieve expected demands, which is more difficult to detect than behaviors based on economic interests. As an important participating organization in the sports industry, clubs and other units have undergone reforms and diversified forms, and have both economic interests and localized administrative missions. In addition, the existence of localized evaluation indicators for the development of sports makes the non-economic interests of individuals and teams in sports events an important internal driving force for manipulating sports events.

To sum up, gambling crimes can only punish specific forms of manipulation of sports events driven by some economic interests, but it is difficult to comprehensively punish the manipulation of sports events with serious infringement of legal interests.

4. The manipulation of sports events should be independently criminalized

The criminal governance of manipulating sports events by means of bribery and manipulating sports events for gambling purposes should be dealt with from the dimensions of means and ends rather than from the dimensions of the behavior itself. There are many challenges to the non-ontology solution, and it is urgent to achieve the effectiveness of governance through highly targeted criminal legislation. The construction of sports criminal law has been advocated by scholars, but sports crimes show the characteristics of dispersion in the existing criminal law system, and it is difficult to form a systematic and professional sports criminal law. Independent adjustments to the manipulation of sports events can substantially contribute to the development of sports criminal law.

(1) The legal basis for the independent establishment of the crime

Serious violations of the fair order of competitive sports are the legal basis for the independent criminalization of the manipulation of sports events. The reason for the urgency of the legislative provisions for the manipulation of sports events is the increasing number of cases in a number of project areas. The spiritual core of fair competition is the basic guarantee for achieving a strong body and improving the physiological limit, and the realization of fairness in the field of sports is directly related to the fairness of related fields, and has a direct ethical conflict with the manipulation of sports events in pursuit of interests. The manipulation of sports events undermines the core of the sportsmanship of fair competition, disrupts the basic order of sports development, and reduces sports to a field of interests in vain, which will eventually cause irreversible damage to the sports industry. The manipulation of sports events is an independent infringement of legal interests. The independent criminal law protection of the fair order of competitive sports is conducive to overcoming the long-term dependence on bribery and gambling crimes in the governance of manipulating sports events, and is a fundamental strategy.

Criminal law excludes acts that are simply contrary to morality and acts that are contrary to order. The independent criminalization of the manipulation of sports events requires that the relevant acts are no longer simply violations of sports ethics. Limited to the ability and technical characteristics of the subject of manipulating sports events, the subjectivity of violations of sports ethics such as violations of sports integrity is too obvious, and there is a lack of specific standards that can be measured. However, the fair order of competitive sports is different from the characteristics of sports integrity internalized in the subject, and it is objective and easy to judge. Some scholars have concluded that the legislative experience of sports developed countries on the manipulation of sports events shows that the main legal interest of behavior infringement is economic order. The main purpose of manipulating sports events is the pursuit of economic interests, but economic order is not the legal interest of protecting the independent criminalization of manipulating sports events. The fair order of competitive sports is an important core and basic guarantee for the development of sports, and it is an interest that cannot be fully protected by the economic order as a traditional legal interest.

The Criminal Law Amendment (11) newly establishes the crime of "obstructing doping management" to achieve independent criminal law protection of sports order. "Manipulation" in a broad sense encompasses many forms of doping, including doping. Obstruction of doping has been criminalized and is a serious violation of the fair order of competitive sport. However, the degree of infringement of the fair order of competitive sports by the manipulation of sports events is no less than that of obstruction of doping management, and based on the principle of "taking the light to the serious" of the interpretation of the natural interpretation, the independent criminalization of the manipulation of sports events is in line with the principle of modesty in the criminal law. The main basis for the offence of manipulating sporting events and obstructing the independence of doping management is that the act violates the fair order of competitive sports, which is a public order. The main legal interest infringed by the crime of obstruction of doping is the fair order of competitive sports, because the use of doping by non-athletes to participate in competitions other than major national and international sports competitions does not constitute a crime, so the main consideration of independent criminalization is that doping is used in prohibited areas, not that doping itself is prohibited by criminal law. The Criminal Law Amendment (11) stipulates the crime of obstructing the administration of doping in the section "Smuggling, trafficking, transporting and manufacturing drugs" in Chapter VI of the Criminal Law. The object of the crime involved in this section, "drugs", is a contraband that is fully prohibited by the Criminal Law, and even the object of the crime in the crime of "illegally providing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances" is a special form of "drugs". According to the 2022 Doping List Announcement issued by the General Administration of Sports of China and the Ministry of Commerce in 2021, there is an intersecting relationship between the scope of doping and the scope of "drugs". The inclusion of the crime of obstruction of doping in the section on drug crimes does not highlight the damage that the crime undermines the fair order of competitive sports, and also undermines the integrity of the legislation on drug crimes. In view of this, it is appropriate to provide for the independent criminalization of the act of manipulating sports events in the section on "Crimes of Disrupting Public Order" in Chapter VI of the Sub-Provisions of the Criminal Law, "Crimes of Obstructing the Order of Social Management".

(2) The legislative model for independent criminalization

The Convention against the Manipulation of Sporting Events, adopted by the Council of Europe, defines the manipulation of sporting events as an act or omission deliberately carried out in order to unduly alter the course or outcome of a sporting event and to partially or completely eliminate the uncertainty of a sporting event. This definition does not make a special distinction between subjects, but stipulates the subjective intent and purpose of the perpetrator to seek benefits, sets the form of completion of the actual victim, and stipulates the substantive judgment standard. The above setting adopts the mode of "unity of subjects and unity of behavior".

Sections 265c and 265d of the German Penal Code "Fraud and breach of trust" provide for "sports fraud" and "manipulation of professional sports competitions", respectively. The difference is that the former requires "the acquisition of an unlawful property interest in connection with an organized sporting competition", while the latter has not yet acquired such an unlawful property interest. Both of them classify subjects as "athletes, coaches" and "arbitrators, scoring referees or referees", and respectively stipulate the ways in which different entities manipulate professional sports competitions, and impose the same penalties on the acts of providing, promising or guaranteeing benefits to the above-mentioned entities and third parties. It has a "beneficial impact" on the behavior required by athletes and coaches, emphasizing the "substantial" impact; Where an arbitrator, scoring referee or referee is required to perform an act that "unlawfully affects the course or outcome of a professional sporting competition", the emphasis is on the effect of a "violation of the rules". The above setup adopts the "subject dichotomy, behavior duality" model.

The expression of the "unity of subjects and unity of behavior" model is concise and unified, but it is not conducive to reflecting the differences in the influence of different subjects on the manipulation of sports events. The model of "dichotomy of subjects and duality of behavior" is conducive to refining the norms of criminal law and making the application of criminal law more accurate. Among them, there are great differences in the elements of the conduct of "athletes, coaches" and "arbitrators, scoring referees or referees" to establish crimes, which is consistent with the characteristics of different entities that there are differences in the manifestations and degrees of infringement of the fair order of competitive sports. However, it is of little significance to design designs that binary behaviors based on whether or not they "obtain illegal property benefits related to organized sports competitions". The reason is that as long as there is a serious infringement of legal interests due to the pursuit of illegal benefits and the manipulation acts, whether or not the illegal benefits have been obtained should be regarded as an element of sentencing rather than a constitutive element of the crime. In view of the practical requirements of the criminal governance of the manipulation of sports events in mainland China and the operability of criminal legislation, the model of "dichotomy of subjects and duality of behavior" is more feasible.

5. Legislative construction of the crime of manipulating sports events

The independent criminalization of the act of manipulating sports events should establish a special crime, that is, the crime of manipulating sports events. The crimes stipulated in the criminal laws of modern countries all require that the perpetrator objectively commits a "bad" act that should be punished, subjectively commits the act based on the intention or negligence and other "evil" intentions, and the natural person who commits the act must reach the legal age of criminal responsibility and have the capacity for responsibility. Under the legislative model of "dichotomy of subjects and duality of conduct", the harmful conduct, subjective elements, and subjects of the crime of manipulating sports events are set up, and the standards for criminalization and statutory penalties are stipulated.

(1) Typology of harmful conduct for the crime of manipulating sports events

Article 51 of the Sports Law stipulates that "sportsmanship and the rules of sports events shall be observed, and there shall be no deception or malpractice." "From the perspective of the mode of conduct, the mode of "malpractice for personal gain" in the mainland's criminal legislation system mostly occurs in the form of job-related crimes, and the main subjects of the acts are the staff of state-owned companies, enterprises, and public institutions, as well as the staff of state organs. The "malpractice for personal gain" stipulated in the Sports Law is mainly aimed at the use of power to manipulate sports events by specific entities. In addition, the mainland's criminal legislation only uses the expression "fraud" for the crime of fraudulently obtaining exit documents, and regulates "false" behaviors such as the crime of false declaration of registered capital, the crime of false capital contribution, and the crime of false bankruptcy. The "fraud" stipulated in the Sports Law is essentially a manifestation of the harmful behavior of the crime of manipulating sports events, and its specific development in the criminal law should not only be coordinated with the Sports Administrative Law, but also pay attention to the inherent criminal violations of the behavior. The criminalization of the crime of manipulating sports events for harmful conduct is premised on violating the rules of the sports profession, and at the same time satisfies the aggravating elements that seriously infringe on the fair order of competitive sports. Depending on the degree of violation of the rules of competition, the behavior of manipulating sports events can be subdivided into behavior that violates the rules of competition and behavior based on the differentiation of competitive ability.

Violations of competitive rules that violate the norms set by competitive rules and seriously infringe on the fair order of competitive sports are administrative offenses. The premise for this type of conduct to establish the crime of manipulating a sporting event is that the conduct violates the rules of competition. A competitive rule is essentially a technical standard, and its procedure is governed by due process. Due to the different mechanisms for discovering illegal and criminal acts, there is generally no necessary precedence between the procedures for imposing criminal penalties on administrative offenders and administrative punishments. However, the establishment of the crime of manipulating sports events should be based on professional determination. Sports events themselves are highly professional and closed, and respecting the development laws and adjudication rules of sports events themselves is a requirement of the modesty of the criminal law. Violation of the rules of competition is the basic prerequisite for the establishment of the crime of manipulating sports events. It should be noted that the judgment of "violation of competition rules", which is a prerequisite for the establishment of a crime, should first be determined by the sports professional organization, and then the judicial personnel shall conduct a criminal evaluation based on the professional judgment of the sports professional organization. If a professional sports organization concludes negatively, i.e., that the conduct does not violate the rules of competition, then the judicial officer generally cannot evaluate the conduct as the crime of manipulating sports events.

Behaviors based on competitive ability differentiation are behaviors that are determined by the referees, coaches, athletes, etc., in terms of methods and results. Factors such as referees' misjudgments, coaches' improper tactics, and athletes' abnormal performance on the spot will bring uncertainty to the results of the competition. This is an important attraction of sporting events and an important driver of sports betting. Therefore, conduct based on the differentiation of competitive ability is generally not suitable for criminal governance, and only specific circumstances can enter the criminal evaluation, that is, there is evidence that referees, coaches, athletes, etc. have the intention to manipulate sports events and have carried out conduct contrary to the laws of sports, and it shall be found to be a crime. It is difficult to identify behaviors based on differences in competitive ability, which may be poor performance due to differences in ability, or intentional behaviors under the cover of such behaviors, and the infringement of legal interests of the behavior itself is relatively vague. Although the perpetrator with subjective malice has not violated the rules of competition, and the infringement of legal interests of the conduct has been covered up due to the uncertainty of the sports competition, but it has already affected the process and outcome of the sports competition in essence, it shall be negatively evaluated.

(2) The subjective elements and subject settings of the crime of manipulating sports events

The crime of manipulating a sporting event punishes the deliberate disruption of a fair order. The establishment of negligence crimes in mainland China generally requires the occurrence of serious consequences prescribed by law, and the crime of manipulating sports events as a crime that obstructs the order of social management is not suitable for punishing acts governed by a negligent mentality. Sports events are inherently uncertain, and as a criminally punishable manipulation behavior, it only has an intentional element, and it is difficult to evaluate the subjective malice of the perpetrator in a thorough manner. The purpose of the crime is to "seek improper benefits" and can reasonably distinguish the lawful acts of competitive sports from criminal acts. Improper benefits here mainly include illegal benefits and fair competitive advantages. The former mainly corresponds to violations of the rules of competition, that is, violations of the rules of competition for the purpose of seeking illegal benefits; The latter mainly corresponds to acts based on the differentiation of competitive ability, that is, only when there is a clear purpose of violating the normal competition of sports, criminal liability should be pursued for the behavior based on the differentiation of competitive ability.

There are two ways to set up the main body of the crime of manipulating sports events: restrictive and expansive. The restrictive setting is to directly adjust the charges only to include the subjects who directly manipulate the event, i.e., referees, coaches, and athletes, that is, to criminalize special subjects; The expansive setting is to include all subjects that may be involved in the manipulation of sports events into the direct adjustment of the crime, that is, to criminalize ordinary subjects. Expansive settings may include state organs, their staffs, organizers of sports events, and other entities responsible for maintaining the fair order of competitive sports into the criminal list for direct adjustment. The serious infringement of legal interests in the manipulation of sports events can only be manifested through the possible or actual impact of sports events. In practice, referees, coaches, and athletes directly affect the conduct and results of sports events, and although the influence of state officials, sports association staff, and sports club staff on sports events is indirect, their control power is greater, and the manipulation of sports events that is not based on power-for-money transactions is difficult to punish in the existing criminal law system.

(3) The standards for criminalization and the legally-prescribed sentence for the crime of manipulating sports events

After the independent criminalization of the manipulation of sports events, it is necessary to solve the problem of delineating the boundary between professional punishment and criminal governance in competitive sports in the face of the absolute priority of professional punishment in competitive sports. The power to punish sports professionals and the state's power to punish are complementary to each other, and both are indispensable. Penalties for sports professions must be decided independently on the basis of the evidence they have gathered, and the decision can be confirmed by a criminal decision of a court. As a result of the Boseman Act, the EU recognises and respects the autonomy of sport when purely sporting activities are carried out in accordance with the rules of sport. The mainland should fully respect the autonomy of sports competitions, and give priority to professional punishment by sports organizations in accordance with internal rules by using methods such as bans, liability for breach of contract, or removal from associations for participants in the manipulation of sports events. The priority of professional penalties means that the determination of conduct contrary to the rules of competition is precedent to criminal penalties, i.e., only acts that violate the professional spirit and rules of sport can be treated as criminal offences.

The act of manipulating sports events is procedural, and the act of legal evaluation is composed of a number of natural acts. The act inherently unduly alters the course or outcome of a sporting event. The infringement of legal interests in the manipulation of sports events lies in the destruction of the fair order of competitive sports, and the fair order is abstract and does not necessarily reflect the actual harm of property damage or personal injury or death. The serious infringement of the fair order of sports competition by manipulating sports events should be realized through "serious circumstances", so as to clarify the boundary between professional punishment and criminal punishment. The criterion of "serious circumstances", which is a condition for the establishment of a crime, can be set from three aspects: the level and scope of the sporting event, the harmful consequences that cause disruption to fair order, and the circumstances of professional punishment. For example, the manipulation of sports events that occurred in representative major events such as the Olympic Games, Asian Games, and National Games, or finals with social influence, may be found to be "serious".

The act of manipulating sports events does not have to cause actual harm, and the statutory punishment for the crime of manipulating sports events should adopt the model of misdemeanor. As an act that undermines the social order in the specific field of competitive sports, the punishment for the independent establishment of the crime of manipulating sports events should not be excessively severe. The range of punishment may be set with reference to the crime of obstructing doping management, which is provided as "where the circumstances are serious, the sentence is up to three years imprisonment or short-term detention and a concurrent fine".

To sum up, it is advisable to adopt a simple crime for the crime of manipulating sports events, adopt an abstract description of the harmful behavior, clarify the intentional crime, set the criminal purpose, and set the establishment condition as a circumstantial offense, and at the same time set the establishment condition as a circumstantial offense, a lighter statutory punishment must be allocated. The charges and statutory penalties for the crime of manipulating sports events can be expressed as: "Intentionally manipulating sports events for the purpose of seeking improper benefits, and the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to up to three years imprisonment or short-term detention and a concurrent fine."

VI. Coordination of the crime system for manipulating the criminal governance of sports events

After the independent crime of manipulating sports events is established, this independent crime should be applied in coordination with the existing crime, so as to achieve the coordination of the crime system. The criminal governance of manipulating sports events should focus on the crime of manipulating sports events, and at the same time, it should take into account the governance of bribery crimes and gambling crimes.

(1) The applicable rules for independent crimes

The independent offence is the most direct criminal law evaluation of the manipulation of sporting events. The existing crimes in mainland China indirectly realize the criminal governance of the manipulation of sports events through the punishment of acts that infringe on other relevant legal interests, which is subject to the degree of relevance between the manipulation of sports events and the existing crimes, and the selection and specific application of the crimes are based on the legislative purpose and institutional presentation of the crimes themselves. The independent crime is a clear maintenance of the fair order of competitive sports, which can overcome the drawbacks of the weak extinction of existing crimes in criminal governance, and is a targeted legislation for the manipulation of sports events.

It is advisable to adopt a light sentence after the manipulation of sports events is independently criminalized, which determines that the focus of the governance of manipulating sports events in the criminal law system is "precision" rather than "heavy punch". Independent crimes are an infringement of fair order, and based on the requirements of legislative coordination, it is appropriate to set a lighter statutory sentence, and it is difficult to play a "heavy-hand" role in specific manipulative behavior. If heavier statutory penalties are allocated for manipulative behaviors with profit-seeking circumstances such as bribery or gambling, the screening of circumstances in legislation will bring about the consequences of lack of thoroughness in criminal governance, which will unnecessarily increase the complexity of criminal legislation.

After the act of manipulating sports events is independently criminalized, it is worth exploring whether the punishment principle of "choosing one felony" or "combining punishment for multiple crimes" should be applied to the accompanying crimes. Bribery is often embodied as a means of manipulating sports events, and manipulation of sports events is generally reflected in the form of gambling, which formally conforms to the characteristics of an implicated offender. There is a negative stance in the academic community on implicated offenders. However, in fact, Germany classifies implicated offenders into imaginary competition, legal competition and substantive competition according to whether the acts committed on several offences are partially identical. In fact, the Criminal Law stipulates that the implicated offender shall be subject to the "selection of one felony", which is a normative implicated offender, and in essence, the implicated offender should be judged on the basis of the identity of the crime, supplemented by the statutory punishment allocation, and whether to apply the "combined punishment for multiple crimes". The manipulation of sports events is not necessarily the same as bribery and gambling, so it is not an accomplice in substance. For example, in the case of a state functionary who takes bribes and causes another team to intentionally lose a match in a tournament, or a referee appointed by the association accepts money and property to make an unfair referee, after the act of manipulating a sports event is independently criminalized, because the act of accepting bribes and the act of manipulating a sports event violate two completely different legal interests, and do not meet the characteristics of "method preparation, subject control, and subsequent results", the perpetrator should be "punished for multiple crimes".

(2) Adaptation of the application of supporting crimes

The criminal governance of the manipulation of sports events is a systematic project, and after the independent establishment of the crime, it is necessary to adjust the application of the crime of bribery and other supporting crimes. With regard to the conduct of state organ staff and sports organization staff accepting bribes to manipulate sports events, judicial practice generally conducts criminal law evaluations of acts that do not specifically manipulate sports events, but only promise to "support and help". Even if there is no evidence to support the existence of specific manipulation in such cases, because there is a solicitation matter, as long as the staff of the state organ or the staff of the sports organization "promise", they can be investigated for criminal liability. Referees accept bribes to manipulate sports events, generally as long as there is an act of accepting property, and there is no need to specifically judge the destruction of the fair order of competition from the perspective of the referee's profession, that is, whether the referee is fair and whether it affects the outcome of the event is not a necessary condition for constituting the crime of bribery. Coaches and athletes who accept bribes to manipulate sports events are required to engage in fraud after accepting bribes and substantially affect the results of the event before they will be investigated for criminal liability. It is difficult to prove the causal relationship between the fraudulent act and the result of the event, and in practice, the circumstances of being investigated for criminal liability generally exist in scenarios where the result of the event is unfavorable to the bribe-taker or the result of the event meets the requirements of the bribe-giver.

The criminal characterization of referees, coaches, and athletes accepting bribes should be shifted from being judged solely on the basis of their identity to being judged on the basis of their authority. This is not only the requirement for the characterization of criminal offenses based on the nature of the act, but also the requirement that the punishment of job-related crimes should be based on public power. For example, if a fellow adjudicator is a judge and the crime of accepting bribes or a non-state functionary, the determination of whether the crime of accepting bribes or the crime of accepting bribes by a non-state functionary should not be based on whether the adjudicator's identity is appointed, but should be based on the nature of the adjudicator's "adjudication power". The essence of "adjudication power" is the professional judgment of sports, and it does not have the administrative attribute of "public power" to manage public affairs. Referees are essentially labor services when they make referees, and this characterization is a sign of respect for sports autonomy. Therefore, the referee's act of accepting bribes and blowing a "black whistle" should be found to be the crime of accepting bribes by non-state functionaries. When determining the "exchange of power for money" for the crime of accepting bribes, special attention should be paid to the implicit exchange of power and money: the use of authority to carry out the referee recommendation and other identity support behaviors that have a hidden connection with the promotion of false events should also be included in the scope of the criminal law; The implicit exchange of money between coaches and athletes in clubs on the condition of high salaries or transfer fees should be judged on relevance and conditionally included in the scope of the criminal law.

Source: Political and Legal Forum, Issue 4, 2024

Hou Yanfang is a professor at the School of Criminal Law, East China University of Political Science and Law