摘要： 由共犯论的纯理论性研究转向分则具体共犯问题的解决，是司法实践的迫切要求。犯罪的实体是违法与责任，可将身份区分为违法身份与责任身份，对于共犯与其身份，应坚持分别定罪说。因为缺乏违法性(包括实质的违法性)或者有责性,不处罚片面对向犯；若大量购买伪造的身份证，则有成立共犯的余地。不阻止他人犯罪的，成立遗弃、渎职等罪的单独正犯与他人犯罪的帮助犯的想象竞合，从一重处罚。持有型犯罪共犯的认定应慎重，巨额财产来源不明罪在实践中难以认定为共犯，故而计算来源不明财产的数额时，不应适用“部分实行全部责任”归责原则；家属参与理财的，有单独成立妨害司法罪的余地。

关键词: 贪污贿赂罪, 渎职罪, 共犯与身份, 对向犯, 不作为共犯

Abstract: Turning from pure theory study on the Complicity’s Crimes to dealing with concrete problems in the criminal law is the urgent requirement of judicial practice. Since crime is constituted by illegality and liability, Status could be divided into illegal Status and liability identity. We should insist the theory of conviction respectively about complicity and identity. Criminal law doesn’t punish one-sided crimes considering the lack of illegality or liability. Buying great amounts of forged ID cards is illegal. Not preventing others could be convicted in the perpetrator of crime of abandonment or official crime and assisting guilty, then the judge should choose the felony. It should be cautious to identify possession crime’s Complicity’s Crimes. It’s hard to identify the complicity in Crimes of Huge Unidentified Property in judicial practice. Calculating the amount of unidentified property shouldn’t apply the principle of‘partly action being responsible for the whole action’. Family members participating in managing finances may be convicted in the crimes of Obstruction of justice.

Key words:  Embezzlement Bribery and Crime of Malfeasance, Complicity and Identity, One-sided Crimes, Omission Crime of Accomplice