Reviewed cases have only 3 possible outcomes for the ruling: the dispute was flagged incorrectly and the original ruling is served, dispute was flagged correctly and the case is dismissed because both parties attempted to bribe the jury, or the dispute was flagged correctly and ruled in favor of the party that did not attempt to bribe the court.
In scenario 3, where the dispute is flagged in favor of the party that did not attempt to bribe the court, one party, party A, in an attempt to win the case, will bribe a juror to make it seem like he was bribed by party B (through determining an unfair collateral payout or by flagging the other party as the briber). This is an extreme scenario, but if party A provides enough of an incentive for the juror to flag the other side, and the juror could even provide a proof of payment from an anonymous address and fabricate logs, then this juror becomes a single point of failure for the system. I suggest an alternative. Instead of the jury ruling in favor of the non-bribing party, they start a new case, where the previous bribe attempt is logged and can be used as evidence.