摘要： 学说上关于“为他人谋取利益”在被动型受贿罪中的体系地位，形成了客观说与主观说的基本对立，而主张至少要求承诺行为的所谓新客观说，实质上是主观说。传统客观说存在容易导致处罚漏洞等明显缺陷，而主观说则在事后受贿等场合力有不逮。相对于“是客观要件还是主观要件”这种形式化的提问方式，更应追问“为他人谋取利益”对受贿罪的法益侵害与责任非难是否产生影响。在界定党纪政纪与国法的联系与区别、明确受贿罪的法益是国家工作人员职务行为的不可收买性而非廉洁性的前提下，应该认为，“为他人谋取利益”是受贿罪中的违法要素。并且，在默契受贿和一部分收受礼金的场合，“为他人谋取利益”表现为默示的具体或者概括性承诺，属于主观违法要素；在事后受贿的场合，“为他人谋取利益”则是纯粹的客观违法要素。混合违法要素说既可以找到理论先例和立法佐证，也可以通过对刑法第385条的解释获得说明。混合违法要素说能够对2016年最新司法解释相关规定给出合理说明，并且为实务中一些疑难问题的处理提供指导。

关键词: 意图, 承诺, 职务行为不可收买性, 违法要素, 混合要素

Abstract: On the systematic status of “securing benefits for another” in the passive acceptance of bride, there are the fundamental opposition between objective element theory and subjective element theory.And the socalled new objective element theory, which demands at least the existence of promise, belongs to the subjective theory in essence.Traditional objective theory has obvious drawbacks like tending to lead penal loopholes, while the subjective theory is impotent to deal with the circumstances like post factum bribery.Compared with the formalized question whether “securing benefits for another” belongs to the objective element or subjective element, it is more reasonable to make a detailed inquiry about whether “securing benefits for another” has an influence on the harmed legal interests and imputability of bribery crime.“Securing benefits for another” should be regarded as an illegal element of the crime of acceptance of bribes, on the premise that defines the relation and distinction between party and administrative discipline and law as well as the legal interest of the crime of acceptance of bribes is unpurchasing rather than the integrity of public service of state functionaries.Meanwhile, in terms of tacit acceptance of？ bribes and partly acceptance of gifts an payments, “securing benefits for another person”is expressed in implied specific or general commitment, which belongs to subjective element of illegality; in terms of post factum bribery, “securing benefits for another person”is a purely objective element of illegality.Both theoretical precedent and legislative evidence can be quoted to prove mixed elements of illegality, which can also explained by interpretation of Article 385 of the Criminal Law.Mixed elements of illegality can provide a reasonable explanation for relevant provisions of the latest judicial interpretation in 2016, and provide guidance for handling of some complex issues in practice.

Key words: Intension, Commitment, Personals Obligations can't be Bought off, Mixed Element of Illegality, Mixed Element