This topic examines the crime of helping to destroy evidence. In item AC, if a * * * criminal destroys criminal evidence with the same * *, it is an act that lacks the possibility of expectation and cannot be punished afterwards, so the crime of helping to destroy evidence is not established; The scope of the crime of helping to destroy evidence includes destroying, instigating others to destroy evidence and providing convenience for others to destroy evidence, so instigating others to destroy evidence belongs to the scope of this crime. Therefore, item A does not constitute the crime of helping to destroy evidence because of the same crime, and item C is an obvious crime of helping to destroy evidence. Therefore, item A was not elected and item C was elected.

In item B, sending C abroad to prevent C from testifying will really bring inconvenience to investigation and evidence collection. However, this behavior itself does not change the fact that C knows that B is guilty of major corruption and has convenient international transportation. Even if C is sent to work abroad, C can return to China to testify. A's behavior does not belong to the act of "destroying" evidence, and helping to destroy evidence is not established. Therefore, item B was not elected.

Item D, destroying the evidence beneficial to the defendant, seems to have been promised by the victim, but the legal interest infringed by the crime of helping to destroy evidence itself is not the personal or property interests of the victim, but the judicial order interests of a fair trial. Therefore, whether it is beneficial to the parties concerned or not, destroying evidence is a crime of helping to destroy evidence. It can also be interpreted as destroying evidence that is beneficial to one's own side, that is, evidence that is unfavorable to the other side, which is a crime of helping to destroy evidence that is beneficial to the other side. So I chose item D.