贪污贿赂犯罪立法不仅关乎个案的公平正义，更关系到我国反腐败治理的总体效果。建国以来，我国贪污贿赂犯罪的立法逐渐从无到有、从少到多、从简到繁。我国贪污贿赂犯罪立法的细腻化、广泛化、严厉化使得我国贪污贿赂犯罪的犯罪圈不断扩大，对贪污贿赂犯罪行为的惩治也更为严厉和精准。然而，我国的贪污贿赂犯罪在立法上仍然存在着突出的“厉而不严”的问题：刑罚处罚过于严厉，刑事法网不够严密。刑罚处罚过于严厉意味着我国刑法过于依赖重刑，违背人道主义精神，不符合刑事法治的要求；过于注重报复心理的发泄，而忽略了刑罚改造罪犯的实际效果；对不同的罪名处以相同或类似的刑罚，造成罪责刑不相适应。刑事法网不够严密意味着放纵犯罪，刑法难以实现惩治犯罪的基本功能，国民难以形成规范意识。 针对上述我国贪污贿赂犯罪立法“厉而不严”的问题，笔者主张，应当以“严而不厉”作为我国未来贪污贿赂犯罪立法的主要方向。一方面，应当进一步严密贪污贿赂犯罪的刑事法网。就调整我国贪污贿赂犯罪的部分罪状而言，基于“为他人谋取利益”并不必然反映受贿罪的本质属性，并且这一要件的设立还造成了学理解释和司法适用中的重重困难，犯罪门槛也被不当提高，笔者主张，应当将“为他人谋取利益”从受贿罪的刑法条文中删除；类似的，由于“不正当”一词并不真正具备法理上区别行贿罪与受贿罪的作用，并且这个条件的设置不恰当地缩小了刑法的规制范围、宽纵了犯罪，还增加了解释的难度、带偏了学界关注的重点，整体上不利于惩治贿赂犯罪，因而，应当将行贿罪的“为谋取不正当利益”拓展为“为谋取利益”。就降低贪污贿赂犯罪入罪门槛而言，基于提高贪污受贿犯罪入罪数额的不合理性，笔者主张，应当降低我国当前的贪污受贿犯罪的入罪数额。另一方面，应当降低我国贪污贿赂犯罪法定刑的严厉程度。终身监禁制度的设立加剧了我国刑罚结构“死刑偏重、生刑亦过重”的局面，并且违反了罪刑相当和罪刑法定的基本原则，故应废止；我国贪污受贿犯罪死刑的保留已经落入法律工具主义的窠臼，不能从根本上遏制腐败犯罪，其自身也不具有存在的正当性，建议废止；“行贿与受贿并重处罚”不具有法理上的正当性，对行贿人限制适用特别自首制度突破了刑法总则的规定。真正从源头上治理贪污贿赂犯罪，应当降低我国当前过高的行贿罪处罚力度，将更多的行贿行为纳入到刑法的规制范围。

The legislation on the crime of embezzlement and bribery is not only related to the fairness and justice of individual cases, but also related to the overall effect of anti-corruption in China. Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, the legislation on the crime of embezzlement and bribery has experienced a process from simple to complex. The detailed, extensive and severe legislation has made the criminal circle of the crime of embezzlement and bribery in China larger, and the punishment of crimes of embezzlement and bribery has been more stringent and precise. However, there are still outstanding problems: the punishment is too severe and the criminal law network is not rigorous enough. Too-severe punishment means that China's criminal law relies too much on heavy punishment, which violates the humanitarian spirit, does not meet the requirements of criminal rule of law, pays too much attention to the venting of revenge, and ignores the actual effect of criminal reform. Same or similar punishment for different crimes has caused incompatible relations between crimes and punishment. The lack of strictness in the criminal law network means indulging crimes. It is difficult for criminal law to achieve the basic functions of punishing crimes and for citizens to form normative consciousness. In view of the problem mentioned above, the author argues that "rigorous but not severe" should be taken as the direction of China's future legislation on the crime of embezzlement and bribery. On the one hand, the criminal law network of the crime of embezzlement and bribery should be more rigorous. As far as crime facts, "Plotting to Seek Interests for Others" does not necessarily reflect the essential nature of the crime of accepting bribes, and the establishment of this element has also caused difficulties in academic interpretation and judicial application. Thus, "Plotting to Seek Interests for Others" should be removed. Similarly, because the term “Illicit Interests” does not really have the legal distinction between the crime of offering bribes and the crime of acceptance of bribes, and the setting of this condition improperly narrows the scope of criminal regulation, increases the difficulty of interpretation, and puts the focus of academic attention off track, it is not conducive to punishing bribery crimes. Therefore, it is better to expand “Seeking Illicit Interests” to “Seeking Interests”. In terms of lowering the threshold of the crime of embezzlement and bribery, based on the irrationality of increasing the standard amount, the author argues that the standard amount should be reduced. On the other hand, the severity of the statutory penalty of the crime of embezzlement and bribery in China should be reduced. The establishment of the life imprisonment system has intensified the situation that the penalty structure in China that “the death penalty is too severe and the life sentence is too long”. This violates the basic principles of the crime and the legality of the crime. As a result, it should be abolished. The reservation of the death penalty for the crime of embezzlement and bribery in China has fallen into the trap of legal instrumentalism. The embarrassment of instrumentalism cannot fundamentally curb corruption crimes, and it does not have the legitimacy of existence. It is recommended to abolish it. “Equal emphasis of penalties on bribe reception and bribe offer” does not have legal justification. It improperly breaks through the limitation of the general provisions of the Criminal Law. The right way of curbing the crime of embezzlement and bribery is reducing the high severeness of bribery crimes in China and adding more bribery behaviors in the scope of criminal law.