Article 16 (2) of the “Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Corruption and Bribery Criminal Cases” is about the provision of unrecognized bribery by state staff after the event. There are three main points concerning whether a particular relationship and a national staff member establish an accomplice. That is to say, the establishment of accomplices, the disestablishment of accomplices and the establishment of accomplices to be determined, the latter two views are not desirable, the conclusion of the establishment of accomplices is correct but the path is wrong. Post-information-type bribery has the characteristics of accepting bribes in a standard sense. The intention of accepting bribes is presumed to be deliberate, and the establishment of accomplices cannot be presumed based on presumption of deliberate intention. Moreover, in the case of a particular relationship person requesting or accepting the property of another person, the illegality has been determined and may not be changed again as the state staff refunds or turns in the property. Therefore, in the case of post-informed bribery, the specific relationship constitutes the use of influence to accept bribes, the state staff constitutes the crime of accepting bribes, and the two do not establish accomplices.