Bribery is a power money transaction, and the person who provides the bribe usually constitutes the crime of bribery. However, due to the complexity and diversity of social life, bribery behavior unfolds in multiple chains. The person who provides bribery funds may not necessarily be the requester of the bribery behavior, nor may they know the true purpose of the funds. Therefore, although bribery funds are provided in specific circumstances, they may not necessarily constitute the crime of bribery.

Firstly, it should be clarified that the person providing the bribe (hereinafter referred to as the funder) is the ultimate beneficiary of the requested matter, otherwise they will not provide the money. But if the funder and the requester are not the same person, the funder will not have direct contact with the bribe taker. The funder may hand over their money to the requester, but they may not be fully aware of how the requester completes the request and how they use the money. When the trustee constitutes the crime of bribery, the extent to which the funder is aware directly determines whether they can become accomplices in the crime of bribery. One situation is that the funder pays to handle the matter and has no idea how the requester will complete the request, which does not constitute the crime of bribery; Another scenario is that the funder knows that only by offering bribes can the request be completed, and also knows who to bribe, instigating or encouraging the requester to commit bribery. This situation naturally constitutes the crime of bribery. The above two situations are at the extremes of knowing and not knowing, which is relatively easy to judge. However, in practice, the situation is much more complex. How to analyze whether the financier can constitute an accomplice in the crime of bribery can be judged from the following elements.

Firstly, whether the requested matters can be achieved through legal means.

The completion of the request by the investor is clear about the desired goal. Based on the common sense of ordinary people, it can be determined whether the requested matter can be realized through legal means. If possible, it means that there is a subjective possibility that the financier is unaware of the bribery; If not, it can prove that the financier subjectively knows that it must be achieved through bribery. For example, if a relative of a gold mine owner is detained on suspicion of committing a crime and pays a lawyer's fee to apply for bail pending trial, the lawyer may apply for bail through legal means and successfully obtain it, or may achieve the goal through bribery. For funders, paying lawyer fees is a legal act, and it is difficult to know whether lawyers will resort to bribery. For example, even though the sponsor knows they do not meet the admission policies and conditions of a certain school, they still want their child to enroll in that school. So he found someone who had a way out and offered the activity funds. In this case, the funder must be aware of the bribery behavior of the requester, even if they do not know the specific person and amount of the bribe, it still constitutes an accomplice to the crime of bribery.

Secondly, the relationship between the funder and the trustee.

Those who have a close relationship with the client know that the likelihood of the client bribing is higher, while those who do not know are lower. If the funder is friends with the requester, the funder will understand the requester's identity, abilities, and general social circle. Communication about the requester's matters will also be frequent and close. The funder will understand the requester's way of achieving the requester's purpose and handling the bribe money, and even know the specific recipient, time, and amount of the bribe. If the funder and the applicant have just met, there will be less information available. Sometimes the funder does not know the person who directly bribed the trustee, but instead changes hands a few times, and at this time, the level of knowledge about the bribery behavior of the trustee is lower. One reason is that the client is not familiar with the client and does not know how to handle the situation. The other reason is that the client does not trust the client and does not disclose too much information. It is possible for the trustee to complete the bribery without the knowledge of the funder. Therefore, the relationship between the funder and the requester is also a factor in determining their subjective cognitive level.

Thirdly, the amount of funds and payment methods.

Firstly, the amount of funds, if it conforms to general social knowledge or market conditions, there is a high possibility that the funder is unaware of it; If the amount is significantly too large, there is a high possibility that the fund owner is aware of the existence of illegal behavior. For example, if the client asks the client to participate in the bidding on their behalf and only charges a normal service fee, the client will not be aware of the existence of illegal behavior. If the funder pays a significantly higher amount to the trustee, there is a greater likelihood that they are aware of the existence of illegal behavior. The second is the payment method of funds. If the payment is made through signing a contract or transferring funds, and the rights and obligations to handle the requested matters are stipulated in the contract, the possibility of illegal behavior is relatively low. For example, if the client entrusts the client to raise funds, both parties sign a service contract and pay a corresponding proportion of service fees after successful financing. In this situation, it is difficult to determine whether the funder is aware of the existence of illegal behavior. But in another situation, if the funder asks someone to help with a loan from a certain bank without signing a contract, and the funder pays the transaction fees in cash, it is likely that the funder is aware of the illegal behavior.

In summary, whether the person providing the bribe constitutes an accomplice with the briber depends on multiple factors and requires specific analysis based on the actual situation.